I am aware of the history and the "British Mandate of Palestine". I am also aware that the U.S. put its share of pressure on the British to do what they did.
Abigail, I am unaware of any huge U.S. pressure put on Britain to create the state of Israel. Please feel free to post facts that support your conclusion.
Excerpted from Wikipedia about "British Mandate of Palestine":
British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire's South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century, concurrent with the Great Game and planning for the Suez Canal. As early as 1840, Viscount Palmerston (later to become Prime Minister) wrote:
"There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine. It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth that they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan's dominions, and the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Egypt or its neighbours. I wish to instruct your Excellency strongly to recommend to the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine."[1]Before the end of World War I, Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The British, under General Allenby during the Arab Revolt stirred up by the British intelligence officer T. E. Lawrence, defeated the Turkish forces in 1917 and occupied Palestine and Syria. The land was administered by the British for the remainder of the war. The British military administration ended starvation with the aid of food supplies from Egypt, successfully fought typhus and cholera epidemics and significantly improved the water supply to Jerusalem. They reduced corruption by paying the Arab and Jewish judges higher salaries. Communications were improved by new railway and telegraph lines.
The United Kingdom was granted control of Palestine by the Versailles Peace Conference which established the League of Nations in 1919 and appointed Herbert Samuel, a former Postmaster General in the British cabinet, who was instrumental in drafting the Balfour Declaration, as its first High Commissioner in Palestine. During World War I the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British and Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.
The British had, in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, previously promised the Hashemite family lordship over most land in the region in return for their support in the Great Arab Revolt during World War I. In 1920 at the Conference of San Remo, Italy, the League of Nations mandate over Palestine was assigned to Britain. This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan. The majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census [2] and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs.
In June 1922 the League of Nations passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", and "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
The document defining Britain's obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Many articles of the document specified actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status. However, it was also stated that in the large, mostly arid, territory to the east of the Jordan River, then called Transjordan, Britain could 'postpone or withhold' application of the provisions dealing with the 'Jewish National Home'. At the Cairo Conference of 1921 a government under the Hashimite Emir Abdullah who had just been displaced from ruling the Hejaz was established in 'Transjordan'. In September 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved on 11 September. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine (which was 23% of the entire territory), and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan (constituting 77% of the mandated territories). Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transjordan remained under British control until 1946.
In 1923 Britain transferred a part of the Golan Heights to the French Mandate of Syria, in exchange for the Metula region.
[edit]
Palestinian Arab opposition to Jewish immigration
Kibbutz Degania Alef, during the 1930sDuring the 1920s, 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine, and 6,000 non-Jewish immigrants did so as well. Jewish immigration was controlled by the Histadrut, which selected between applicants on the grounds of their political creed. Land purchased by Jewish agencies was leased on the conditions that it be worked only by Jewish labour and that the lease should not be held by non-Jews.
Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab resentment.
There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population. In some cases, land purchases by the Jewish agencies from absentee landlords led to the eviction of the Palestinian Arab tenants, who were replaced by the Jews of the kibbutzim. The Arabic speakers before World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. When Jews, who grew up with European laws, purchased land they did not always realise that the villagers on that land owned the trees. This was often a source of misunderstanding and conflict. The olive tree is particularly important as it can remain productive for more than one thousand years.
The British government placed limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. These quotas were controversial, particularly in the latter years of British rule, and both Arabs and Jews disliked the policy, each side for its own reasons. In response to numerous Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, was formed on June 15, 1920. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1921, 1929 (primarily violent attacks by Arabs on Jews — see Hebron) and 1936-1939. Beginning in 1936, several Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted their own campaigns of violence against British and Arab targets. This prompted the British government to label them both as terrorist organizations.
[edit]
Great Uprising
Main article: Great Uprising
In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed a partition between Jewish and Arab areas that was rejected by both the Arabs and the Zionist Congress.
In 1936-1939 the mandate experienced an upsurge in militant Arab nationalism that became known as the Great Uprising and, "The Arab Revolt." The revolt was triggered by increased Jewish immigration, primarily Jews that were ejected by the Nazi regime in Germany as well as rising anti-Semitism throughout Europe. The revolt was led or co-opted by the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini and his Husseini family. The Arabs felt they were being marginalized in their own country, but in addition to non-violent strikes, they resorted to violence. Husseini's men killed more Arabs than Jews, using the revolt as an excuse to settle accounts with rival clans. The Jewish organization Etzel replied with its own terrorist campaign, with marketplace bombings and other violent acts that also killed hundreds. Eventually, the uprising was put down by the British using severe measures. After he was implicated in killing the British district commissioner for the Galilee, Haj Amin El Husseini fled first to Lebanon, then to Iraq, and finally to Germany in late 1941.
