NationStates Jolt Archive

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

I support Israel getting military aid as long as their neighbours want them gone. We can end it when peace is declared in the middle east.

Well, most of US aid to Israel comes in the form of military aid. After all, cutting edge gear needs combat testing, and what better place than on some podunk country's neighbors?

which will happen once the arab world accepts a jewish state...

which, you guessed it, probably wont happen anytime soon.



The we keep it coming for the time being.

I support Israel getting military aid as long as their neighbours want them gone. We can end it when peace is declared in the middle east.

which will happen once the arab world accepts a jewish state...

which, you guessed it, probably wont happen anytime soon.

I support Israel getting military aid as long as their neighbours want them gone. We can end it when peace is declared in the middle east.


Take your asprin tonite?

My father is arguing lately that we should dump them on their asses, pull out of iraq, and let the cards fall where they will. It's a great beer and pretzels argumeht, but I fall somewhere between yours and his. In reality, I guess Israel will get our aid, but I resent their holding the "moral card" on us, and I also resent them abusing our aid by bombing the crap out of women and children like they do. It seems like we could tie a few strings to what we give them...

Why do we actually keep them afloat? I'm not sure Dad is wrong. They seem to cause more trouble than they are worth at times...

Take your asprin tonite?

My father is arguing lately that we should dump them on their asses, pull out of iraq, and let the cards fall where they will. It's a great beer and pretzels argumeht, but I fall somewhere between yours and his. In reality, I guess Israel will get our aid, but I resent their holding the "moral card" on us, and I also resent them abusing our aid by bombing the crap out of women and children like they do. It seems like we could tie a few strings to what we give them...

Why do we actually keep them afloat? I'm not sure Dad is wrong. They seem to cause more trouble than they are worth at times...

At the same time, there are hundreds that cross into Israel and blow up innocent civilians in the name of a dissolved Israel. i mean, to quote Saddam: "... Palestine is Arab."

doesnt exactly sound like hes supportive of a Jewish state... along with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt...

At the same time, there are hundreds that cross into Israel and blow up innocent civilians in the name of a dissolved Israel. i mean, to quote Saddam: "... Palestine is Arab."

doesnt exactly sound like hes supportive of a Jewish state... along with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt...

I think he's more just tried of throwing our money at a blazing inferno expecting it to smother the fire...I understand their compulsion t have their own land and all, but if the solution is kill a bunch of jews or kill a bunch of arabs, is EITHER right? I don't think dad's idea is dooable or right, but it does raise some interesting questions...

that's what we said just before WWI and WWII...didn't work either time.

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

I would be for that if it was part of a near-complete isolationist doctrine. It's time for America to go turtle. Not just "speak softly and carry a big stick" but more like "carry a big stick and keep our fucking mouths shut" - the world is suffering from America-fatigue and we should try to keep a low profile for the next century or two.

I would be for that if it was part of a near-complete isolationist doctrine. It's time for America to go turtle. Not just "speak softly and carry a big stick" but more like "carry a big stick and keep our fucking mouths shut" - the world is suffering from America-fatigue and we should try to keep a low profile for the next century or two.

My ideal foreign policy would entail the following:

(*) Free trade with all nations
(*) Diplomatic relations with all nations
(*) Cultural exchanges with all nations
(*) A non-aligned, neutral foreign policy
(*) No entangling alliances or membership in international organizations
(*) No foreign aid
(*) Strong, secure borders
(*) Withdrawal of our troops from every country abroad, to be returned home permanently
(*) A strong military, for defensive purposes ONLY

I would be for that if it was part of a near-complete isolationist doctrine. It's time for America to go turtle. Not just "speak softly and carry a big stick" but more like "carry a big stick and keep our fucking mouths shut" - the world is suffering from America-fatigue and we should try to keep a low profile for the next century or two.


how in the hell did my reply to your statement get put before your post? that's just straaaange.

that's what we said just before WWI and WWII...didn't work either time.


there. now it's in context.

I would be for that if it was part of a near-complete isolationist doctrine. It's time for America to go turtle. Not just "speak softly and carry a big stick" but more like "carry a big stick and keep our fucking mouths shut" - the world is suffering from America-fatigue and we should try to keep a low profile for the next century or two.

SECONDED!

My ideal foreign policy would entail the following:

(*) Free trade with all nations
(*) Diplomatic relations with all nations
(*) Cultural exchanges with all nations
(*) A non-aligned, neutral foreign policy
(*) No entangling alliances or membership in international organizations
(*) No foreign aid
(*) Strong, secure borders
(*) Withdrawal of our troops from every country abroad, to be returned home permanently
(*) A strong military, for defensive purposes ONLY

Wow. You could gain my vote, if I were to vote at the next US elections.

At the very least, the US government could do with cutting some of the money it gives to Israel and start funding the shaky democratic authorities of Palestine. So, maybe, the majority of Palestinians will stop looking at radical (when not downright fundamentalist or terrorist) political movements as the only one who can grant them their right to a nation and a country. Also it would cut down some anti-US feelings around the globe.

My ideal foreign policy would entail the following:

(*) Free trade with all nations
(*) Diplomatic relations with all nations
(*) Cultural exchanges with all nations

I'm mostly with you here...but I would be excluding nations openly hostile to U.S. interests from free trade and cultural exchange policies. We'll keep the diplomatic exchange open just so if they ever change their tune, we're right there waiting to work it out.

The only current example I can think of would be North Korea.

(*) A non-aligned, neutral foreign policy
(*) No entangling alliances or membership in international organizations
(*) No foreign aid
(*) Strong, secure borders
(*) Withdrawal of our troops from every country abroad, to be returned home permanently
(*) A strong military, for defensive purposes ONLY

Strongly agreed...think of the money the military would save if it wasn't scattered over half the globe! Operational costs would plummet, and any savings that weren't redirected to other needs could be redirected to military R&D to ensure our armed forces are on the cutting edge of technology.

Just look at the overseas deployments...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_U.S._Military

About 225,000 troops abroad and at sea...and that's NOT counting Iraq, Afghanistan or Kosovo.

Why? Cold War mentality, mostly...I personally think that America would be much safer if those troops were here...and we'd be saving a shit-ton of money too.

I'd honestly get an evil kick out of watching Europe's reaction. They complain about our presence there, but it'll be fun watching them try to revamp their military and fund social programs for an aging population at the same time.

Maybe the only reason they have those social programs (most of them quite excellent) in the first place is that the U.S. has subsidized and/or supplied a substantial part of Europe's defense capability, and have been doing so since 1945..hence the US's disproportionatly huge military budget.

At first it was to give Europe a chance to rebuild economically after WWII...but long after that was done we were still there, the Soviets were still a threat, and W. Europe had done little to ensure that they could fend off the Soviets for even a brief period of time without our help.

Europe claims there's no need for large standing forces anymore...let's see 'em actually work with that strategy.

I hope they're right...I'm guessing they're wrong.

We tried for fifty years to overcome the fact that the particular area of the world that Israel is in has been the bloodiest batch of land in all of history. The so-called 'holy' land hasn't been holy in a very long time. It's just a festering ulcer on the surface of the Earth. Putting Israel there was like sticking a needle into it and leaving it there. The people in charge of Israel don't want peace except for the peace that comes from being on the right side of the biggest guns. The people in charge of Palestine don't want peace. They use the palestinian's desire for a free land of their own to feed their desire for perpetual conflict that keeps them in power. They've been killing eachother there for 3000 years. They're good at it. Leave em alone.

The only real sin is that they're killing eachother on the U.S.'s buck. Cut em loose and spend the money on conflicted countries that actually WANT peace.

And here comes the greatest contradiction in US foreign policy. They are more than willing to be seen as the generous western nation helping the poor, repressed peoples of the world. But yet this is untrue by statistics of how much they actually give to poor Third World countries, it is absolutely minimal to the point of irrelevant in terms of government aid. In terms of aid, the US is a generous populace with a govt with a pension for death and destruction.

Yet where all the real US foreign aid goes is to bombs and weapons of destruction, not mercy. And it shows the influence of wealthy pro-Israel lobby groups in the US, when any wanton killing of Palestinians or the like is justified as 'defense'. The real problem is the extreme right and xenophobic regime in Israel, the Zionists, a regime well documented by Tutu and other as such.

From Warsaw Ghetto to Abu Dis Ghetto....
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/files/maddow/images/beirut%20explosions.preview.jpg

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:


They only have to withdraw the veto, and abide by what sanctions may come. Not too much to ask.

And here comes the greatest contradiction in US foreign policy. They are more than willing to be seen as the generous western nation helping the poor, repressed peoples of the world. But yet this is untrue by statistics of how much they actually give to poor Third World countries, it is absolutely minimal to the point of irrelevant in terms of government aid. In terms of aid, the US is a generous populace with a govt with a pension for death and destruction.

Yet where all the real US foreign aid goes is to bombs and weapons of destruction, not mercy. And it shows the influence of wealthy pro-Israel lobby groups in the US, when any wanton killing of Palestinians or the like is justified as 'defense'. The real problem is the extreme right and xenophobic regime in Israel, the Zionists, a regime well documented by Tutu and other as such.

From Warsaw Ghetto to Abu Dis Ghetto....
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/files/maddow/images/beirut%20explosions.preview.jpg

Ad Hominem ... please try again. Anyone citing "Air America" as a source shows an immediate bias towards the left. Just like anyone citing John Hanity as a source shows that same bias, but towards the right. In either case, it's a rather large logical fallacy to bring to a debate as ad hominems are the worst fallacy to bring about, in my opinion. Anything resorting to feelings/emotions or prejudices in a debate, for that matter, are. Cite something that is neutral next time please.

As for my personal opinion, I think America needs to stop giving aid to every country we give aid to. Everyone always complains about us so why do we still give them money? Why do we give anyone money. If we are to give anything it should be in the payment of humanitarian aid. Afterall a corrupt government can steal the money we give them for food and medical supplies. They can even steal the food and medicine we send over but they can't steal foriegn nationals who are sent there to do it themselves. And if they prevent it in anyway, cut them off from that as well. Besides those billions of dollars we send elsewhere could be better spent here at home first. We have our own problems that need to be taken care of and yet we are still trying to fix other countries problems first.

It's rather amusing how the world yells and screams about excessive American interference in a sovirgn nations governmental affairs, and yet in the same breath, criticises us for not giving enough money to these same nations. Seems like a double-standard to me and I personally think it's time the world gets weened off of Americans financial teat.

It's not so much that we need to end the aid as it is that we need to use that aid as a club when it comes to forcing a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians--and that's a club that can be swung at both sides right now. It seems to me that the reason the cease-fires never last is because there's no outside, long term consequences for breaking them right now, so no matter what the governments of both sides say, some yahoo with an itchy trigger finger can end it whenever he wants. (I know I'm grossly oversimplifying here--bear with me.)

But if that aid becomes a cudgel, if the credible threat is made of removing it unless both sides get their shit together, then suddenly there are some long term consequences to breaking the cease-fires, and maybe they can rein in their more extreme elements.

(*) Free trade with all nations
(*) Diplomatic relations with all nations


Indeed. Saying "na-na-naa, we don't like you, we're not going to talk to you!" is both silly and counter-productive.


(*) Cultural exchanges with all nations


A most excellent idea. Anything to dispell ignorance. So many problems come from people's lack of knowledge and understanding of foreign societies.


(*) A non-aligned, neutral foreign policy
(*) No entangling alliances or membership in international organizations


The former would be a big step towards solving many conflicts. As for the UN (if that's what you're refering to...), I'd want to keep France in it, but I don't really care either way whether the US stays or goes.


