Why America supports the Jews/Israel

[Lemonaide]

It just goes round and around. For aeons the human race has done nothing but point the finger at the other group for anything bad that happens. We're unenlightened as a species. BTW. Speaking of our species..... another asteroid is passing by.

[fatfencer]

I agree that the USA probably shouldn't be sending out so much foreign aid, but I don't understand the claim that "the jews" refuse any compromise in ending the conflict. When the UN (or was it the League of Nations?) suggested the partition of the country which would have created an independent Palestine occupying the Gaza strip and the West Bank I think every Jewish political organization around at the time accepted the proposal. It was the Palestinian groups that would not accept anything but one country ruled exclusively by Arabs. In addition, I know the state of Israel officially agreed to a similar partition on at least one occasion (I think several.)

Anyway, I think it must be irritating to have foreigners show up in your country and try to take over, but I don't agree with this idea that the violence continues because Israel refuses to compromise. I think Israel's only goal since its declaration of independence has always been survival.

I for one would love to see both cultures thrive but keeping them together....they seem mutually exclusive. Why must Israel live surrounded by their enemies? Is there no place where they would be welcome and allowed to flourish? Letting them fight each other forever is like letting contagion spread. It's just not done. However we've had a 50 year raging virus there!!

If Israel moved it would be a victory for them. They could finally live in peace. Note I only say they should move because they are a much smaller populace than the arabs surrounding them on all sides. Sometimes flexibility is the strongest.

FF

[I_luv_saber]

[Beeblebrox]

FreeRepublic.com? Do you realize that is one of the most biased, "all liberals are America-hating scum", right-wing forums out there?

Thanks for the info on the link. It sounds like a forum filled with truth and enlightenment.

How much oil do we get from Israel? I wasn't aware that it was much if any at all. I am fascinated by all of the references that the US supports Israel for oil. Wouldn't the US oil industry be better served if the US were anti-Israel?

I support Israel because they want to live in peace and just be left alone and I am against their neighbors who only want to kill every trace of the Jews on the planet simply because of their faith. Could it be that the US has chosen to be on the side of right versus evil? Does anyone here believe that the US should have entered WWII on the side of the Axis?

[erooMynohtnA]

I support Israel because they want to live in peace and just be left alone and I am against their neighbors who only want to kill every trace of the Jews on the planet simply because of their faith.

A child's view of the world is always so refreshing.

[Lemonaide]

erooMynohtnA: hi. your name is differnt, yet it rings a bell, everytime I see it I think: Erythomycin. Okay, that said [cough cough]

We really don't have a lot to say about anything that goes on. I am still waiting for someone to figure out that Palm Islands and their neighboring fake islands have created new weather conditions that are not favorable. It seems that 'the little people' as Leona Helmsey was want to say, have nothing at all to say except to join the military and fight whoever the big people point to. I think we should all go to dental school and flip them the bird.

[Inquartata]

Is there no place where they would be welcome and allowed to flourish?

No place acceptable to them.

You know, they are not children or slaves, to be sent wherever their "betters" decide to put them. They have a say in the matter...just as you have a say in not being sent off to Korea.

How much oil do we get from Israel? I wasn't aware that it was much if any at all. I am fascinated by all of the references that the US supports Israel for oil. Wouldn't the US oil industry be better served if the US were anti-Israel?

Back to the idea of having an ally in the region...one which actually thinks and believes as we do, rather than playing at, like, say, Saudi Arabia...

And one which is NOT a member of OPEC makes for a more secure toehold in the area, IMO.

[fatfencer]

No place acceptable to them.

You know, they are not children or slaves, to be sent wherever their "betters" decide to put them. They have a say in the matter...just as you have a say in not being sent off to Korea.

The history of American and British Colonialism, Gunboat Diplomacy,etc. prima facie DENIES the validity of the above statement, especially considering tumultuous events in the region.(I say nothing of the success of said ventures)

Sometimes, perhaps of all times, perhaps just this one time out of all the times its been attempted, its ethically VALID to make decisions for the betterment of the world when the aggrieved partIES(not just the jews), cannot make sound, reasonable, ethical decisions for themselves. 50 plus years of warring isnt the same as reason.