The British placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in the remaining land, directly contradicting the provision of the Mandate which said "the Administration of Palestine... shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes." A similar proposal to limit immigration in 1931 had been termed a violation of the mandate by the League of Nations, but by 1939 the League of Nations was defunct. According to the Israeli side, the British had by 1949 allotted over 8500 acres (34 km²) to Arabs, and about 4100 acres (16 km²) to Jews.
[edit]
World War II and the Nazi Holocaust
As in most of the Arab world, there was no unanimity amongst the Palestinian Arabs as to their position regarding the combatants in WWII. Many signed up for the British army, but others saw an Axis victory as likely outcome and way of wresting Palestine back from the Zionists and the British. Some of the leadership went further, especially the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini (who had by then escaped to Iraq), who on November 25, 1941, formally declared jihad against the Allied Powers and spent much time thereafter in what was then Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia, recruiting Bosnia's Muslims and Kosovo's ethnic Albanians into Nazi SS-run volunteer units. About 20,000 Bosnian Muslims served in the 13th Armed SS Mountain Division "Handzhar" and several thousand in the 23rd Armed SS Mountain Division "Kama". [3].
Even though Arabs were only marginally higher than Jews in Nazi racial theory, the Nazis naturally encouraged Arab support as much as possible as a counter to British hegemony throughout the Arab world.[4]
Arabs who opposed the persecution of the Jews at the hand of the Nazis included Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia and Egyptian intellectuals such as Tawfiq al-Hakim and Abbas Mahmoud al-Arkad. (Source: Yad Vashem). The mandate recruited soldiers in Palestine. About 6,000 Palestinian Arabs joined the British forces and about 26,000 Jews.
In World War II, Italy, which in 1940 declared war on the United Kingdom on Germany's side, attacked Palestine from the air. In 1942 there was a period of anxiety for the Yishuv, when the German forces of general Erwin Rommel advanced east in North Africa towards the Suez Canal and there was fear that they would conquer Palestine. This period was referred to as the two hundred days of anxiety.
The Holocaust had a major effect on the situation in Palestine. During the war, the British forbade entry into Palestine of European Jews escaping Nazi persecution, placing them in detention camps or deporting them to places such as Mauritius. Avraham Stern, the leader of the Jewish Lehi terrorist gang, whose will to fight the British was so strong he offered to fight on the Nazi side, and other Zionists, tried to convince the Nazis to continue seeing emigration from Europe as the "solution" for their "Jewish problem", but the Nazis gradually abandoned this idea in favor of containment and physical extermination.
Starting in 1939, the Zionists organized an illegal immigration effort, known as Aliya Beth, conducted by "Hamossad Le'aliyah Bet", that rescued tens of thousands of European Jews from the Nazis by shipping them to Palestine in rickety boats. Many of these boats were intercepted. The last immigrant boat to try to enter Palestine during the war was the Struma, torpedoed in the Black Sea by a Soviet submarine in February 1942. The boat sank with the loss of nearly 800 lives. Illegal immigration resumed after WW II.
Eliyahu Hakim and Eliyahu Bet Zuri, members of the Jewish Lehi underground, assassinated Lord Moyne in Cairo on 6 November 1944. Moyne was the British Minister of State for the Middle East. The assassination is said to have turned British Prime Minister Winston Churchill against the Zionist cause. Fighting Jewish terrorists on one hand and the Germans in North Africa on the other did not endear the British to the Jews in Palestine at this critical stage of the war.
The British considered it more important to get Arab backing, because of their important interests in Egypt and other Arab lands, and especially to guarantee the friendship of oil-rich Saudi Arabia, and therefore continued the ban on immigration.
During the war, the moderate Haganah underground helped the British to ferret out Irgun and Lehi members whom they felt were hurting the war effort against the Nazis.
Following the war, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the British refused to lift the ban on immigration and admit 100,000 displaced persons to Palestine. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several attacks against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.
Seeing that the situation was quickly spiraling out of hand, the British announced their desire to terminate their mandate and to withdraw by May 1947.
As we see from the last two paragraphs, if the U.S. did exert some pressure, i.e Truman, it didn't do much good.