(*) No foreign aid


Can't agree with you there.


(*) Strong, secure borders


That could mean a great many things...


(*) Withdrawal of our troops from every country abroad, to be returned home permanently
(*) A strong military, for defensive purposes ONLY

*nods*

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

My answer is a firm and definitive "no."

I guess Israel will get our aid, but I resent their holding the "moral card" on us, and I also resent them abusing our aid by bombing the crap out of women and children like they do. It seems like we could tie a few strings to what we give them...

Even though they have been trying to limit civilian casualties? Not their fault that terrorists like to hide among them.

I'm all for Israel receiving the loans that it does, as they have not yet defaulted on them.

But if that aid becomes a cudgel, if the credible threat is made of removing it unless both sides get their shit together, then suddenly there are some long term consequences to breaking the cease-fires, and maybe they can rein in their more extreme elements.

It would be so much simpler to simply draw a line and say "if anyone violates that, you both die" wouldn't it?

yes, the US should not provide foreign aid at all.

1) Other countries have to learn to stand on their own two feet (or get conquered as a result of not being able to).

2) The money is usually wasted or doesn't even get to where it's supposed to be.

On the other hand, it would only encourage those sappy and disgusting TV commercials for Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and all those other organisations for world peace or something. But it's a small price to pay in return for all the funds we'll free up for useful things.

Israel is the only nation in the middle east with freedom of speech, equality for women, and tolerance of gays. The US was founded on the concept of liberty, so I see it as our responsibility to protect countries that share those values when they're threatened by dictatorships and terrorists bent on stamping out freedom.

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

If we end that aid to Israel, we end it to Egypt, too. You are aware of the whole Camp David Accords thing, right? Oh wait...no, seems you're not. Please try to know a little about a subject before you spew on about it.

It would be so much simpler to simply draw a line and say "if anyone violates that, you both die" wouldn't it?

Only if it's simpler to put US troops on the border between them. I don't think it is, although in my darker moments I wonder if the best idea would be to tell everyone from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea that they've got 30 days to vacate because we're nuking the entire region to glass. No more fighting over it. (In my lighter moments, my peace plan involves dropping burning bales of marijuana throughout the region, followed by airlifts of Twinkies, Ho-Ho's and Papa John's pizza. Do that for a couple of weeks and there'll be nothing but love.)

Doesn't Jordan have a sprinkling of all that stuff? Yeah, Jordan is OK as far as I know.



And occasionally overthrowing a democratically elected government in favor of a dictatorship that would support US global aims hmmm? Plenty of examples of that.

Besides, US values of liberty are kind of petrified at this point of time.Yeah, we've fucked up in the past, and will probably do so again in the future. Hopefully we'll make progress toward living up to our principles and ideals. The way to do that is to support governments that value their people's liberty.

Israel is the only nation in the middle east with freedom of speech, equality for women, and tolerance of gays.

Doesn't Jordan have a sprinkling of all that stuff?


The US was founded on the concept of liberty, so I see it as our responsibility to protect countries that share those values when they're threatened by dictatorships and terrorists bent on stamping out freedom.

And occasionally overthrowing a democratically elected government in favor of a dictatorship that would support US global aims hmmm? Plenty of examples of that.

Besides, US values of liberty are kind of petrified at this point of time.

It would be nice to cut off aid to Israel or at least threaten to do so unless Israel ceases to use our aid to murder Palestinians and contribute to the circle of violence that brings suicide bombers right back to them. It won't happen though because of simple politics. The Jewish lobby is a powerful force and you piss them off at your peril. And doing anything that could harm Israel's interests is a great way to go on that lobbys shit list which can be deadly for many politicians. So I really don't see this idea ever occuring. Unless that is, Israel does something truly outrageous where even the U.S. can't dismiss it.

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

agreed, that would bring to an end that myth Israel is a thriving 1st world country. Without the billions in military aid Israel wouldn't be able to support it's war machine(and occupation)that gives Israel the upper hand over the Palestinians, forcing it to negotiate a settlement in good faith.

Yes, of course Israel's foreign aid should be stopped.

Its free military hardware should be stopped too.

Why do Israel's supporters constantly brag about it being able to wipe the floor with all its neighbors on its own, yet at the same time say the country needs welfare checks from Uncle Sam?

Yes, of course Israel's foreign aid should be stopped.

Its free military hardware should be stopped too.

You all still fail to understand the Camp David Accords. Not surprising really, though. Ignorant rhetoric takes precedence over informed opinions here. :rolleyes:

You all still fail to understand the Camp David Accords. Not surprising really, though. Ignorant rhetoric takes precedence over informed opinions here. :rolleyes:
I think the assumption in this little thought experiment is that the Camp David Accords would be tossed out the window.

agreed, that would bring to an end that myth Israel is a thriving 1st world country. Without the billions in military aid Israel wouldn't be able to support it's war machine(and occupation)that gives Israel the upper hand over the Palestinians, forcing it to negotiate a settlement in good faith.

Who's going to force the Palestinians to negotiate a settlement in good faith?

My answer is a firm and definitive " NO ". Why ... because the middle east countries want to separate Isreal from the US because they think that will make it easier to take over.

As long as there are Muslim Extremists calling for the destruction of one of the few democracies in the Middle East, I will support sending military aid to Israel.

The real solution is to make the area surronding Israel as rich as hell, which will mean they'll be too well fed and happy to care about the Jewish Holy Land *points at Saudia Arabia and Qatar*.

Their stupidly weak economic situation? The promise of actual independance and co-existence with an Israel behind its 1967 borders?

Hamas, the people the Palestinians chose to lead them by a majority vote, have the destruction of Israel as their goal. Not coexistence, not recognition of a two state solution, destruction of Israel. Nobody in their right mind should expect the Palestinians, or at least a large segment of their population, to accept the existence of Israel and to negotiate honestly toward a two state solution. Hamas and their supporters would see a two state situation as one step toward eliminating Israel.

Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[3][4][5] The charter states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."[6]

Who's going to force the Palestinians to negotiate a settlement in good faith?

Their stupidly weak economic situation? The promise of actual independance and co-existence with an Israel behind its 1967 borders?

Who's going to force the Palestinians to negotiate a settlement in good faith?

how do you force anyone to negotiate in good faith...trust, it has to start sometime otherwise there is never an end to the problem.

How did South Africa end apartheid? When the Apartheid regime gave up exclusive control it relied on good faith that the black majority would not retaliate for decades of oppression and they were correct. An honest attempt at reconciliation erased many years of brutality and oppression.

As long as one side has limitless power(Israel) to oppress they have no need to negotiate.

how do you force anyone to negotiate in good faith...trust, it has to start sometime otherwise there is never an end to the problem.

How did South Africa end apartheid? When the Apartheid regime gave up exclusive control it relied on good faith that the black majority would not retaliate for decades of oppression and they were correct. An honest attempt at reconciliation erased many years of brutality and oppression.

As long as one side has limitless power(Israel) to oppress they have no need to negotiate.

And as long as one side (Palestinians) see it as their religious duty to destroy the other they have no will to negotiatie.

how do you force anyone to negotiate in good faith...trust, it has to start sometime otherwise there is never an end to the problem.

How did South Africa end apartheid? When the Apartheid regime gave up exclusive control it relied on good faith that the black majority would not retaliate for decades of oppression and they were correct. An honest attempt at reconciliation erased many years of brutality and oppression.

As long as one side has limitless power(Israel) to oppress they have no need to negotiate.

And as long as one side (Palestinians) see it as their religious duty to destroy the other they have no will to negotiatie.

The big problem, as I said before, is that currently there's no third party threatening consequences if either side breaks the cease-fire agreements, and frankly, there's a limited number of groups with the military power to credibly make that threat.

Hamas, the people the Palestinians chose to lead them by a majority vote, have the destruction of Israel as their goal. Not coexistence, not recognition of a two state solution, destruction of Israel. Nobody in their right mind should expect the Palestinians, or at least a large segment of their population, to accept the existence of Israel and to negotiate honestly toward a two state solution. Hamas and their supporters would see a two state situation as one step toward eliminating Israel.

Their previous government got nowhere dealing with Israel because they had intention of returning stolen land or allowing a viable independent Palestinian state. Israel just kept stealing more land and resources so Palestinians elected a tougher government. It shouldn't be unexpected that the more you oppress a population the stronger their resentment and opposition becomes. If you want moderation from your adversary your actions should be moderate, continued humiliation will only escalate hostilities.

absolutely, i find it incredible that they still get any in the first place.

Their previous government got nowhere dealing with Israel because they had intention of returning stolen land or allowing a viable independent Palestinian state. Israel just kept stealing more land and resources so Palestinians elected a tougher government. It shouldn't be unexpected that the more you oppress a population the stronger their resentment and opposition becomes. If you want moderation from your adversary your actions should be moderate, continued humiliation will only escalate hostilities.

And when Israel removed all the settlers from Gaza what did the Palestinians do? They turned all of Gaza into a platform to launch rockets at Israel. When peace negotiations do take place the Palestinian side always insists on "right of return", which will mean the demographic destruction of Israel as the Jewish homeland. It shouldn't be unexpected that the more you threaten a people's very existence the more they will fight to stay alive.

Yes.

Until and contingent on israel's returning to its legal borders and renouncing violence against the occupied territories and committing to quick statehood for the same, the US should not provide aid to the israelis.

Aside from being just, this would make amends for all the bad we have done and are doing in the middle east and would be the first sensible and effective step in the war on terrorism since the invasion of afghanistan.

I think the assumption in this little thought experiment is that the Camp David Accords would be tossed out the window.


You're implying there was actual thought involved?

The big problem, as I said before, is that currently there's no third party threatening consequences if either side breaks the cease-fire agreements, and frankly, there's a limited number of groups with the military power to credibly make that threat.

"third party threatening consequences" how do you threaten the Palestinians, what conditions could be worse than what they are living under now?

The third party threatening consequences faced by Apartheid S. Africa were economic sanctions not military. A withdrawal of military aid to Israel would have the same effect. It would be impossible for Israel to continue with their standard of living and finance the occupation without this aid.

And when Israel removed all the settlers from Gaza what did the Palestinians do? They turned all of Gaza into a platform to launch rockets at Israel. When peace negotiations do take place the Palestinian side always insists on "right of return", which will mean the demographic destruction of Israel as the Jewish homeland. It shouldn't be unexpected that the more you threaten a people's very existence the more they will fight to stay alive.

If Iraq left only a portion of Kuwait would that have prevented the gulf war one? No, Gaza and the West bank are the same, if Alaska and Hawaii were occupied by the Chinese would the US end the battle for the return of both if the Chinese gave up Hawaii?

Right of return is a human right, ethnic cleansing is not acceptable it's a racist policy. South African whites still have their homes and their country even though they make up only 10% of the population(so they still have their homeland), the black majority has taken no retaliation for their decades of oppression.

"third party threatening consequences" how do you threaten the Palestinians, what conditions could be worse than what they are living under now?

The third party threatening consequences faced by Apartheid S. Africa were economic sanctions not military. A withdrawal of military aid to Israel would have the same effect. It would be impossible for Israel to continue with their standard of living and finance the occupation without this aid.

So what's to stop the overwhelming numbers of Palestinians from overrunning Israel if Israel is weakened? If the goal is to destroy Israel, then depriving the Israelis of military aid is one way to help bring that about.

If Iraq left only a portion of Kuwait would that have prevented the gulf war one? No, Gaza and the West bank are the same, if Alaska and Hawaii were occupied by the Chinese would the US end the battle for the return of both if the Chinese gave up Hawaii?