Fatfencer

[jeff]

50-plus years of warring? You mean unlike Korea, where the parties are still technically at war since 1950? Duh.

The USA employed 480,000 soldiers to save S. Korea's ass (total of over 1 million UN forces), and over 36,000 US soldiers died, 92,000 wounded, 15,000 missing or POW. That means that you're permanently not eligible to point a finger and say that the US is expending too much blood or treasure to help keep another country alive, especially a case like Israel where we didn't have to send in our soldiers to die to protect them.

[fatfencer]

50-plus years of warring? You mean unlike Korea, where the parties are still technically at war since 1950? Duh.

The USA employed 480,000 soldiers to save S. Korea's ass (total of over 1 million UN forces), and over 36,000 US soldiers died, 92,000 wounded, 15,000 missing or POW. That means that you're permanently not eligible to point a finger and say that the US is expending too much blood or treasure to help keep another country alive, especially a case like Israel where we didn't have to send in our soldiers to die to protect them.

Dude, I think theres a reason youre no longer a practicing MA-ist. We have a prohibition on the stupid.

Korea still at war??? 'Technically' is right... at best. They(not 'we' since I am a citizen here) have hardly fired a round SINCE 1950.

Meanwhile israel and the arabs... its a daily occurence. At least weekly. Why cant you accept that these two ****s can't play in the same sandbox.

Meanwhile there is a dichotomy between the N Korean Govt(nutjobs) and the people who largely want to join the South. The people really have no conflict.

Although I have no doubt the US expended a great deal, it was a finite occurence. We've been giving the jews billions for a lot longer than 5 years. Moreover, the US would NOT have intervened if there hadn't been such incredibly powerful evidence that Korea is truly a strategic necessity for our own sovereignty as well as a full court press against Communism. the arabs and jews conflict is a virus spreading across our news headlines now for the last 50odd years...to think it stems from Ishmael-times... sheesh!

Meanwhile, theres far less evidence that Israel is such a strategic necessity else we WOULD have a PERMANENT base there.

The comparison between Korea(essentially finite) and Israel is grapes and rockstars, that is to say, incomparable.

Jeff, your post needs a Viagra. Your reason is sagging.

FF

[Philistine]

{snip}Korea still at war??? 'Technically' is right... at best. They(not 'we' since I am a citizen here) have hardly fired a round SINCE 1950.
{snip}

Not to get drawn in to the rest of your post (or this thread)--the Korean DMZ has been quite hot over the years.

Here is a list of serious DMZ incidents from 1967 through 2001. Just in that time period, there have been over 60 deaths in action of US personnel. About 100 or so wounded in action (also just the US personnel).

I'm not sure that really qualifies as "hardly fired a round."

--Philistine

[pigeonmeister]

How much oil do we get from Israel? I wasn't aware that it was much if any at all. I am fascinated by all of the references that the US supports Israel for oil. Wouldn't the US oil industry be better served if the US were anti-Israel?

As Chomsky points out, the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely at the time when Israel performed a major service to US-Saudi Energy corportations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs and reduce the influence of foreign oil corporations.

Before anyone shouts that Chomsky is a raving Lefty, and yes he is, he made this point to critique the notion, put forward in the provocative work of Mearsheimer and Walt, that basically US foreign policy in the Middle East has been subverted by the Israel lobby.

I suspect their analysis, which is useful only in noting the unique nature of the US aid to Israel*, would appeal to Fatfencer. You can read it here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

*Despite having a per capita income equivalent of Spain or S Korea, each year America gives the equivalent of $500 to every Israeli.

Uniquely...

Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it.

Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry.