Instead it appears it was the Jewish underground terrorist forces who carried out several attacks against the British, that caused them to change direction.
Rather, I'd invite all Jews here (did somebody mention the State of Texas? ) so we can save huge amounts of money and lives."
I do not believe that is a feasable or even reasonable solution. 1) Given the history of persecution COMBINED with the continued efforts of anti-semites, I think it would be damned foolish to put all of the Jews in one place. In other words, I believe our traditions/beliefs have a better chance of survival if we are spread out around the world. 2) I think you would be hard pressed to convince all of the Jews to move to any one location, as many are perfectly happy where they are. 3) As I believe we created the mess in Iraq and are therefore obligated to see the mess through to a conclusion, so I believe we played a substantial role in creating the mess in Israel/Palestine and are therefore morally obligated to play a role in the solution.
Well, here's my solution: if we (U.S.) earmarked that $3-4 billion of loot we routinely send to Israel every year, using it instead for Jewish folks who wanted to to emigrate to the U.S.... think of how well that would be accepted around the world, especially the Arab/middle eastern world. We would finally put an end to years and years of criticism that we devils are supportive of Zionism, and instead live in relative peace with the muslim world.
As regards to your solution, what would that then do to the biblical prophecy about Jesus coming back to the Isreal area? If all of the Jewish people move here, and there is nothing but Muslims staying in Jerusalem and the land of Isreal, ... how does that all fit in with all the stuff that the book of Revelation talks about?
Kinda breaks it, doncha think? :unsure:
(I ask all this cause I know that it's the theology or like the theology that you believe in. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong here.)
Oldies - you left out the "rest of the story" - also from wikipedia -
"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Israel, requiring the inhabitants of Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
Thus members and representatives of the Jews of Palestine and of the Zionist movement upon the end of the British Mandate, by virtue of "natural and historic right" and based on the United Nations resolution:
... Hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel to be known as the State of Israel.
"The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel was publicly read in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight. It was drafted during the preceding months, and the final version was a result of a compromise between the various parts of the Israeli public of that time. On May 14, 1948, the Vaad Leumi (Jewish National Council) gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, and approved the proclamation."
When the British said they wanted to terminate the mandate - they were not doing so in support of a Jewish State - they simply wanted the U.N. to take responsibility/control of Palenstine and figure out what to do regarding the Jewish Refugees and the pressue to create a Jewish state vs. the Palenstinian objection to it. However, the U.N. was never able to negotiate a peaceful compromise with all parties. Instead, the Jews drew up their own declaration creating Israel as a Jewish state.
Now, our government, as well as the British, and/or any other of the major players of the day could have decided NOT to recognize Israel, but instead this is what happened. . . .
"The new state and its government was recognized de facto minutes later by the United States and three days later de jure by the Soviet Union (Stalin thought a communist or communist-oriented Jewish state could be a useful "thorn in the back" to his capitalist rivals in the Middle East).
It was however opposed by many others, particularly Arabs (both the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs) who noticed it was being established at their expense."
On Truman . . . .
"Truman, who had been a supporter of the Zionist movement as early as 1939, was a key figure in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In 1946, an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry recommended the gradual establishment of two states in Palestine, with neither Jews nor Arabs dominating. However, there was little public support for the two-state proposal, and Britain was under pressure to withdraw from Palestine quickly due to attacks on British forces by armed Zionist groups. At the urging of the British, a special U.N. committee recommended the immediate partitioning of Palestine into two states, and with Truman's support, it was approved by the General Assembly in 1947. The British announced that they would leave Palestine by May 15, 1948, and the Arab League Council nations began moving troops to Palestine's borders. There was significant disagreement between Truman and the State Department about how to handle the situation, and meanwhile, tensions were rising between the U.S. and Soviet Union. In the end, Truman, amid controversy both at home and abroad, recognized the State of Israel 11 minutes after it declared itself a nation"
I would recommend the link below if you are interested in more information on the U.S. history regarding Jews and Israel - you will see that the U.S. has supported the notion for a Jewish Israel dating all the way back to John Adams. So yes, given the above - I do believe the U.S. played a large role in the events that have lead to the situation as it is today.
Mo, I think you may be making some inexact assumptions here.