Right of return is a human right, ethnic cleansing is not acceptable it's a racist policy. South African whites still have their homes and their country even though they make up only 10% of the population(so they still have their homeland), the black majority has taken no retaliation for their decades of oppression.

So then you favor the destruction of Israel? The Hamas government would argue that if any part of Israel is still a Jewish state then part of the land granted to it by god is occupied. Only the destruction of Israel will appease them. I'm not in favor of letting that happen.

Right of return is the destruction of Israel through demographics. It would, through Israel's own democratic process, grant Hamas control over the land. The blacks in S. Africa didn't believe that they had a religious duty to subjugate the whites under their religious law. Hamas and it's supporters do. Israel isn't dumb enough to commit suicide by letting it's population be overwhelmed by millions of Hamas supporting Palestinians.

yes, the US should not provide foreign aid at all.

1) Other countries have to learn to stand on their own two feet (or get conquered as a result of not being able to).

2) The money is usually wasted or doesn't even get to where it's supposed to be.

On the other hand, it would only encourage those sappy and disgusting TV commercials for Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and all those other organisations for world peace or something. But it's a small price to pay in return for all the funds we'll free up for useful things.

What a bizarre comment. Learn to stand on their own two feet? Because Somalians are just lazily living off the luxurious wealth the hard working Americans are handing them?

I'm also confused as to who will be seeking to conquer countries that suffer droughts and famines.

And what exactly is so sappy and disgusting about Amnesty International?

So then you favor the destruction of Israel? The Hamas government would argue that if any part of Israel is still a Jewish state then part of the land granted to it by god is occupied. Only the destruction of Israel will appease them. I'm not in favor of letting that happen.

Right of return is the destruction of Israel through demographics. It would, through Israel's own democratic process, grant Hamas control over the land. The blacks in S. Africa didn't believe that they had a religious duty to subjugate the whites under their religious law. Hamas and it's supporters do. Israel isn't dumb enough to commit suicide by letting it's population be overwhelmed by millions of Hamas supporting Palestinians.

Israel is responsible for the creation of Hamas through oppression and racism. Had Israel been a secular state open to all and this problem wouldn't exist, oppression breeds militancy.Muslims for centuries have co-existed with Jews and Christians in this region. When Christians persecuted Jews in Europe it was Muslim countries they gave them save haven it was never their duty to destroy Jews. It has become a religious issue now because Israeli politics has made it that; no right of return for Muslims to their homes, only for Jews who haven't lived there for centuries.

Israel is responsible for the creation of Hamas through oppression and racism. Had Israel been a secular state open to all and this problem wouldn't exist, oppression breeds militancy.Muslims for centuries have co-existed with Jews and Christians in this region. When Christians persecuted Jews in Europe it was Muslim countries they gave them save haven it was never their duty to destroy Jews. It has become a religious issue now because Israeli politics has made it that; no right of return for Muslims to their homes, only for Jews who haven't lived there for centuries.

Hamas is just the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement which originated in Egypt if I'm not mistaken.

Muslims for centuries have treated Jews and Christians as dhimmis, second class citizens, in that region.

True, it was better to be a dhimmi in the Muslim world five hundred or so years ago than to be a Jew in the Christian world. Things have changed. The formerly Christian nations have made progress towards more equality for all and the Muslim world has stagnated in medieval Islamic attitudes.

No, it was a religious issue all along. According to many readings of Islam once a piece of land is under Muslim rule it can never be conquered by another faith or all of the ummah has to fight to get it back. That's why gulf Arabs and Saudis fought for Afghanistan against the Soviets. That's why Bin Laden has mentioned the conquest of Al Andalus (the Iberian peninsula) in his speeches. The occupation of "Muslim" lands by non-Muslims is seen as an insult to Allah. That's why many Palestinians cannot ever accept the existence of Israel.

Hamas is just the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement which originated in Egypt if I'm not mistaken.

Muslims for centuries have treated Jews and Christians as dhimmis, second class citizens, in that region.

True, it was better to be a dhimmi in the Muslim world five hundred or so years ago than to be a Jew in the Christian world. Things have changed. The formerly Christian nations have made progress towards more equality for all and the Muslim world has stagnated in medieval Islamic attitudes.

No, it was a religious issue all along. According to many readings of Islam once a piece of land is under Muslim rule it can never be conquered by another faith or all of the ummah has to fight to get it back. That's why gulf Arabs fought for Afghanistan against the Soviets. That's why Bin Laden has mentioned the conquest of Al Andalus (the Iberian peninsula) in his speeches. The occupation of "Muslim" lands by non-Muslims is seen as an insult to Allah. That's why many Palestinians cannot ever accept the existence of Israel.

Extremism just results in more extremism. Had Zionism not tried to construct an exclusive Jewish state there would be no Hamas. There likely could have been a true democratic secular state of Israel/Palestine(call what you want). Lebanon with it's large Christian population has not drawn the anger of the Muslim world as Israel has because it tries to be truly secular home to all, there is no one calling for it to be wiped off the map.

And if the Nazis hadn't dispersed the Jews during the Holocaust, the evil Zionist scum would have never decided to take back Palestine.

And what exactly is so sappy and disgusting about Amnesty International?

Thinking that foolish idealism about peace and love will ever affect the policies of major world powers?

If the US doesn't want have any terrorists attacks on their soil, than yes of course they should cut funding. If they want to see more of there people die, than they should just continue pissing off the world.

If the US doesn't want have any terrorists attacks on their soil, than yes of course they should cut funding. If they want to see more of there people die, than they should just continue pissing off the world.

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the cave this morning.

What a bizarre comment. Learn to stand on their own two feet? Because Somalians are just lazily living off the luxurious wealth the hard working Americans are handing them?

I'm also confused as to who will be seeking to conquer countries that suffer droughts and famines.

Actually Czardas' first point falls very much in line with Millian thought. If you can't support yourself, you don't 'deserve' to exist. Much the same as the thought process that 'if you want freedom, you must achieve it yourself. It cannot be given to you, or forced on you'.

It's not bizarre in the slightest.

And if the Nazis hadn't dispersed the Jews during the Holocaust, the evil Zionist scum would have never decided to take back Palestine.

Thinking that foolish idealism about peace and love will ever affect the policies of major world powers?

if the allied nations would have allowed the Jewish refugees to immigrate to their countries many would have survived the holocaust.

Even though they have been trying to limit civilian casualties? Not their fault that terrorists like to hide among them.

According to the IDF.


Israel is the only nation in the middle east with freedom of speech, equality for women, and tolerance of gays. .

...yet denies even the basic protection of the Geneva conventions (by order) to the civillian population in the territory it occupies.


The US was founded on the concept of liberty, so I see it as our responsibility to protect countries that share those values when they're threatened by dictatorships and terrorists bent on stamping out freedom..

....which presumes Israel shares those values. Evidence suggests that they do not.

Who's going to force the Palestinians to negotiate a settlement in good faith?
..

Who is building settlements in the West Bank as we type?


And as long as one side (Palestinians) see it as their religious duty to destroy the other they have no will to negotiatie...

All Palestinians? Including the Christian and secular ones?

Doesn't one side (Israel) have some within it who think it their religous duty to colonise the West Bank etc?


Hamas is just the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement which originated in Egypt if I'm not mistaken...

And before all the excuses about not dealing with Hamas, we had excuses for not dealing with Arafat. And no doubt if Fatah replace Hamas again, some reason will arise to ignore them. I preferred it when there was less generalisations about "muslims" and it was more organisations painted as"tools of the Soviet Union". I find religous generalisations distateful.

Perhaps had Barwhan Barghouti not been visited and told that if he ran against Abbas and won, he would be shunned by America, Hamas would not have won in the first place.


No, it was a religious issue all along....

Why were there Sephradic Jews left alive in the middle east then? Why are there Christian Palestinian "militants"?

if the allied nations would have allowed the Jewish refugees to immigrate to their countries many would have survived the holocaust.

Immigrate to where? Occupied Europe? America? Britain? It's not like there were ports full of boats willing to defy Nazi law and sprint the Jews to freedom.

Immigrate to where? Occupied Europe? America? Britain? It's not like there were ports full of boats willing to defy Nazi law and sprint the Jews to freedom.

The allies didn't want Jewish immigrants before or after the war, the doors were closed.

According to the IDF.



...yet denies even the basic protection of the Geneva conventions (by order) to the civillian population in the territory it occupies.



....which presumes Israel shares those values. Evidence suggests that they do not.


Who is building settlements in the West Bank as we type?



All Palestinians? Including the Christian and secular ones?

Doesn't one side (Israel) have some within it who think it their religous duty to colonise the West Bank etc?



And before all the excuses about not dealing with Hamas, we had excuses for not dealing with Arafat. And no doubt if Fatah replace Hamas again, some reason will arise to ignore them. I preferred it when there was less generalisations about "muslims" and it was more organisations painted as"tools of the Soviet Union". I find religous generalisations distateful.

Perhaps had Barwhan Barghouti not been visited and told that if he ran against Abbas and won, he would be shunned by America, Hamas would not have won in the first place.



Why were there Sephradic Jews left alive in the middle east then? Why are there Christian Palestinian "militants"?

Israel shares those values. It guarantees those rights to it's citizens. What happens to those in the occupied territory is another story.

Sure. Israel is building settlements and those are counterproductive to an eventual two state solution. I never said I approve of everything they do, but they clearly can't force the Palestinians to negotiate or this whole thing would have been over by now.

Come on now. The majority of Palestinians aren't Christian or Secular.

Yes, some Israelis believe that it's their divine right to occupy more land. They're standing in the way of peace negotiations just like the Palestinians are.

Regardless of what excuses were used to ignore Fatah, Hamas simply cannot be negotiated with. You don't negotiate people who want to destroy your nation, you fight them.

The sephardic jews were dhimmis. They had some basic rights and protections, but they were second class citizens. I never claimed that the Muslim Arabs slaughtered them, only kept them in submission. As for the Christian Palestinian militants, I suspect their fight is a political rather than religious one and would be shocked to find any Christians in Hamas.

The allies didn't want Jewish immigrants before or after the war, the doors were closed.

The Allies didn't want immigrants. Being Jewish really had nothing to di with it either way.

The Allies didn't enter the war to 'save the Jewish people'. It wasn't intentionally evil or cynical. It was a case of "Oh yeah? We've got our problems too. That's too bad. Let us know how that works out for you. K bye"

Immigrate to where? Occupied Europe? America? Britain? It's not like there were ports full of boats willing to defy Nazi law and sprint the Jews to freedom.

Actually boatloads of Jews were turned away from the US and I think Britan as well before the war broke out. This was a shameful act on our part.

Israel shares those values. It guarantees those rights to it's citizens. What happens to those in the occupied territory is another story..

How can it be "another story" when its the same country doing it? America recognises Geneva for civillains in countries it occupies IMO. Nor does it have an agenda linking the US and a particular etnicity/religon.


Sure. Israel is building settlements and those are counterproductive to an eventual two state solution. I never said I approve of everything they do, but they clearly can't force the Palestinians to negotiate or this whole thing would have been over by now...

How can you force Palestinians to negotiate an Israeli withdrawal?

.

Come on now. The majority of Palestinians aren't Christian or Secular.
...

True, but they aren't all fundamentalist muslims either. I suggest dropping the generalisations.

.
Regardless of what excuses were used to ignore Fatah, Hamas simply cannot be negotiated with. You don't negotiate people who want to destroy your nation, you fight them..