It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent
which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank

"Backing Israel was not cheap.... For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region"

Mearsheimer and Walt (profs at Chicago and Harvard) are quite wrong, however, to suggest that the Israel lobby are responsible for sabotaging US relations with Iran and Syria and are a major factor in preventing a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Support for Israel is not, equally, the only reason for jihadists targetting America.

But don't get me wrong, it's a disproportionately powerful lobby whose activities are closely linked with hard line Likudists. In general, I don't think it, although it is not a rigidly unified movement, has had a particularly positive effect on US interests.

It is certainly a part of the reason, but obviously nothing like the only reason, America supports Israel to such astounding lengths.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

50-plus years of warring? You mean unlike Korea, where the parties are still technically at war since 1950? Duh.

The USA employed 480,000 soldiers to save S. Korea's ass (total of over 1 million UN forces), and over 36,000 US soldiers died, 92,000 wounded, 15,000 missing or POW. That means that you're permanently not eligible to point a finger and say that the US is expending too much blood or treasure to help keep another country alive, especially a case like Israel where we didn't have to send in our soldiers to die to protect them.

A few problems/limitations with this way of reasoning:

1. It is useless as an answer to the great majority of americans who are not of korean ancestry.
2. it is in the great majority of cases futile to order people to stop saying stuff, unless you have a legal stick to back your ordering up with. Jeff - think about yourself! When was the latest time anyone ordered you to shut up, and you actually followed orders? (Not counting cases where it was a boss/parent/cop/etc)
3. Even if you could establish a shut-up rule and enforce it, it would be a dangerous precedent to set. What if the shoe were on the other foot? How about if you were to go to someplace like Oklahoma, and the local pols had a similar rule for people of your political persuasion?
4. A lot of people evaluate everything based on only what it does for them, and their immediate surroundings. That is a given, and there is nothing you can do about it. What you can do, however, it to relate to such people. You can vilify them, ignore them, or maybe try to get some of them to vote your way by pointing out their self-interest in your preferred policy. The 2 first choices with get you no new votes. The 3rd might, but then you must have a reasonable answer to the question posed by this person. The question is - in this USA/jew context - like this:

Voter: Mr Jeff, I understand that you want the USA to support Israel. I do not agree, all countries - including Israel - outside of USA can go to hell as far as I am concerned. I only bother thinking about foreign countries in regard to how - if at all - they affect matters inside USA. I am however willing to flip away bucks to support some foreigner over someone else, if on balance that seems to give the best pro/con outcome for us inside USA. If, on the other hand, USA has supported A over B I have no qualms whatsover to switch that around, if the switch would give a better deal for us. Remember that I do not give a damn about the population in A or B, so that does not enter into the calculation for me. However, it seems as if the continental Europeans have picked the most advantageous team in the middle east - they seems to have less political headaches there, and spend less on military stuff. Personally, it does not matter to me - I have no acquaintances of either jewish or muslim descent.

However, if you can present a case that USA from a purely self-interested poin of view is better served by supporting Israel over its enemies instead of the other way around, or simply disengaging from the matter entirely - then I am open to suggestions. Do remeber, that I am only open to reasons based on self-interest.

Jeff: ?

So there, Jeff. I have expressed an hypothetical voter´s thoughts in words - as they would come out if he is as detailed/tedious as I am. (Think of me as a speechwriter of sorts.) You will have to come up with something more substantial than a question mark to convince that guy. You can of course choose to ignore him or vilify him. However, those politicians in large parts of the World outside of USA who agree with you do not have that luxury. You can hope/count on that such voters will be drowned out by jewish voters/religious voters/whatever, but that is simply not the case in other places. Where I live, the religious vote is a fringe movement, and the local arabs outnumber local jews by something like 50 to 1. Think of yourself as a speechwriter to the politician over here who shares your views, but also wants to survive the next election.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[pigeonmeister]

But, we didn't do it based on a calculation of what was in it for us, even more obviously than we didn't do it in Nam. We did it because of global political policies, rather than self interest. We had no economic interest in S. Korea. The global fight against Communism, and today's Middle Eastern conflicts are why we were and are involved.