For example, Paul was born in Tarsus to Hebrew parents of the tribe of Benjamin. Tarsus is in what is now known as modern Turkey. However, Turkey did not exist as a country in Paul's time. The ethnic people of Turkey today are not necessarily the same as those who live there in the times of Paul. And like today's Turkey, the residents of ancient Tarsus consisted of various groups of diverse "racial" makeup. During Paul's time, Tarsus was an autonomous Roman city populated by , Greeks, Romans, Jews and other ethnic groups.
By race/ethnicity Paul was Jewish. Not Turkish.
Likewise, because Aquila was found at Rome on one occasion, does not necessarily mean he was "Italian"
All valid points--but the Bible really doesn't say which is true--we both may be equally right, or partially right -so I'm willing to declare a draw :)
Abigail,
The United States voted For the creation of Israel, as did all the commonwealth nations, except Great Britain after the question was put to the UN. It came to the UN because of decades of mismanagement, and broken promises both to the Jews and to the Arabs by the British. The British government was equally concerned with securing the economic advancements the Jews brought to the area through their land reclamation projects etc and the use of the Arabs as spies and mercenaries in the war against Rommel. First the Jews were promised a homeland, then the British did a double face with the "White Paper". In short the mess was already a mess when it got to the UN --the question before the UN was "what to do about the thousands of Jews who were already there, Deport them?? --To Where??
the only logical step - give them a homeland with set boundaries.
The resulting fighting and carnage is a result of The Palestinians and the Israelis making choices for the actions. The United states doesn't send emissaries every morning to put guns in these peoples hands and declare- Fighting starts in 10 minutes
At the urging of the British, a special U.N. committee recommended the immediate partitioning of Palestine into two states, and with Truman's support, it was approved by the General Assembly in 1947
That part is often forgotten, as well as the fact that after the war immediately following israeli independence, Jordan occupied "the West Bank" until Israel took it over (I forget if it was 1967 or 1973)
Here is a website you might find very informative, with regard to the Israel/Palestine issue. It has maps and is easy to understand. I will post some excerts from it below:
" Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I"
"the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews! "
"In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan "
"Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. "
"The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River."
"On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well."
"When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."
"The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine"
I will only add that the U.S. has supported the notion of Israel and a "homeland" for the Jews from the beginning, for political and religious reasons.
Garth instead of resorting to personal attacks, why not try to make an intellectual response to the information What the Hey is sharing with us...
Because a. it is not worthy of an intellectual response, and b. an intellectual response was provided and ignored. Let's be real, here:
The Ashkenazi Jews for the most part share a genetic link with other Jews, proving the very common background ck claimed would not be found.
Somewhere between five and six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.
Many were gassed.
And it was a coordinated campaign to exterminate Jews.
This is indisputable history, not some idea the Jews made up to gain sympathy from the world (fat lot of good that did them, anyway: much of the world still hates them). We've documented this, and anyone who cares to do the slightest research on this, real research, will see it because it is so well-documented.
So the people who believe in documented history are now the "detractors" who "smear," according to WTH, and you demand OTHERS provide an intellectual reply? Here's an intellectual reply: If this thread were the only posts I'd ever seen from CK and WTH, I would be forced to conclude that they are among the stupidest people on the face of God's green earth.
Tom, I don't know if your question was just rhetorical, but I'll respond anyway. I believe the heart of the controversy lies not in whether Jews and others died a horrible death, of course they did and Nazi's are still responsible for that and are still racist and all .... but, whether or not it was an intentional, systematic, planned, event by Hitler and Co. This is the heart of the controversy and some folks want to dispute that...
Butz disputes the usual understanding of what the Final Solution was, when he writes from his book:
Oldies, lean real close to the monitor for this one:
It was an intentional, systematic, planned, event by Hitler and Co.
"The resulting fighting and carnage is a result of The Palestinians and the Israelis making choices for the actions. The United states doesn't send emissaries every morning to put guns in these peoples hands and declare- Fighting starts in 10 minutes"
Mo, I am not sure what your point is here. In reality, the U.S. puts guns in the hands of many people in many countries, because we make a profit by doing so.
In either case, the U.S. was supportive of the events that took place which lead to the current situation. Am I saying it is entirely the fault of the U.S.? Heck no! I am simply saying we played a part.
I would add, as a Jew, that a part of me understands and supports the notion of a homeland and the reasoning behind why Israel should be it. On the other hand - as I said previously, I think it would be foolish for all Jews to live in one land, given the amount of hate so many have for us. Additionally, given the history between the Jews and the Muslims, it was foolish to make a homeland that was surrounded by them. Perhaps, not so very different than trying to give the Jews a homeland right in the middle of natzi germany.