The odds of it happening being less than 1 in a billion, why is that an excuse and what makes you think Hamas genuinely believe they can carry it out?

.
. As for the Christian Palestinian militants, I suspect their fight is a political rather than religious one and would be shocked to find any Christians in Hamas.

So when muslims do it, its "for religon" but when christians/secularists do it, its 'political' all of a sudden. Hmmmm.

At the very least, the US government could do with cutting some of the money it gives to Israel and start funding the shaky democratic authorities of Palestine. So, maybe, the majority of Palestinians will stop looking at radical (when not downright fundamentalist or terrorist) political movements as the only one who can grant them their right to a nation and a country. Also it would cut down some anti-US feelings around the globe.
Because as everyone knows - democracy doesn't mean voting for who you like, right? :rolleyes:

Immigrate to where? Occupied Europe? America? Britain? It's not like there were ports full of boats willing to defy Nazi law and sprint the Jews to freedom.
Urmm... actually, we turned loads of them back a fair few times. I think it may have been a mistake to not let Hitler use the Suez canal to send the Jews to Madagascar rather than just gassing them, to be honest.

Sure, they would have had a pretty shitty time of things, but it's better than being annihilated, right?

And then after the war, we tried to give them Kenya... what a surprise that that was turned down.

So yeah - sorry, the Jewish folk of the world. Britain (and other nations, but I'd rather not get into 'rant about America mode') did some pretty poor things to you before world war 2.

How can it be "another story" when its the same country doing it? America recognises Geneva for civillains in countries it occupies IMO. Nor does it have an agenda linking the US and a particular etnicity/religon. The Palestinian civilians are for all intents and purposes the civilians of an enemy nation to the Israelis. They're never treated the same as the civilians of one's own nation.



How can you force Palestinians to negotiate an Israeli withdrawal? They have to recognize the right of Israel to exist within it's borders and to guarantee Israel's security from terrorist attacks originating within Palestinian borders. If Israel is going to pull out of the occupied territories and abandon settlements it needs some guarantee of security from it's neighbor.



True, but they aren't all fundamentalist muslims either. I suggest dropping the generalisations. I'm sure a lot of them aren't, but I suspect many of them are. After all, they elected Hamas.



The odds of it happening being less than 1 in a billion, why is that an excuse and what makes you think Hamas genuinely believe they can carry it out? The odds are so low because Israel defends itself. It's because Israel is willing to fight groups like Hamas that they don't stand a chance of destroying Israel.



So when muslims do it, its "for religon" but when christians/secularists do it, its 'political' all of a sudden. Hmmmm.
I'm sure there's a political motivation for the Muslim Palestinians too, but I'm also sure that with them it has a religious element.

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

My answer is Absolutely Not!

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

First off Israel is not all that wealthy. Second, they are surrounded by savages and they need our help at least in the form of military support.

The Allies didn't want immigrants. Being Jewish really had nothing to di with it either way.

The Allies didn't enter the war to 'save the Jewish people'. It wasn't intentionally evil or cynical. It was a case of "Oh yeah? We've got our problems too. That's too bad. Let us know how that works out for you. K bye"

the usa and commonwealth countries accepted immigrants before and after the war, many of them but Jews found it very difficult to gain entry. So Israel's formation had a great deal to do with antisemitism in western countries.

They have to recognize the right of Israel to exist within it's borders and to guarantee Israel's security from terrorist attacks originating within Palestinian borders.
How do they do that? What if the Palestinian government cannot guarantee Israel's security because it doesn't have total control of the area?

I'm sure a lot of them aren't, but I suspect many of them are. After all, they elected Hamas.
Hamas who (like Hezbollah) actually distribute aid to people on the ground. People are voting for who is actually helping them.

Urmm... actually, we turned loads of them back a fair few times. I think it may have been a mistake to not let Hitler use the Suez canal to send the Jews to Madagascar rather than just gassing them, to be honest.

Sure, they would have had a pretty shitty time of things, but it's better than being annihilated, right?

And then after the war, we tried to give them Kenya... what a surprise that that was turned down.

So yeah - sorry, the Jewish folk of the world. Britain (and other nations, but I'd rather not get into 'rant about America mode') did some pretty poor things to you before world war 2.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. At that time not even the Nazis knew the holocaust was going to happen, and preventing them from exiling all the Jews from the country seemed like a good idea at the time. You're better off asking why the allies didn't bomb the trainlines to the camps.


Israel is the only nation in the middle east with freedom of speech, equality for women, and tolerance of gays. .

And yet, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Desmond Tutu all claim it is racially discriminatory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#Israel_and_the_territories

How do they do that? What if the Palestinian government cannot guarantee Israel's security because it doesn't have total control of the area?
It's got to make an effort if it's to be taken seriously as a nation.

Hamas who (like Hezbollah) actually distribute aid to people on the ground. People are voting for who is actually helping them. Sure. Hamas runs hospitals and schools and provides services to Palestinians, but it also advocates the destruction of Israel. If Al Qaeda did charity work I wouldn't excuse their supporters just because they provide their support in exchange for schools and medicine.


<snipped>



And yet, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Desmond Tutu all claim it is racially discriminatory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#Israel_and_the_territories
Yeah. It discriminates against those in the occupied territories. Those who aren't Israeli citizens. Israeli Muslims, however, are elected to government offices, can serve in the military, basically have all the same rights as any other Israeli citizen. Every nation discriminates to some extent against non-citizens. Sure Israel does it more, but that's largely because of the security situation.

The number one reason why there is such great conflict is because Israel so horribly oppresses those in the West Bank and Gaza. They do so with complete security in knowing that all the UN resolutions in the world will not stop them violating international law and basic human rights because of the automatic unquestioned US veto of anything in the Security Council.

You want to alleviate the attacks on Israel? You don’t do it by sending munitions to Israel and encouraging a brutal apartheid. That same money would help Israel far more effectively by encouraging the Palestinian economy.

Blocking trade and commerce breeds resentment, humiliation, and despair. When people have nothing to loose, fighting against your oppressors seems like a pretty good option. If the Palestinians had a halfway functioning economy and some basic survival security the support for militancy would dwindle rapidly.

When you are starving, have nothing, your plumbing isn’t working due to Israeli action, and cannot even go outside because of an Israeli curfew, if you did leave your house in search of food and water you would be shot on sight, then people just say you must be a radical militant Islamist because you do not think Israelis are the most wonderful generous people in the world.

If you have a good job, a nice place to live, food and safety for your family, and the expectation of a reasonable standard of living for the foreseeable future, you do not support violent militants. The simple equation is ‘fat and happy’ = ‘peaceful’.

The number one reason why there is such great conflict is because Israel so horribly oppresses those in the West Bank and Gaza. They do so with complete security in knowing that all the UN resolutions in the world will not stop them violating international law and basic human rights because of the automatic unquestioned US veto of anything in the Security Council.

You want to alleviate the attacks on Israel? You don’t do it by sending munitions to Israel and encouraging a brutal apartheid. That same money would help Israel far more effectively by encouraging the Palestinian economy.

Blocking trade and commerce breads resentment, humiliation, and despair. When people have nothing to loose, fighting against your oppressors seems like a pretty good option. If the Palestinians had a halfway functioning economy and some basic survival security the support for militancy would dwindle rapidly.

When you are starving, have nothing, your plumbing isn’t working due to Israeli action, and cannot even go outside because of an Israeli curfew, if you did leave your house in search of food and water you would be shot on sight, then people just say you must be a radical militant Islamist because you do not think Israelis are the most wonderful generous people in the world.

If you have a good job, a nice place to live, food and safety for your family, and the expectation of a reasonable standard of living for the foreseeable future, you do not support violent militants. The simple equation is ‘fat and happy’ = ‘peaceful’.

Fat and happy =/= peaceful. Many terrorists outside of Palestine actually come from the middle class. According to your theory they shouldn't turn to terrorism, but they do. Regions with terrorism and violence all share one thing in common. Their population has a large percentage of young men under 25. In fact, violent crime spiked up in Europe and the USA, rich developed nations around the time the baby boomers were in their teens and early twenties. I think the same thing is happening among the Palestinians and is contributing to the violence, though it's not the only cause.


As of 2004 these are the figures for the palestinian population. Notice that children make up nearly fifty percent of the population. I'd suspect that the 15-64 year old age range is composed of more older teens and young twenty-somethings than mature adults. If anyone has numbers that break the population down more accurately I'd be interested in seeing them.
0-14 years: 42.9% (male 541,110; female 515,202)
15-64 years: 53.7% (male 676,427; female 644,347)
65 years and over: 3.4% (male 35,440; female 47,966) (2006 est.)

EDIT: Found better numbers here. http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13809 It seems a shitload of Palestinians are under 25.

The Palestinian civilians are for all intents and purposes the civilians of an enemy nation to the Israelis. They're never treated the same as the civilians of one's own nation. .

Nobody said anything about treating them same as Israeli citizens. I'm saying as a fact that they are not even extended the basic protections under Geneva. You may look it up.


They have to recognize the right of Israel to exist within it's borders and to guarantee Israel's security from terrorist attacks originating within Palestinian borders. If Israel is going to pull out of the occupied territories and abandon settlements it needs some guarantee of security from it's neighbor. .

The PLO recognised the right of Israel to exist and (suprise) that still wasnt enough. And the settlements keep going up.

Any agreement must come after a withdrawal.


I'm sure a lot of them aren't, but I suspect many of them are. After all, they elected Hamas. .

They elected Hamas for a number of reasons, not least of which is Fatah corruption. As I mentioned earlier it was America that prevented the reformist Fatah candidate running. However "a lot of" is not all.


The odds are so low because Israel defends itself. It's because Israel is willing to fight groups like Hamas that they don't stand a chance of destroying Israel. .

No, its because they are badly armed and unfunded. They are essentially civillians with Aks living on enclosed reservations under surveillance. They don't live long enough to get good. Hence the suicide bomb.


I'm sure there's a political motivation for the Muslim Palestinians too, but I'm also sure that with them it has a religious element.

Strange that I don't fire that accusation at all non-athiest Israelis......

The number one reason why there is such great conflict is because Israel so horribly oppresses those in the West Bank and Gaza. They do so with complete security in knowing that all the UN resolutions in the world will not stop them violating international law and basic human rights because of the automatic unquestioned US veto of anything in the Security Council.

You want to alleviate the attacks on Israel? You don’t do it by sending munitions to Israel and encouraging a brutal apartheid. That same money would help Israel far more effectively by encouraging the Palestinian economy.

Blocking trade and commerce breads resentment, humiliation, and despair. When people have nothing to loose, fighting against your oppressors seems like a pretty good option. If the Palestinians had a halfway functioning economy and some basic survival security the support for militancy would dwindle rapidly.

When you are starving, have nothing, your plumbing isn’t working due to Israeli action, and cannot even go outside because of an Israeli curfew, if you did leave your house in search of food and water you would be shot on sight, then people just say you must be a radical militant Islamist because you do not think Israelis are the most wonderful generous people in the world.

If you have a good job, a nice place to live, food and safety for your family, and the expectation of a reasonable standard of living for the foreseeable future, you do not support violent militants. The simple equation is ‘fat and happy’ = ‘peaceful’.

Well said Sir.

Yeah. It discriminates against those in the occupied territories. Those who aren't Israeli citizens. Israeli Muslims, however, are elected to government offices, can serve in the military, basically have all the same rights as any other Israeli citizen. Every nation discriminates to some extent against non-citizens. Sure Israel does it more, but that's largely because of the security situation.