I too am slightly puzzled by where the S Korea analogy has come from- other than you are reading a book on it. But anyway...

I am interested in why you think global political policies are/were divorced from 'self interest'? Was the global policy of containment not designed to support/defend US economic, political and military interests?

The fact that there was no direct US economic interest in S Korea does not eliminate the motivation of self interest. The doctrine of containment was based on the premise that if the US didn't demonstrate its resolve to check (what they then believed to be a monolithic) communist threat then it would eventually spead to areas of indisputable economic, strategic and military interest.

Furthermore, you are obviously aware of the political climate of the War. In 1949 China had gone communist and Moscow had got the bomb, the atmosphere that McCarthy would brilliantly exploit was firmly established. Truman realised that, after China going on his watch, he would have died politically if he had not sent troops to Korea. It was clearly a decision made in his own poltical 'self interest'. Ironically, the war killed him politically anyway.

Even JFK and LBJ realised that losing China had crippled the Truman admin and helped to provoke MCarthyism. LBJ felt if S Vietnam went communist, his administration, and the important domestic reforms that was his priority, would be derailed. He escalated to end the war quickly and get on with his agenda.

In sum: it's almost always self interest (and always during the Cold War and in the Middle East)

[jeff]

Peter, you miss the point.

I'm not making a comment for the average voter, but to fatfencer, who is merely trolling. Look at his comical suggestions ("send them all to Wyoming!") his recycling of racist stereotypes (which he disingenuously says he means as a compliment), and his Shift-key disrespect problem - all of which show he's just here to provoke angry responses (he doesn't make me angry; I'd have to take him much more seriously to be angry at him).

So, I'm just tweaking fatfencer's nose (which obviously scored) in a way that is appropriate to his silly comments. For somebody to complain that Israel gets "too much" when his national origin is a country that exists only because tens of thousands of Americans died, and only continues to exist because Americans are still there - well, that deserves a razzing. As long as US only sends money to Israel, it will be S. Korea that "got more from the US". There hasn't been open war because US troops are still there, and N. Korea's strategy is extortion instead of invading and retaking Seoul and getting open war with us again. You can't meaningfully tell a troll to "shut up" any more than you can expect them to show embarrassment for being a troll.

(Serious discussion of whether Israel should be supported by the US in the way it is legitemate, but that's not what this thread is about. Funny how it's only Israel that gets that degree of scrutiny, or how only its right to exist ever gets challenged, or its abuses put under the spotlight when worse goes on elsewhere around the world with impunity)

[jeff]

I too am slightly puzzled by where the S Korea analogy has come from- other than you are reading a book on it. But anyway...

Don't read more into it than necessary. fatfencer says Israel gets too much help from the US, and it's just a big fat target to point out that the person *****ing about this is from a country that only exists (to this very day) because the US was willing to have thousands of its citizens die there, and still has troops that would be under fire if open war was to break out again. For him to whine that somebody else is getting too much from the US is just a joke. Take it at that level.

Regarding "self interest" - no doubt self interest was part of the US policy of containing Communism, but that's only part. It was clearly seen by US government that they had a mission - whether they liked it or not - to push back against global Communism. Not just for our interests (all countries have foreign policies that are intended to further their own interests), but for the entire world. It was a responsibility, not a way of keeping our markets open.

It's a few years later, but it wouldn't hurt to review JFK's inaugural address statement "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." That should be taken seriously, not just as rhetoric. It's unfashionable to remember this, especially in left circles, but that was a mission that the US took seriously, and sometimes against our own interests, and it's a good thing too. If it were only about US self-interest, there are quite a few countries that would no longer exist...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Peter, you miss the point.

Maybe I did, but I would have liked a few more emoticons in order to discern that you were not responding to FF with anger, rather than derision.

Anyway, I was making my own point. I posited a voter who is not average, this hypothetical voter is quite self-interested, and more brazen than most about it. I made him so brazen so as to be a limes case; ordinary finery would not work with this guy.