I would end by saying I am aware that there are some generalizations in this post with regard to Jews and Muslims. I realize that not all Jews and Muslims are at odds with each other and I have had a number of Muslim friends over the course of my lifetime. I am simply trying to speak to the larger issue of how things have gone in the 'political arena'
Mo, I am not sure what your point is here. In reality, the U.S. puts guns in the hands of many people in many countries, because we make a profit by doing so.
What has been profitable about U.S. decades-long support for Israel? Really.
Or perhaps a better question maybe would be ... are there any policies we may apply right now that would be more profitable to the U.S., than our current policy?
I see U.S. support for Israel and Zionism as a net loss for our country, especially when you factor in the possible Iraq-war connection, started in 1991 and continuing to this day, with no end in sight. To me this is a HUGE issue. Next up: IRAN...
If we were to wash our hands of Israel today, what do you think would happen? My guess is that there would be war and given the current climate - it is quite possible the Jews in Israel would be wiped out. Is that okay with you? Does it matter to you one way or another?
As a country - should we always act only in our own best interest? Or are there other things that should be taking into consideration, and if so what?
Also, what message would it send to the terrorists if we walked away from Israel today? Do you really think it would endear us to them or simply confirm for them that their acts of terrorism work.
Do you think the all our problems with the Middle East are based only upon our support of Israel? Is it not possible there is more to it than that? And if there is more to it than that, what do you see as the additional problems?
"Or perhaps a better question maybe would be ... are there any policies we may apply right now that would be more profitable to the U.S., than our current policy?"
I am certain there are. I'm assuming you want this strictly limited to our dealings with Israel and not policies in general... :D
I think we could start by taking a look at what Jimmy Carter has done in the past. I am not saying he was succesful - but I think the idea of getting the leaders from all parties in one room and telling them they can't leave until they agree on a compromise would be a good start.
I also think we need to involve Jordan and some of the other neighboring countries, as they have much at stake to. Why is it that Jordan didn't want the Palestinian refugees? Afterall, they were of the same nation at one time. In truth - I think there is little the U.S. can do, beyond offering political support. True peace will only come when either 1) the Jews are wiped off the face of the middle east or 2) Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia put pressure on the Palestinians to further peace, offer refuge to those who need it, and put forth their own serious efforts to end terrorism.
Of course we won't put political pressure on our oil suppliers - see money makes the world go round regardless of what is "right" or moral. And therein lies the real problems - money, money, money. Same with Iraq - you can blame the war in Iraq on Israel - but I'd say it has far more to do with that precious oil.
In fact, I'd dare say if we were not dependant on oil from the middle east, our policies there would be vastly different.
Why is it that Bush has not supported the notion of a security fence? Bush does not want Israel to go after the Hamas leaders - who are terrorists - yet Bush himself has declared war on terrorism. Huh?
Which policies specifically would you like to discuss. OM?
If we were to wash our hands of Israel today, what do you think would happen? My guess is that there would be war and given the current climate - it is quite possible the Jews in Israel would be wiped out. Is that okay with you? Does it matter to you one way or another?
I already presented my solution in a previous post: allocate the current $3-4 billions we send over there using it instead for repatration of Jews and others to come here and be Americans.
Get U.S. out of this perpetual support of Zionism, which not only deeply antagonizes the Arab/Muslim world causing all matter of endless wars and killings against us, and makes us look partial and subservient to this cause.
As a country - should we always act only in our own best interest?
As opposed to instead acting in the best interests of another country, over ours?
Abso-f-in-lutely!
We put our trust and monies in the hands of our elected officials, and we expect them to deliver for us, the people of the U.S. Anything else would be treason.
I am an Italian by ethnic background. But, when compared to U.S. interests, I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about "Italian interests of Italy". I am an American first. But that's also why I wouldn't stop folks of all ethnic backgrounds from coming here and enjoying what I do...
Also, what message would it send to the terrorists if we walked away from Israel today? Do you really think it would endear us to them or simply confirm for them that their acts of terrorism work.
We wouldn't be walking away, we'd be changing policy to get out of their affairs and helping folks in the process; and terrorists would welcome that action and the terrorism against us would cease (why do you think we are targets now?), and it would make us safer. We are playing in THEIR backyard, we should get out...
Do you think the all our problems with the Middle East are based only upon our support of Israel?