Israeli muslims are also on average poorer, refused building permissions and the Bedouin can't even have their villages recognised as existing while brand new settlements in the Negev are give the seal of approval.

However as regards the occupied territories, they refuse to apply Geneva - thats them up there with the Sudanese.

Fat and happy =/= peaceful. .


Fat and happy and not looking at Israeli soldiers on their streets or being evicted to make way for settlements = peaceful.

I would be for that if it was part of a near-complete isolationist doctrine. It's time for America to go turtle. Not just "speak softly and carry a big stick" but more like "carry a big stick and keep our fucking mouths shut" - the world is suffering from America-fatigue and we should try to keep a low profile for the next century or two.


i'm afraid that the world is suffering from America-overdose... better find a treatment quick, or America won't be around for the next century or two...

Can't agree with you there.

It's not so much foreign aid I'm against, but rather how it's often (mis)used. Foreign aid has allowed many dictators (Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, etc.) to accumulate massive fortunes and set patrimonial systems pervaded by an ethic of corruption that extends from the top down.

If the US doesn't want have any terrorists attacks on their soil, than yes of course they should cut funding. If they want to see more of there people die, than they should just continue pissing off the world.

QFT.

It is of vital importance that the military aid to Israel stops, as does military aid to Palestianian terrorists on the part of certain countries.

The main reason why this war has gone on for so long is because it is externally fuelled. This fuel means that neither side will ever decide that they have had enough, and lay down their guns.

I support Israel getting military aid as long as their neighbours want them gone. We can end it when peace is declared in the middle east.
And you're happy to pay your taxes to be spent by the billions on a project which doesn't especially benefit America and Americans? Most of Israel's neighbours have long dropped their desire to drive them into the sea.

At the same time, there are hundreds that cross into Israel and blow up innocent civilians in the name of a dissolved Israel. i mean, to quote Saddam: "... Palestine is Arab."

Which is also why the Arab militants should not be funded. Next!

Yes.

Until and contingent on israel's returning to its legal borders and renouncing violence against the occupied territories and committing to quick statehood for the same, the US should not provide aid to the israelis.

Only if Hamas does the exact samething. Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Israel does not want to destroy the P.A.

Aside from being just, this would make amends for all the bad we have done and are doing in the middle east and would be the first sensible and effective step in the war on terrorism since the invasion of afghanistan.

Yea right. If ya believe that, I have bridge for sale in San Francisco.

If the US doesn't want have any terrorists attacks on their soil, than yes of course they should cut funding. If they want to see more of there people die, than they should just continue pissing off the world.

Same point. If ya believe that, I have a beach for sale in Miami.

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

Havn't you heard of the concept "ally"?

I strongly support the aid amount from the USA to Israel. Israel is surrounded by nations who would like to see Israel "wiped off of the map" They are dealing with daily suicide bombers. The Palestine has elected into power a known terrorist organization, Hamas. The USA and Israel are strong allies and will continue to do so.

I strongly support the aid amount from the USA to Israel. Israel is surrounded by nations who would like to see Israel "wiped off of the map" They are dealing with daily suicide bombers. The Palestine has elected into power a known terrorist organization, Hamas. The USA and Israel are strong allies and will continue to do so.

But these arguements mean nothing; they aren't logical reasons. There are many nations across the globe, in africa, asia, in the exact same situation as Israel; surrounded by hostile neighbours that would just as soon wipe them from the map, or are actively trying to. But you neither give a damn about them nor do you even know where they are. Evidently that mustn't be a reason you're overly concerned with.

Then you tie it off with the circular logic of "we're strong allies and that's why we're allies".

Something tells me that when logic is lacking so heavily, the real reason is something along the lines of "well, they say it on TV".

I strongly support the aid amount from the USA to Israel. Israel is surrounded by nations who would like to see Israel "wiped off of the map" They are dealing with daily suicide bombers. The Palestine has elected into power a known terrorist organization, Hamas. The USA and Israel are strong allies and will continue to do so.You almost sound as if wanting Israel off the map were not legitimate.

Why do Israel's supporters constantly brag about it being able to wipe the floor with all its neighbors on its own, yet at the same time say the country needs welfare checks from Uncle Sam?

IIRC the US didn't provide millitary aid to Israel until after the Six Day War. Most of the weapons used in the War of Independance were donated to the Jewish state by Stalin.

Havn't you heard of the concept "ally"?


In this case the term "accomplice" would be more appropriate....

In this case the term "accomplice" would be more appropriate....Why? Normally allies exist to jointly fight someone else. That's what they do.

Why? Normally allies exist to jointly fight someone else. That's what they do.


I see it more of a joint criminal enterprise in the occupied territories. You may read it as you wish.

But these arguements mean nothing; they aren't logical reasons. There are many nations across the globe, in africa, asia, in the exact same situation as Israel; surrounded by hostile neighbours that would just as soon wipe them from the map, or are actively trying to. But you neither give a damn about them nor do you even know where they are. Evidently that mustn't be a reason you're overly concerned with.

Then you tie it off with the circular logic of "we're strong allies and that's why we're allies".

Something tells me that when logic is lacking so heavily, the real reason is something along the lines of "well, they say it on TV".

I wasn't trying to argue with anybody. I realize "there are many nations across the globe..." It isn't really logical for the USA to split foreign aid completely even and in fairness to all in the world. Life isn't fair...FACT. It isn't that we don't give a damn. Believe me the USA is overall very caring and generous world wide.

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/index.html

The following doesn't sound like, what you accuse as greedy non-caring Americans, to me.

http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2006/

As for the worldwide aid, every rich nation can do better and this includes the USA. The USA is not the only nation who can do better. We all can do better. I don't feel you are being fair to pick the USA as the lone greedy country. Besides, I don't think the Americans tell any other country where and who to send aid to. We might make suggestions and voice our opinions but we don't try to dictate where you should send money and also if we were to solely compare the dollar amounts the USA is the #1 spender but yet we're criticized for not doing enough or we're sending it to the wrong place or whatnot.

Does anybody know the actual aid amount to Israel from other nations? I'm curious to see the numbers.

them abusing our aid by bombing the crap out of women and children like they do. It seems like we could tie a few strings to what we give them...

They do not bomb women and children. They target terrorists, those who seek to kill them. Innocents die because the terrorists hide amoung them.

Sometimes they dont even target the terrorists. How about the weeks when they signed a cease fire with the Palestians in Gaza and then the Palestians launched rocket after rocket at them and they just sat their and took it


Why do we actually keep them afloat? I'm not sure Dad is wrong. They seem to cause more trouble than they are worth at times...

Mainly because they are a democracy in the middle east under constant attack.

I see it more of a joint criminal enterprise in the occupied territories. You may read it as you wish.

The Isralies will end the occupation when the Paletians stop attacking them

The Palestinans will stop attcking the Isralies when they end the occupation

Israel decides to meet them half way and ends the occupation in Gaza and signs a ceasefire agreement

The Palestians ignore the ceasefire agreement and continue attacking Isralie civilian targets. The Isralies withhold viloent reprisal

The Isralies respond by building an new settlement

Both sides have their faults, but at least Israel is prepared to give things up of itself, and keep to its word.

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

YES.
It presumably helps to pay for their not-so secret WMD program.

The Isralies will end the occupation when the Paletians stop attacking them

The Palestinans will stop attcking the Isralies when they end the occupation

Israel decides to meet them half way and ends the occupation in Gaza and signs a ceasefire agreement

The Palestians ignore the ceasefire agreement and continue attacking Isralie civilian targets. The Isralies withhold viloent reprisal

The Isralies respond by building an new settlement

Both sides have their faults, but at least Israel is prepared to give things up of itself, and keep to its word.Letting a sinister religious group make a state was one of the gravest errors in human history. There can be no peace until this error has been corrected.

Sinister? Whats sinister about the Jews

Also, given what they had gone through over the last 2000 years, I think a state was justified. They could no longer be the minority since everywhere they went as a minority they were persecuted. They needed a propper home in a land that was their own.

Which was placed in the worst possible place

Letting a sinister religious group make a state was one of the gravest errors in human history. There can be no peace until this error has been corrected.

Sinister? Whats sinister about the Jews

Also, given what they had gone through over the last 2000 years, I think a state was justified. They could no longer be the minority since everywhere they went as a minority they were persecuted. They needed a propper home in a land that was their own.

The Jews are no more sinister than the Muslims, and they have dozens of states that are far more opressive.

Sinister? Whats sinister about the Jews

Not much.

Israel, and their WMDs, on the other hand... yeah, "sinister" just about sums it up. Like a Bond villain in his lair.

Not much.

Israel, and their WMDs, on the other hand... yeah, "sinister" just about sums it up. Like a Bond villain in his lair.

So, they have WMD's? So does the UK, the US, France, Russia and China. At least they are a democracy.

So, they have WMD's? So does the UK, the US, France, Russia and China. At least they are a democracy.

The one does not ameliorate the other, sir.

The one does not ameliorate the other, sir.

I'm not sure I follow

Why? Normally allies exist to jointly fight someone else. That's what they do.

That's also what brought about World War I. Without the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente, it would have simply been a war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, instead of global, the Russian Revolution would not have happened so soon and perhaps we might never have had neither Hitler nor Stalin in power, ever. There wouldn't even be an Israel, nor would there be Iraq, nor Iran, or whatever you will. The Ottomans would still control it, and there might be much more peace in the Middle East.

Alliances may be good from a certain point of view, but from others, they bring destruction, death and Hell. It's amazing how the world would have been different if it weren't for alliances.

Whatever the case, as long as we're allied with Israel, much of the Middle East will hate us for certain, especially since much of Israel's actions have been viewed as terrorist. IMO, their retaliations are overkill, like "an army of staring men for an eye, a mouthful of steel teeth for a tooth".

I'm not sure I follow

Oh, I'm sure you could, if you just tried a teensy bit harder.

if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

You mean like africa?

We tried for fifty years to overcome the fact that the particular area of the world that Israel is in has been the bloodiest batch of land in all of history. The so-called 'holy' land hasn't been holy in a very long time. It's just a festering ulcer on the surface of the Earth. Putting Israel there was like sticking a needle into it and leaving it there. The people in charge of Israel don't want peace except for the peace that comes from being on the right side of the biggest guns. The people in charge of Palestine don't want peace. They use the palestinian's desire for a free land of their own to feed their desire for perpetual conflict that keeps them in power. They've been killing eachother there for 3000 years. They're good at it. Leave em alone.

The only real sin is that they're killing eachother on the U.S.'s buck. Cut em loose and spend the money on conflicted countries that actually WANT peace.This is a great example of the imaginary situation alot of people who have never been to the area in question have constructed. Describing the place as a "festering ulcer of the surface of the earth" is almost laughable to someone that has spent significant time there. Making broad statements about how Israel doesn't want peace and must therefore be left alone is so wrong and simplistic that I don't really want to get into it, but in short, you have constructed for yourself something you feel comfortable believing, and that seems to offer you an explanation. Be aware that it is no way close to reality.

I support ending grants to Israel, if those still exist. I think most of the financial support Israel gets from the US are loans, which Israel has never reneged on, so I do not see the problem there. Even if those were stopped, they do not not comprise a significant part of the country's economics, so there would be limited adverse effect. From the CIA world factbook here (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/is.html), Israel's GDP in 2006 was $166.3 billion (2006 est.). According to the Jewish Virtual Library here, (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) Total US money to Israel (loans and grants) in 2006 was $ 2.53 billion. that's about 1.5 % of GDP. Now that's alot, but removing it would not be a lethal blow to Israel's economy. It really is win-win: Deluded Americans like LG don't have their sensibilities wounded, and Israel stops accepting help from others and relies on its own economy.