Please do indulge me, what would be your response would you have been the politician in the position that I hypothetically put you in? Real-life politicians with your opinions wrt Israel could use any help!

I'm not making a comment for the average voter, but to fatfencer, who is merely trolling.
SNIP
So, I'm just tweaking fatfencer's nose (which obviously scored) in a way that is appropriate to his silly comments.
SNIP
You can't meaningfully tell a troll to "shut up" any more than you can expect them to show embarrassment for being a troll.

What, pray tell, do you then get out of this whole exercise? Could it be so that you have someone similar to FF in a position of authority over you IRL, and that you - since you can not take it out on that one - want to get even by razzing FF? I have no idea if that is true, but at least it would make psyhcological sense.

(Serious discussion of whether Israel should be supported by the US in the way it is legitemate, but that's not what this thread is about. Funny how it's only Israel that gets that degree of scrutiny, or how only its right to exist ever gets challenged, or its abuses put under the spotlight when worse goes on elsewhere around the world with impunity)

On the abuses part: Yes, worse things go on in several other countries. However, it is the combination that I think gets Israel under the spotlight. No other country that I can think of offhand has both a significant amount of US. aid, and a significant amount of abuse reported from it. There may be som country which beats or equals Israel on at least one score, but then you will have to give an example.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[fatfencer]

Don't read more into it than necessary. fatfencer says Israel gets too much help from the US, and it's just a big fat target to point out that the person *****ing about this is from a country that only exists (to this very day) because the US was willing to have thousands of its citizens die there, and still has troops that would be under fire if open war was to break out again. For him to whine that somebody else is getting too much from the US is just a joke. Take it at that level.

First of all, Korea, one way or another has existed for over 5000 years. Asians generally are the patient sort. Whether its the Chinese weathering Communism until it lost its grip, or the Japanese reinventing themselves into a financial superpower, we know how to weather the storm.

Yes its clear that the present Korea exists as it does because of US intervention. That I do not question. What I question is simple: why do we support israel? We dont need them. We never really have needed them. They exist SOLELY due to Britain and the US artificially creating them. I don't question that the US helped Korea. There was a valid reason and there still is today.

Jeff, I laugh everytime you post. You think I'm defending Korea. You think that perhaps I'm wounded when you attempt to insult them. Sadly, no. I've known too many Koreans. Truth is I really despise them for many reasons. There are a few reasons I like them but on the whole. Not really. Every Korean I know is a money-grubbing Ferengi; the stereotype of jews being usurers, moneyhoarders and letter-of-the-law Shylocks'...well the Koreans are several orders of magnitude worse. We are. I can say it. And guilt? jews and Catholics are complete amateurs!!!

Regarding "self interest" - no doubt self interest was part of the US policy of containing Communism, but that's only part. It was clearly seen by US government that they had a mission - whether they liked it or not - to push back against global Communism. Not just for our interests (all countries have foreign policies that are intended to further their own interests), but for the entire world. It was a responsibility, not a way of keeping our markets open.

Fair enough, except almost none of the above applies to the jews in israel.Actually, NONE of it. SO why do we support Israel again? Oh...

It's a few years later, but it wouldn't hurt to review JFK's inaugural address statement "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Just because the Jewish Lobby exists and is successful at its craft doesnt make Israel our friend. In fact, an argument can be successfully made that they, despite their bought and paid for friendship, are a supremely useless liability. The jews are the Phillip Morris of politics(in terms of their success at marketing)


Cigarette anyone?

FF

PS; Phillistine. Wow, good stuff on the stats. Still that translates roughly to 3 US personnel dead per year. Though tragic it PALES by comparison to the number of dead per year during the jews-vs muslims conflict. I will grant you Im a bit surprised that theres really much happenign at all at the DMZ.

[jeff]

Please do indulge me, what would be your response would you have been the politician in the position that I hypothetically put you in? Real-life politicians with your opinions wrt Israel could use any help!