I don't know, but at least we should try to eliminate the problems we do have, when we see them.
WHAT HAS THE 'SOVEREIGNTY' OF ISRAEL GOT TO DO WITH THE HOLOCAUST AND THE MYTH OF THE SIX MILLION? That region is filled for the most part with "nomadic" peoples and the west imposed borders on them... it never worked in the previous 2000 years and it ain't gonna work now... but while it's here I'll address a couple of things...
OM, please quit pushing this agenda here, take it over to one of the political forums... OK? (me in BOLD)
What has been profitable about U.S. decades-long support for Israel? Really.
C'mon OM... you know she was talking about it being profitable to "U.S. companies"... as well as profitable to the U.S. as an ALLY in the region.
Or perhaps a better question maybe would be ... are there any policies we may apply right now that would be more profitable to the U.S., than our current policy?
It's always good to look for different and better ways to accomplish a goal.
I see U.S. support for Israel and Zionism as a net loss for our country, especially when you factor in the possible Iraq-war connection, started in 1991 and continuing to this day, with no end in sight. To me this is a HUGE issue. Next up: IRAN...
Which has nothing to do with why we support them the way we do. We have outposts for 'critical presence' in areas around the globe. And if you think for a second that the reason the Muslim's/Arabs in that part of the world 'hate' us because of Israel then I've got a bridge to sell you. Israel is an excuse... for them and for us. It gives the U.S. a chance to look noble while protecting the oil interests. 'Troops in Saudi Arabia' was/is an excuse as well. Hide and watch, if we pulled all support of Israel they'd just find another reason, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
I already presented my solution in a previous post: allocate the current $3-4 billions we send over there using it instead for repatration of Jews and others to come here and be Americans.
Get U.S. out of this perpetual support of Zionism, which not only deeply antagonizes the Arab/Muslim world causing all matter of endless wars and killings against us, and makes us look partial and subservient to this cause.
I used to think this would solve the problem(s) as well... it won't. (see above)
As opposed to instead acting in the best interests of another country, over ours?
Abso-f-in-lutely!
IF you think "we" are acting in anybody's 'best interest' over "ours" please, please come see me about that swamp land I've got for sale. As I said above, support for Israel makes us look 'noble' to the civilized (read Western) world, and gives us a chance to have a presence in the region.
We put our trust and monies in the hands of our elected officials, and we expect them to deliver for us, the people of the U.S. Anything else would be treason.
And this is germane to the conversation how?
I am an Italian by ethnic background. But, when compared to U.S. interests, I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about "Italian interests of Italy". I am an American first. But that's also why I wouldn't stop folks of all ethnic backgrounds from coming here and enjoying what I do...
Whether you care or not we've got presence in Italy and pump butt loads of money and support to them as well. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if there were critical oil reserves (or any other strategic commodity) over there, we'd do even more.
We wouldn't be walking away, we'd be changing policy to get out of their affairs and helping folks in the process; and terrorists would welcome that action and the terrorism against us would cease (why do you think we are targets now?), and it would make us safer. We are playing in THEIR backyard, we should get out...
OM... this is just a completely uninformed and naive statement/opinion. Sorry bro, if you think that's how 'the terrorists' are thinking then THEY pretty much have you where THEY want you mentally. I think we need to figure out a different and better way of doing things, chief among them figuring out how to release the stranglehold the dependency on oil has on this country, but pulling out to appease the terrorists will accomplich nothing except giving them more land and one less place to sell our wares.
I don't know, but at least we should try to eliminate the problems we do have, when we see them.
That's a good policy. How about we eliminate the terrorists and our dependence on oil?
Personally I'm for building a giant wall around the whole area and making sure no one can ever get out... or in.
"I already presented my solution in a previous post: allocate the current $3-4 billions we send over there using it instead for repatration of Jews and others to come here and be Americans.
Get U.S. out of this perpetual support of Zionism, which not only deeply antagonizes the Arab/Muslim world causing all matter of endless wars and killings against us, and makes us look partial and subservient to this cause. "
Yeah - I've seen your solution, however I find it to be very impractical and unrealistic. For example, say we could actually convince the majority of the Jews to leave Israel and move to the U.S. What would happen to the non-Jews in Israel? There are a large number of people there who are not Jewish. How do you think the "new Palestinian government" would treat the Christians who live in Israel? How do you think Americans would react if a couple of million Jewish people came here and either a)took jobs that otherwise might have gone to those born here and/or b) ended up on government assistance because there simply weren't enough jobs available to support a couple million Jews?