Also, given what they had gone through over the last 2000 years, I think a state was justified. They could no longer be the minority since everywhere they went as a minority they were persecuted. They needed a propper home in a land that was their own.

It seems they learned from their past of being a minority that they must stay the majority by persecuting the minorities, lest they be persecuted. It's kind of ironic.

The Jews are no more sinister than the Muslims, and they have dozens of states that are far more opressive.

Just to say, the grammar is a mess in this sentence. You accidentally said that the Jews have dozens of states that are far more oppressive.

They do not bomb women and children. They target terrorists, those who seek to kill them. Innocents die because the terrorists hide amoung them..

...according to the Israelis.

Sometimes they dont even target the terrorists. How about the weeks when they signed a cease fire with the Palestians in Gaza and then the Palestians launched rocket after rocket at them and they just sat their and took it..

..according to the Israelis.



Mainly because they are a democracy in the middle east under constant attack.

...a democracy running a de-facto apartheid "province".

The Isralies will end the occupation when the Paletians stop attacking them

The Palestinans will stop attcking the Isralies when they end the occupation
.

Why are the Israelis buidling settlements if they intend to end the occupation? The settlers have no intention of leaving.

Israel decides to meet them half way and ends the occupation in Gaza and signs a ceasefire agreement

The Palestians ignore the ceasefire agreement and continue attacking Isralie civilian targets. The Isralies withhold viloent reprisal

The Isralies respond by building an new settlement.

New building was announced almost simultaneously with the withdrawal. I suggest you try to keep track.


Both sides have their faults, but at least Israel is prepared to give things up of itself, and keep to its word.

The territories are not Israels to give up. The Osllo agreement was followed immediately by a massive increase in settlement construction.


Letting a sinister religious group .

A shut mouth catches no flies.


At least they are a democracy..

Since when does that mean a state can do no wrong?

...according to the Israelis.


..according to the Israelis. Acoording to some Israelis. Free speech reigns in Israel, so some would agree with you. Maybe you're reffering to hte army, or the government?




...a democracy running a de-facto apartheid "province".
It is in no way a province. It's an accupied territorry. Most of this territory is in Area A, meaning it's government is a Palestinian autonomy. Honestly Nodinia, you don't need me to tell you this stuff, and making misleading and uniformative posts does not behove you.

Acoording to some Israelis. Free speech reigns in Israel, so some would agree with you. Maybe you're reffering to hte army, or the government? .

In fairness normally I do say "the IDF" in response to that one.




It is in no way a province. It's an accupied territorry. Most of this territory is in Area A, meaning it's government is a Palestinian autonomy. Honestly Nodinia, you don't need me to tell you this stuff, and making misleading and uniformative posts does not behove you.

Its in no way misleading. Settlers are within the west Bank who enjoy the full rights and protections of a citizen of Israel, while the native population do not. The IDF and the Israeli Government are the main power, and determine the living conditions via control of borders etc. The PA can't offically put a pot out to piss in without the Israelis letting them do so. And if they don't approve we see where some of those aid dollars went.

Its in no way misleading. Settlers are within the west Bank who enjoy the full rights and protections of a citizen of Israel, while the native population do not. The IDF and the Israeli Government are the main power, and determine the living conditions via control of borders etc. The PA can't offically put a pot out to piss in without the Israelis letting them do so. And if they don't approve we see where some of those aid dollars went.They enjoy those rights because they *are* citizens of Israel. The native population have no legal status in Israel. It is like I said before "occupied territory" governed by a mixture (depends on when and where A, B, or C) of palestinian autonamy and martial law. This is not analagous to an aparteid province. It is a dismal arrangement, obviously, but one that is not grouded in racism, but rather nationalism, land conflict, previous wars, and continued political (and sometimes religion-grounded) violence on both sides.

They enjoy those rights because they *are* citizens of Israel. The native population have no legal status in Israel. It is like I said before "occupied territory" governed by a mixture (depends on when and where A, B, or C) of palestinian autonamy and martial law. This is not analagous to an aparteid province. It is a dismal arrangement, obviously, but one that is not grouded in racism, but rather nationalism, land conflict, previous wars, and continued political (and sometimes religion-grounded) violence on both sides.


The native population have not even the basic protections of the Geneva convention applied. Since 1967. And its grounded in sectarian division, and within the power of Israel, the effect being the same, hence "apartheid province". "Sectarian two tier area being partially annexed" doesnt roll off quite as well.

...according to the Israelis.

And the evidence.

If the Isralies wanted to wipe out the Palestians they could have done it several times over in the time that has passed.


..according to the Israelis.

What are you talking about? This is independently observed fact. Unless your suggesting that the entire worlds media falsly reported it

There WAS a cease fire

There WAS Palestian rockets firing from Gaza

There WAS no reaction from the Isralies


...a democracy running a de-facto apartheid "province".

Acording to you. Please elaborate further.

The native population have not even the basic protections of the Geneva convention applied. Since 1967. And its grounded in sectarian division, and within the power of Israel, the effect being the same, hence "apartheid province". "Sectarian two tier area being partially annexed" doesnt roll off quite as well.

The Isralies annexed the land that was used to attack them and will continue to hold it untill it is no longer used to attack them from. Thus they will allow civilian immigration into areas where if there were Palestian civlians would give terrorists a place to hide and attack Israel from as has been proven in the past.

The Isralies annexed the land that was used to attack them and will continue to hold it untill it is no longer used to attack them from. Thus they will allow civilian immigration into areas where if there were Palestian civlians would give terrorists a place to hide and attack Israel from as has been proven in the past.Israel has no business in the West Bank. Palestinian attacks are only a reaction to the continued occupation. Israel must first dismantle the Wall and withdraw to the Green Line and allow and support the creation of a Palestinian state. Then violence will cease. After all the occupied have all reason to fight the occupiers. You always choose to ignore that the initial aggression has always come from Israel.

And the evidence.

If the Isralies wanted to wipe out the Palestians they could have done it several times over in the time that has passed. .

Reprisals and collective punishment. I never claimed they "wanted to wipe out the Palestinians".



What are you talking about? This is independently observed fact. Unless your suggesting that the entire worlds media falsly reported it

There WAS a cease fire

There WAS Palestian rockets firing from Gaza

There WAS no reaction from the Isralies.

Were there still checkpoints in the West Bank? Were settlements still being built?



Acording to you. Please elaborate further.

What is "according to me"? The settlers have full rights, the Palestinians do not. The settlers are not subject to martial law, or any law that the PA may seek to impose, but are given the protection of Israeli law. Thats fairly fucking clear cut, isn't it?


Thus they will allow civilian immigration into areas where if there were Palestian civlians would give terrorists a place to hide and attack Israel from as has been proven in the past..

"allow civillian immigration"? Allow colonists, you mean.

Civillian colonists that need more protection than a military post/personnell would....thus needing yet more resources. That doesn't strike you as a bit odd? Small country, as we're so often reminded. Surrounded by enemies, so you're so willing to tell us, yet they can afford to allow civillian colonies to be built on (largely stolen/seized land) thus stretching their resources further....

The Isralies will end the occupation when the Paletians stop attacking them

The Palestinans will stop attcking the Isralies when they end the occupation

Israel decides to meet them half way and ends the occupation in Gaza and signs a ceasefire agreement

The Palestians ignore the ceasefire agreement and continue attacking Isralie civilian targets. The Isralies withhold viloent reprisal

The Isralies respond by building an new settlement

Both sides have their faults, but at least Israel is prepared to give things up of itself, and keep to its word.

Agreed.

Letting a sinister religious group make a state was one of the gravest errors in human history. There can be no peace until this error has been corrected.

Great. That means the Muslim nations in the Middle East has to go as well.

Israel has no business in the West Bank. Palestinian attacks are only a reaction to the continued occupation.

And who was their first? Ya know? The Jews were indeed there before the Palestinians.

Israel must first dismantle the Wall and withdraw to the Green Line and allow and support the creation of a Palestinian state.

They've been trying to get that approved by the various organizations within Palestine. Some do not want peace and thus attack Israel.

Then violence will cease. After all the occupied have all reason to fight the occupiers. You always choose to ignore that the initial aggression has always come from Israel.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

It is the choice of the American people who they want to aid or not. Some prefer to stop aids in Africa, some prefer to the Tsunami victims, others prefer to fund a regime which occupies land of other peoples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wSZO8W2mGE

your money, your call Americans

Reprisals and collective punishment. I never claimed they "wanted to wipe out the Palestinians".

Forgive me, but how do you respond to a suicide bombing exactly? The person who commited it is dead. What do you do?


Were there still checkpoints in the West Bank? Were settlements still being built?

Whether or not there were provocation factors of Israel, the Palestians still had agreed to the cease fire. What that meant was they had said, in spite of said factors, they would not attack Israel.



What is "according to me"? The settlers have full rights, the Palestinians do not. The settlers are not subject to martial law, or any law that the PA may seek to impose, but are given the protection of Israeli law. Thats fairly fucking clear cut, isn't it?

Maybe they will be given the rights once the attacks stop. Untill they can demonstrate they are not complicit with what the Palestian terrorists are doing (and given what those women did a few months back they cant show that) they will not be treated with the same rights.


"allow civillian immigration"? Allow colonists, you mean.

Civillian colonists that need more protection than a military post/personnell would....thus needing yet more resources. That doesn't strike you as a bit odd? Small country, as we're so often reminded. Surrounded by enemies, so you're so willing to tell us, yet they can afford to allow civillian colonies to be built on (largely stolen/seized land) thus stretching their resources further....

They advance where they need to, they dont strech their resources beyond what they need to do. Precedent has shown that if the Palestians held those ares, they would be used by extrimists to attack Israel with

The native population have not even the basic protections of the Geneva convention applied. Since 1967. And its grounded in sectarian division, and within the power of Israel, the effect being the same, hence "apartheid province". "Sectarian two tier area being partially annexed" doesnt roll off quite as well.Yet, when you say "apparteid province" the immediate allusion is to south africa. This situation is really very dissimilar in both its causes, realities, and options for resolution. I do not pretend that the status of the occipied territories if nice, or right, or fair, or humanitarian. I call it what it is. You on the other hand, use second-hand terminology that is misleading and ill-applied.

*snip*why should the occupied stop fighting the occupiers? why do you expect the victims to stop defending themselves? what is your logic? when the germans occupied the netherlands, were the dutch not entitled to fight back? of course they were. just as the palestinians are now entitled to attack the makers of their misery. the palestinian "authority" should just have the settlers' houses bulldozed and finally apply jewish measures to jews.

why should the occupied stop fighting the occupiers? why do you expect the victims to stop defending themselves? what is your logic? when the germans occupied the netherlands, were the dutch not entitled to fight back? of course they were. just as the palestinians are now entitled to attack the makers of their misery. the palestinian "authority" should just have the settlers' houses bulldozed and finally apply jewish measures to jews.

Because UB the only reason that they occupy is because if they didnt the land would be used to attack Israel. Thus if they stop fighting and prove to the Israelies and the rest of the world that they do not want to attack Israel and will not allow their land to be used by enenmies of Israel then Israel will leave

why should the occupied stop fighting the occupiers?

Politics maybe? If they stop fighting then their arguments could be heard and people will have nothing to condemn for except the Israelis themselves. By killing Israel Civilians, they bring condemnation on their heads and thus do not get anything out of negotiations. No one negotiates with people who kill men, women, and children intentionally.

why do you expect the victims to stop defending themselves?