I can't easily think of any foreign policy I could successfully advocate with someone who was exclusively focused on self-interest (other than rapacious colonialism like Europe practiced when it had the capability to do so). Self-interest would have had us go with the Axis in 1940.

That's not how foreign policy works, or we would have abandoned Europe in the last century several times. We had lots of people who wanted to do exactly that, but that's not what carried the day.

What, pray tell, do you then get out of this whole exercise? Could it be so that you have someone similar to FF in a position of authority over you IRL, and that you - since you can not take it out on that one - want to get even by razzing FF? I have no idea if that is true, but at least it would make psyhcological sense.

It's a bad habit. I'll try to stop. Arguing with trolls is by definition wasted time, though part of me dislikes letting trolls freely spew nonsense. Part of me thinks there's a civic duty to refute nonsense, even from cartoonish ("it's okay for me to say racist bs because I say worse things about my own group") trolls

No, there is nobody in a position of authority over me IRL causing me to have pent up inability to talk back. Arguing with fools is a shallow pastime I should drop. I enjoy arguing too much, but it's a bad habit.

On the abuses part: Yes, worse things go on in several other countries. However, it is the combination that I think gets Israel under the spotlight. No other country that I can think of offhand has both a significant amount of US. aid, and a significant amount of abuse reported from it. There may be som country which beats or equals Israel on at least one score, but then you will have to give an example.

Your question is wrong. In this board we've seen lots of focus on Israel without the aspect of its US funding. It gets disproportionate disapproval regardless. I think that bias is a big part of that. Otherwise there would be a lot more focus on the Congo, Darfur (the Arab League has no problem about hundreds of thousands of murdered Muslims there), Liberia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Russia, etc. If you think that Israel makes the top rankings of abusive behavior then I will have to strongly disagree. It is obvious to me that it gets abused in a way that is disproportionate to its behavior.

If the same standards had applied, people would have asked 60 years ago why we saved western Europe, considering that Allied countries, even "plucky Belgium", had enslaved millions of people in Asia and Africa. And what was in it for us, anyway?

[fatfencer]

[QUOTE=jeff;779831]

It's a bad habit. I'll try to stop. Arguing with trolls is by definition wasted time, though part of me dislikes letting trolls freely spew nonsense. Part of me thinks there's a civic duty to refute nonsense, even from cartoonish ("it's okay for me to say racist bs because I say worse things about my own group") trolls
No, there is nobody in a position of authority over me IRL causing me to have pent up inability to talk back. Arguing with fools is a shallow pastime I should drop. I enjoy arguing too much, but it's a bad habit.

OH this is rich. Truth is you dont spend much time dealing with Koreans... certainly no where near the time I do. Being dismissive of racial stereotypes makes them no less true...do I sense white guilt disguised as being 'cosmopolitan'/PC? Oh and the troll thing. pleeeez. Remember, stereotypes exist largely BECAUSE they are true. Sometimes painful. But largely true. Besides, over the years you should know that I say what I mean and mean what I say...I always thought trolling was more an annoying 'begging the question', devils advocate kinda thing.

If the same standards had applied, people would have asked 60 years ago why we saved western Europe, considering that Allied countries, even "plucky Belgium", had enslaved millions of people in Asia and Africa. And what was in it for us, anyway?

We saved Western Europe because it was being attacked by a group that would have attacked us when the time came. Nazism was a contagion, not only because they scapegoated the jews and tortured them. But because they killed lots of people indiscriminately and marched over MANY sovereign borders like they were nothing.

Moreover, they were allies with Japan (Pearl Harbor).

Are those enough reasons for you Jeff? Surely even a pro-jew crew member like yourself sees that the reasons above far outweigh what you've said on this thread so far? Remember, I'm not anti-jew, just anti giving rich people more money...even if their grandparents went thru hard times.

Still not capitalizing jew cuz it makes Jeff/Hauptman mad,

Fatfencer

PS: Jeff, is 'deutschbach' Yiddish for douchebag? I dunno.....(ok so that was trolling....)