In addition, the reading I have done with regard to how the Middle East feels about Americans has little to do with Israel and much more to do with American morals - or lack of morality in their view, and our insistance upon pushing our values upon their countries. They are not overly fond of Christians, they despise women who walk around uncovered, much less women who show their bellies and more. They are discusted by our fast food and material good consumerism (though they have no problems with taking our cash).
"As opposed to instead acting in the best interests of another country, over ours?
Abso-f-in-lutely!"
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. While I certainly believe we should "count the cost", I would be hard pressed to urge our politicians to pull funding (for example) to help solve the AIDs problem in South Africa.
Nor do I necessarily want our country overrun with immigrants. Not that I am opposed to immigration in general mind you - but too much too fast would be detrimental to our economy. In addition, eventually we would run out of green space and other valuable resources. Better, I think, to work towards encouraging other countries to become equally wonderful, without hindering the people from living in them from have their own governmental system and their own values.
"We wouldn't be walking away, we'd be changing policy to get out of their affairs and helping folks in the process; and terrorists would welcome that action and the terrorism against us would cease (why do you think we are targets now?), and it would make us safer. We are playing in THEIR backyard, we should get out..."
Baloney. We will not "get out of their affairs" until we are no longer dependant upon their oil. Even then we won't if we think our economy will benefit by buying and selling goods with them - regardless of what they value, because those in power in our government as well as theirs profit greatly from it. For these same reasons, the terrorism would not cease. You seem to forget that most of the terrorists are fanatics, not average citizens. Many of them hold deeply fundamental religious beliefs and are not just opposed to the Jewish people but to all people who do not practice their version of Islam.
i don't give a rats a$$ about isriel or iran or any other country except the one i live in the good ole usa! i could care less if they all killed each other off
imo we be better off for it
after all they have been doing it for years and nothing the usa does will stop it
these people are fanatics
it democracy is such a wonderful thing {and i think it is}why are we running all over the world shoveing down peoples throats with a gun?
peacenick here.
imo to hell with all of those countries
let's take care of our own instead of sending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to thoes who don't even want us there
WHAT HAS THE 'SOVEREIGNTY' OF ISRAEL GOT TO DO WITH THE HOLOCAUST AND THE MYTH OF THE SIX MILLION? That region is filled for the most part with "nomadic" peoples and the west imposed borders on them... it never worked in the previous 2000 years and it ain't gonna work now... but while it's here I'll address a couple of things...
OM, please quit pushing this agenda here, take it over to one of the political forums... OK?
Tom, what we are discussing here are actually two issues... (1) the details/facts about the holocaust itself and (2) regardless of the facts, whether or not these facts are currently being used as propaganda for continued Zionist causes...
I believe it can be argued that #2 is relevant to this thread, because it was this "propaganda" issue that was a reason, I believe, why Dr. Wierwille included these books in the twi bookstore. There is evidence that he believed this information was being used as propaganda for continued financial Jewish/Zionist interests and therefore I believe it becomes one of the reasons why we were exposed to all of this, to begin with.
You seem to be the only one clamoring that this is off topic, yet others seem to find this debate useful, so why not leave the aforementioned arguments in this thread too? Don't you think this stuff is interesting? I do.
Here's some of what Wierwille wrote:
There are people who are against the modern Jews, but how can they be called "anti-Semitic" if the modern Jew is not Semitic? Then why all the fuss? The image must be maintained for political and financial reasons. No one dares to upset the "apple cart". It is financially unwise to do so. It makes governments and even denominations feel sypathetic and support Israel, for no one would want to hurt "God's chosen people."
Especially during stress times, like times of war, every nation has a department of propaganda, which literally means a department to forge slanted "half-truths" and why they feel it necessary to stimulate men's action toward the goals they desire. Israel is apparently a nationalistic and political creation for assumed expediency for certain nations. "The myth of the six million" appears to have been political and nationalistic. The propaganda machinery was used to gain emotional and sympathetic support for their intended purposes.
The Jews had my love and support then, and they have it now. By the way, many of my ancestors suffered greatly by persecution and death following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France in the town of Vierville.