No. That is why many of us support the Israeli right to self defense.

Because UB the only reason that they occupy is because if they didnt the land would be used to attack Israel. Thus if they stop fighting and prove to the Israelies and the rest of the world that they do not want to attack Israel and will not allow their land to be used by enenmies of Israel then Israel will leave

Facts do not penetrate his head. Facts only get you called an anti-semite.

Well said though.

No. That is why many of us support the Israeli right to self defense.Israelis don't defend themselves. They occupy foreign territory. Occupation is no act of defense.

Israelis don't defend themselves. They occupy foreign territory. Occupation is no act of defense.

It is when the occupation is only with an aim to give up the territories when the threat from them is no longer present. See the Gaza withdrawl and the cease fire. But dont be suprised if Israel re-occupy the terrirory given the fact that the Palestianins did not keep to their word over the cease fire.

It is when the occupation is only with an aim to give up the territories when the threat from them is no longer present. See the Gaza withdrawl and the cease fire. But dont be suprised if Israel re-occupy the terrirory given the fact that the Palestianins did not keep to their word over the cease fire.

And don't be surprised to see them put up housing on those territories you claim they don't want, either.

Israelis don't defend themselves. They occupy foreign territory. Occupation is no act of defense.

HAHA!!! You are one funny person you know that?

Hamas isn't defending Palestine. Anyone with a brain can see that. Anyone who has read the charter of Hamas knows what Hamas wants. In order to fight an occupation, you cannot go around blowing up innocent civilians. That is what Hamas does. Israel has shown restraint lately but attacks against their civilians continue. Now tell me who is attacking who?

Why don't you get your head out of your damn ass and actually see the real world for once in your very young life.

Same point. If ya believe that, I have a beach for sale in Miami.

If you don't believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you.

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Galilee of its Arab population."
-- David Ben-Gurion (Founding Father of the State of Israel and First Israeli Prime Minister), from Ben-Gurion, a Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar (May 1948)

If you don't believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you.

Ooh, how much? :D

If you don't believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you.

Funny. At least I'm not blinded by religion as you are.

I'm not blinded. Islam brought me from the darkness into the light.

Oh you are blinded alright.

Funny. At least I'm not blinded by religion as you are.

I'm not blinded. Islam brought me from the darkness into the light.

Ooh, how much? :D

10 bucks;)

This is a complex issue and not something that can be summed up in only a couple sentences with any accuracy.

That being said, I will comment on a part of the problem.

Who exactly is attacking whom?
The Israelis have a competent well established military that follows orders from the state. Therefore any and all actions of the IDF are directly attributable to Israel.

The suicide bombers and militants are not under the direct control of the Palestinian Authority. Continuing to constantly undermine the PA will not bring about a Palestinian government capable of bringing an end to the suicide bombers. This is like expecting the mayor of Los Angeles to control the behavior of the Bloods and the Crypts, with the added challenge of disbanding the LAPD.

On a slightly different note, the Israeli ‘withdraw’ from the Gaza Strip only meant removing the settlers, not that the IDF would not continue operation within the territory. During this period the IDF continued to conduct raids to arrest suspected militants and destroy resources it considered might be used against it. Therefore their presence was continued, they just closed the settlements.

Raids back and forth were quite common. The IDF would ‘arrest people’, then the militants would capture a soldier, and then a prisoner exchange would take place. The capture of two soldiers, which was in response to IDF arrests, was merely a pretext for the invasion of Lebanon. Israel was just looking for an excuse.

Terrorists target ‘civilians’ as they consider everyone a valid target. The IDF targets ‘terrorists’ but do it with little regard to collateral damage. One particular example comes to mind – a couple years ago a BBC reporter was talking to a couple IDF troops and got some interesting footage. There was a lone Palestinian gunman being chased by some soldiers, who said they thought he ran into one of the apartment buildings but couldn’t be sure, and didn’t know which of the 3 buildings they were near.

Anyone want to guess what the IDF solution to this problem? They called a nearby tank commander to start shelling the 3 apartment buildings in an attempt to flush out the gunman. That’s right – 3 apartment buildings full of people got shelled because some soldiers thought that maybe the guy they were chasing ran into one of them. The IDF does not target civilians.

Collateral damage is inevitable in war, and I do not fault any military for some civilian casualties. A responsible military however, should do everything it reasonably can to reduce the number of civilian casualties.

The utter disregard the IDF shows towards the Palestinian population, their ongoing efforts to keep the Palestinian Authority as weak as possible, their direct crippling of the Palestinian economy, and the policy of collective punishment all point to the IDF not being this shining beacon of humanity some of you like to think.

If my land were occupied by such an oppressive regime, I would not be welcoming them with open arms either. As an American, I am utterly appalled that my tax dollars are going to perpetuate this situation.

10 bucks;)

I'll take it! :D

Collateral damage is inevitable in war, and I do not fault any military for some civilian casualties. A responsible military however, should do everything it reasonably can to reduce the number of civilian casualties.

I really loathe the accepted belief that Israel can kill as many civilians as it wants as long as one combatant dies with them.

This is a complex issue and not something that can be summed up in only a couple sentences with any accuracy.

That being said, I will comment on a part of the problem.

Who exactly is attacking whom?
The Israelis have a competent well established military that follows orders from the state. Therefore any and all actions of the IDF are directly attributable to Israel.

The suicide bombers and militants are not under the direct control of the Palestinian Authority. Continuing to constantly undermine the PA will not bring about a Palestinian government capable of bringing an end to the suicide bombers. This is like expecting the mayor of Los Angeles to control the behavior of the Bloods and the Crypts, with the added challenge of disbanding the LAPD.

On a slightly different note, the Israeli ‘withdraw’ from the Gaza Strip only meant removing the settlers, not that the IDF would not continue operation within the territory. During this period the IDF continued to conduct raids to arrest suspected militants and destroy resources it considered might be used against it. Therefore their presence was continued, they just closed the settlements.

Raids back and forth were quite common. The IDF would ‘arrest people’, then the militants would capture a soldier, and then a prisoner exchange would take place. The capture of two soldiers, which was in response to IDF arrests, was merely a pretext for the invasion of Lebanon. Israel was just looking for an excuse.

Terrorists target ‘civilians’ as they consider everyone a valid target. The IDF targets ‘terrorists’ but do it with little regard to collateral damage. One particular example comes to mind – a couple years ago a BBC reporter was talking to a couple IDF troops and got some interesting footage. There was a lone Palestinian gunman being chased by some soldiers, who said they thought he ran into one of the apartment buildings but couldn’t be sure, and didn’t know which of the 3 buildings they were near.

Anyone want to guess what the IDF solution to this problem? They called a nearby tank commander to start shelling the 3 apartment buildings in an attempt to flush out the gunman. That’s right – 3 apartment buildings full of people got shelled because some soldiers thought that maybe the guy they were chasing ran into one of them. The IDF does not target civilians.

Collateral damage is inevitable in war, and I do not fault any military for some civilian casualties. A responsible military however, should do everything it reasonably can to reduce the number of civilian casualties.

The utter disregard the IDF shows towards the Palestinian population, their ongoing efforts to keep the Palestinian Authority as weak as possible, their direct crippling of the Palestinian economy, and the policy of collective punishment all point to the IDF not being this shining beacon of humanity some of you like to think.

If my land were occupied by such an oppressive regime, I would not be welcoming them with open arms either. As an American, I am utterly appalled that my tax dollars are going to perpetuate this situation.
QFT 100%.

I really loathe the accepted belief that Israel can kill as many civilians as it wants as long as one combatant dies with them.

You really need to get out more if you do not realize that the reason civilians die is because the damn terrorists hide behind them and in major centers as well.

You really need to get out more if you do not realize that the reason civilians die is because the damn terrorists hide behind them and in major centers as well.

IE they can bomb whoever and whatever they want with impunity.

You really need to get out more if you do not realize that the reason civilians die is because the damn terrorists hide behind them and in major centers as well.

ya all those kids that IDF snipers have killed were terrorists(damn those kids)...no I won't supply a link because you know it's true...

ya all those kids that IDF snipers have killed were terrorists(damn those kids)...no I won't supply a link because you know my argument is full of shit

I fixed it for you.

Yes. Places that actually need money.

Giving money to most African nations is a waste. Corrupt governments just spend it on Mercedes limos.

You mean like africa?

Yes. Places that actually need money.

I fixed it for you.

How Arbitrary.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/mideast/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1516362,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/952600.stm

Giving money to most African nations is a waste. Corrupt governments just spend it on Mercedes limos.

Makes more sense than sending it to a First World country. Israel needs to take care of itself. If we didn't support Israel, it's doubtful 9/11 would have happened. We need to adopt a neutral position in regards to the Middle East.

Makes more sense than sending it to a First World country. Israel needs to take care of itself. If we didn't support Israel, it's doubtful 9/11 would have happened. We need to adopt a neutral position in regards to the Middle East.

Well, come on - how do you expect Israel to fund its' WMD program without substantial annual moneys from its' sponsor-superpower? Undeclared nukes don't grow on trees, after all.

My answer is a firm and definitive "yes."

I don't see why a wealthy, First World country needs foreign aid, especially so much of it. I'm against foreign aid in general, but if we're going to aid countries, shouldn't we send aid to countries that, I don't know, actually need it? :rolleyes:

Hmm, well theres a disdain ridden Syria, looking too take the Golan Hieghts....And enraged Lebanon spearheaded by the ruthless Hezbollah organization wishing too see an end too the Jewish state.... Iran supporting further efforts too undermine the states soverignity, an angry egypt, possibly willing too aid its neighbors in a call for arab "internationalism", Jordan willing too do the same, Saudi Arabia, would most likely be willing, and then thiers always the off chance Mel Gibson will find himself in Jerusulam.

Makes more sense than sending it to a First World country. Israel needs to take care of itself. If we didn't support Israel, it's doubtful 9/11 would have happened. We need to adopt a neutral position in regards to the Middle East.

*15 minutes after Congo--Kinshasa's policies have been instated*

CNN: Israel has just been reduced too a pile of smoldering rubble as arabs across the middle east rush too the site too spit on the charred bones of the deceased Jews. In other news Mel Gibson will be hosting his birthday party in the remains of Jerusulam....

Well, come on - how do you expect Israel to fund its' WMD program without substantial annual moneys from its' sponsor-superpower? Undeclared nukes don't grow on trees, after all.

lol

Forgive me, but how do you respond to a suicide bombing exactly? The person who commited it is dead. What do you do?

You could go after the organisation they belonged too. But thats for us "Westerners". You probably think its ok to target friends family and neighbours because they're Arab and thus can be treated according to a different standard.


Whether or not there were provocation factors of Israel, the Palestians still had agreed to the cease fire. What that meant was they had said, in spite of said factors, they would not attack Israel.?

All of them?


Maybe they will be given the rights once the attacks stop. Untill they can demonstrate they are not complicit with what the Palestian terrorists are doing (and given what those women did a few months back they cant show that) they will not be treated with the same rights..?

So even though they've been treated like this since 1967, you link it to "attacks". People in crime ridden areas aren't expected to "demonstrate they are not complicit" with crime, yet you expect Palestinians to openly subjugate themnselves and give upo what many see as rightful acts of resistance against occupation?

Would you inisist on this standard being applied to the worst parts of LA/New York?


They advance where they need to, they dont strech their resources beyond what they need to do. Precedent has shown that if the Palestians held those ares, they would be used by extrimists to attack Israel with

So now they attack the settlers there, because the IDF has not secured the area as a military buffer....Yes...makes sense....the "tie granny to the bumper" defence yet again.


It is when the occupation is only with an aim to give up the territories when the threat from them is no longer present.

And the happy-go-lucky settlers - native Palestinians all, with their pale skin and American accents - do you think they are moving there temporarily? Do they think its temporary? I fucking doubt it.


Funny. At least I'm not blinded by religion as you are.

You used the bible on other discussions on this subject, so were I you, I'd be shush. You're as guilty as him, just more subtle.


You really need to get out more if you do not realize that the reason civilians die is because the damn terrorists hide behind them and in major centers as well.

According to the IDF. Evidence shows that either (a) terrorists are everywhere and outnumber the IDF or (b) they kill who they want to drive out the natives from areas/make them more submissive, as is classic in such situations - Africa comes to mind particularily. I doubt theres much they do the Victorians wouldnt understand.

This is a great example of the imaginary situation alot of people who have never been to the area in question have constructed. Describing the place as a "festering ulcer of the surface of the earth" is almost laughable to someone that has spent significant time there. Making broad statements about how Israel doesn't want peace and must therefore be left alone is so wrong and simplistic that I don't really want to get into it, but in short, you have constructed for yourself something you feel comfortable believing, and that seems to offer you an explanation. Be aware that it is no way close to reality.

I support ending grants to Israel, if those still exist. I think most of the financial support Israel gets from the US are loans, which Israel has never reneged on, so I do not see the problem there. Even if those were stopped, they do not not comprise a significant part of the country's economics, so there would be limited adverse effect. From the CIA world factbook here (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/is.html), Israel's GDP in 2006 was $166.3 billion (2006 est.). According to the Jewish Virtual Library here, (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) Total US money to Israel (loans and grants) in 2006 was $ 2.53 billion. that's about 1.5 % of GDP. Now that's alot, but removing it would not be a lethal blow to Israel's economy. It really is win-win: Deluded Americans like LG don't have their sensibilities wounded, and Israel stops accepting help from others and relies on its own economy.

I can't be deluding myself! Any imaginary situation I would bother to dream up would have considerably more nudity, mud and vigorous calisthenics! :p

You really need to get out more if you do not realize that the reason civilians die is because the damn terrorists hide behind them and in major centers as well.

"Today B'Tselem publishes its initial investigation into the Israeli military operation in Beit Hanun, northern Gaza Strip, on July 17. The investigation indicates that during the operation, soldiers took over two buildings in the town, and used six residents as human shields over a period of 12 hours. During this time, there were intensive exchanges of gunfire at the site. Among the buildings' occupants were two minors. "
http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20060720.asp

That kind of thing was official policy for 30 years. Noy only that but its still carried on in various guises.

Who is hiding behind who, exactly?

I can't be deluding myself! Any imaginary situation I would bother to dream up would have considerably more nudity, mud and vigorous calisthenics! :pDelightful though self-refferential quips undisputably are, forgive me for being dissapointed that they are all you can muster. I would love to see you sustain your claims once.

Delightful though self-refferential quips undisputably are, forgive me for being dissapointed that they are all you can muster. I would love to see you sustain your claims once.

I'd love to, but until science develops a way to record and display my imaginary delusions, I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it. :)

not only cut, but abolish. and if they implimented sanctions, ever better IMO.

And don't be surprised to see them put up housing on those territories you claim they don't want, either.

Yep, and don't also be supprised when they leave those houses in the interests of peace

See Gaza withdrawl

I'm not blinded. Islam brought me from the darkness into the light.

Funny, you blind yourself to over a millenia's worth of teaching just to listen to the prophicies of one man

Muhammad doesnt fufill a single propechy from anyone about anything (with the possible exception of the one from John about false teachers) where as Jesus fufills well over 300.

"Today B'Tselem publishes its initial investigation into the Israeli military operation in Beit Hanun, northern Gaza Strip, on July 17. The investigation indicates that during the operation, soldiers took over two buildings in the town, and used six residents as human shields over a period of 12 hours. During this time, there were intensive exchanges of gunfire at the site. Among the buildings' occupants were two minors. "
http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20060720.asp

That kind of thing was official policy for 30 years. Noy only that but its still carried on in various guises.

Who is hiding behind who, exactly?

And look whats happening as a result. The DEMOCRATIC JUSTICE SYSTEM is punishing them because it is wrong. And look what else has happend. It is NO LONGER offical policy. They have accepted it is wrong and they are punishing those who have perpetrated it.

No such system exists for Hammass. They praise those who allow civilians to die by their cowardess.

Yep, and don't also be supprised when they leave those houses in the interests of peace

See Gaza withdrawl

The Gaza withdrawal was not made in the interests of peace.

"A top Israeli official has claimed that Ariel Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan was deliberately formulated to block peace negotiations with Yasser Arafat."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm


Funny, you blind yourself to over a millenia's worth of teaching just to listen to the prophicies of one man

Muhammad doesnt fufill a single propechy from anyone about anything (with the possible exception of the one from John about false teachers) where as Jesus fufills well over 300.

Aha - a god boy - this explains much. Glad you think your invisible man is bigger than his. Don't forget to throw in the old "moon Gawd" line.

I've 10 invisible men and they're bigger than everyones by the way. Prove me wrong.



And look whats happening as a result. The DEMOCRATIC JUSTICE SYSTEM is punishing them because it is wrong. And look what else has happend. It is NO LONGER offical policy. They have accepted it is wrong and they are punishing those who have perpetrated it...

No one has been charged. Now read this -

"On 6 October 2005, the High Court of Justice ruled that it was illegal for the IDF to use Palestinian civilians during military actions.....

Soldiers used to pick civilians at random and force the civilians to protect them by doing dangerous tasks. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:

enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped, or to remove the occupants

remove suspicious objects from roads used by the army

stand inside houses where soldiers have set up military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at the soldiers

walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders"
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/Index.asp

And what did you and the other apologists say? "The terrorists hide behind civillians".

And whats happened in the mean time?

"After the state filed its response, the IDF continued to use Palestinian civilians to order other Palestinians to leave their houses to be arrested......
Testimonies given to B'Tselem indicate that IDF soldiers have continued to use the "neighbor procedure."
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/Neighbor_Procedure.asp

But I suppose you've some excuse for that too....


They praise those who allow civilians to die by their cowardess...

Seems to me thats precisely what you're doing.

ya all those kids that IDF snipers have killed were terrorists(damn those kids)...no I won't supply a link because you know it's true...

You are indeed an idiot if you do not provide links. That's ok. I know you are full of shit most of the time.

"Today B'Tselem publishes its initial investigation into the Israeli military operation in Beit Hanun, northern Gaza Strip, on July 17. The investigation indicates that during the operation, soldiers took over two buildings in the town, and used six residents as human shields over a period of 12 hours. During this time, there were intensive exchanges of gunfire at the site. Among the buildings' occupants were two minors. "
http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20060720.asp

That kind of thing was official policy for 30 years. Noy only that but its still carried on in various guises.

Who is hiding behind who, exactly?

Two wrongs do not make a right. Terrorists constantly hide among civilans. Do you condemn the terrorists for hiding among civilians?

And look whats happening as a result. The DEMOCRATIC JUSTICE SYSTEM is punishing them because it is wrong. And look what else has happend. It is NO LONGER offical policy. They have accepted it is wrong and they are punishing those who have perpetrated it.

No such system exists for Hammass. They praise those who allow civilians to die by their cowardess.

Nodinia gets owned.

You are indeed an idiot if you do not provide links. That's ok. I know you are full of shit most of the time.

"Four Palestinian schoolgirls were shot dead by the Israeli army in their classrooms or walking to school in the Gaza Strip in September and October. Raghda Adnan al-Assar and Ghadeer Jaber Mukhaymar, aged 10 and nine, were shot dead by Israeli soldiers while sitting at their desks in UN schools in Khan Yunis refugee camp. Eight-year-old Rania Iyad Aram was shot dead by Israeli soldiers as she was walking to school. On 5 October Israeli soldiers shot dead 13-year-old Iman al-Hams near her school in Rafah. According to an army communication recording of the incident and testimonies of soldiers, a commander repeatedly shot the child at close range even though soldiers had identified her as “a little girl... scared to death”. The commander was charged with illegal use of his weapon, obstructing justice, improper use of authority and unbecoming conduct. He was not charged with murder or manslaughter."
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng

Theres 4, out of over 800 in the last 5-6 years alone.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Terrorists constantly hide among civilans. Do you condemn the terrorists for hiding among civilians?

In the instances, should there be any, where they might do so.

But as the examples make clear, the IDF hides behind civillians and did so untill the end of 2005 openly, with full approval. And it seems they still do so.

Nodinia gets owned.?

So, I show that the IDF has a clear policy of using human shields and that nobody has been charged for same, and that by being a cheerleader for the IDF its god-boy thats supporting killing of civillians but its me that gets "owned". I see the logic. Shake yer pom-poms baby.

So, I show that the IDF has a clear policy of using human shields and that nobody has been charged for same, and that by being a cheerleader for the IDF its god-boy thats supporting killing of civillians but its me that gets "owned". I see the logic. Shake yer pom-poms baby.

The link that you showed was a link to a TRIAL of those people. They were being held accountable and punnished because what they did was wrong. And yes the IDF in the past use human shields, but they have since changed that policy.

The link that you showed was a link to a TRIAL of those people. They were being held accountable and punnished because what they did was wrong. And yes the IDF in the past use human shields, but they have since changed that policy.

B'tselem is an Israeli human rights org. There is no mention of a trial there, or any criminal proceedings being taken. Try rereading the article for whats actually in it, not what you want to see. There was no trial. To date nobody has been charged. Nor is there likely to be, given similar events in the past.

And yes, the IDF used human shields as official policy from 1967 to 2005 and all the time it was "The terrorists hid behinde civillians". Now they do it unofficially or in other guises and its the same cry from the apologists.

Isn't that kind of thing what your version of the Invisible man is supposed to be against?

You are indeed an idiot if you do not provide links. That's ok. I know you are full of shit most of the time.

me posting a link to Israeli atrocities committed against children which is common knowledge world wide would be the same as me asking you for a link to prove the Holocaust...either you're a delusional idiot or deliberatively lying which is it?

me posting a link to Israeli atrocities committed against children which is common knowledge world wide would be the same as me asking you for a link to prove the Holocaust...either you're a delusional idiot or deliberatively lying which is it?

Neither. Which are you?

You are indeed an idiot if you do not provide links. That's ok. I know you are full of shit most of the time.

*audible sigh*

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...rss_topstories
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...516362,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/952600.stm

I produced these links in a previous post, which you ignored. I honestly don't know why I bother posting this, I suspect that if the IDF stormed your house and killed you and your family, your last thought would be "The evil anti-semite leftists must have used their mind control beam to brainwash these soldiers into killing me in order to further their Jew-hating agenda!"

*audible sigh*

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...rss_topstories
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...516362,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/952600.stm

I produced these links in a previous post, which you ignored. I honestly don't know why I bother posting this, I suspect that if the IDF stormed your house and killed you and your family, your last thought would be "The evil anti-semite leftists must have used their mind control beam to brainwash these soldiers into killing me in order to further their Jew-hating agenda!"

his refusal to acknowledge your links sums it up quite well...he knows of the child murders by the IDF and Israel's refusal to prosecute anyone for the crimes, this is why I don't bother to post links...NS posters Allegheny County 2 and IDF are no different than David Duke and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when they deny the holocaust...claiming the moral high ground is difficult for hypocrites...

bump