Whether you care or not we've got presence in Italy and pump butt loads of money and support to them as well. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if there were critical oil reserves (or any other strategic commodity) over there, we'd do even more
Tom, no matter how much aid we give the Italians (which I am not necessarily in favor of either, depends on the reasons), it PALES in comparison to Israel.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
70
37
40
Popular Days
Apr 25
42
Apr 28
30
May 2
27
May 16
27
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 43 posts
oldiesman 70 posts
GarthP2000 37 posts
Tom Strange 40 posts
Popular Days
Apr 25 2006
42 posts
Apr 28 2006
30 posts
May 2 2006
27 posts
May 16 2006
27 posts
oldiesman
Abigail, I am unaware of any huge U.S. pressure put on Britain to create the state of Israel. Please feel free to post facts that support your conclusion.
Excerpted from Wikipedia about "British Mandate of Palestine":
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
As we see from the last two paragraphs, if the U.S. did exert some pressure, i.e Truman, it didn't do much good.
Instead it appears it was the Jewish underground terrorist forces who carried out several attacks against the British, that caused them to change direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well, here's my solution: if we (U.S.) earmarked that $3-4 billion of loot we routinely send to Israel every year, using it instead for Jewish folks who wanted to to emigrate to the U.S.... think of how well that would be accepted around the world, especially the Arab/middle eastern world. We would finally put an end to years and years of criticism that we devils are supportive of Zionism, and instead live in relative peace with the muslim world.
Would save a ton of lives too. Win-win situation.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies,
As regards to your solution, what would that then do to the biblical prophecy about Jesus coming back to the Isreal area? If all of the Jewish people move here, and there is nothing but Muslims staying in Jerusalem and the land of Isreal, ... how does that all fit in with all the stuff that the book of Revelation talks about?
Kinda breaks it, doncha think? :unsure:
(I ask all this cause I know that it's the theology or like the theology that you believe in. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong here.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I haven't thought about that much because I'm not one of those so-called "Christian Zionists".
But my answer to that would be, the return of Christ isn't determined by what nations on earth do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oldies - you left out the "rest of the story" - also from wikipedia -
"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Israel, requiring the inhabitants of Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
Thus members and representatives of the Jews of Palestine and of the Zionist movement upon the end of the British Mandate, by virtue of "natural and historic right" and based on the United Nations resolution:
... Hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel to be known as the State of Israel.
"The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel was publicly read in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight. It was drafted during the preceding months, and the final version was a result of a compromise between the various parts of the Israeli public of that time. On May 14, 1948, the Vaad Leumi (Jewish National Council) gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, and approved the proclamation."
When the British said they wanted to terminate the mandate - they were not doing so in support of a Jewish State - they simply wanted the U.N. to take responsibility/control of Palenstine and figure out what to do regarding the Jewish Refugees and the pressue to create a Jewish state vs. the Palenstinian objection to it. However, the U.N. was never able to negotiate a peaceful compromise with all parties. Instead, the Jews drew up their own declaration creating Israel as a Jewish state.
Now, our government, as well as the British, and/or any other of the major players of the day could have decided NOT to recognize Israel, but instead this is what happened. . . .
"The new state and its government was recognized de facto minutes later by the United States and three days later de jure by the Soviet Union (Stalin thought a communist or communist-oriented Jewish state could be a useful "thorn in the back" to his capitalist rivals in the Middle East).
It was however opposed by many others, particularly Arabs (both the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs) who noticed it was being established at their expense."
On Truman . . . .
"Truman, who had been a supporter of the Zionist movement as early as 1939, was a key figure in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In 1946, an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry recommended the gradual establishment of two states in Palestine, with neither Jews nor Arabs dominating. However, there was little public support for the two-state proposal, and Britain was under pressure to withdraw from Palestine quickly due to attacks on British forces by armed Zionist groups. At the urging of the British, a special U.N. committee recommended the immediate partitioning of Palestine into two states, and with Truman's support, it was approved by the General Assembly in 1947. The British announced that they would leave Palestine by May 15, 1948, and the Arab League Council nations began moving troops to Palestine's borders. There was significant disagreement between Truman and the State Department about how to handle the situation, and meanwhile, tensions were rising between the U.S. and Soviet Union. In the end, Truman, amid controversy both at home and abroad, recognized the State of Israel 11 minutes after it declared itself a nation"
I would recommend the link below if you are interested in more information on the U.S. history regarding Jews and Israel - you will see that the U.S. has supported the notion for a Jewish Israel dating all the way back to John Adams. So yes, given the above - I do believe the U.S. played a large role in the events that have lead to the situation as it is today.
here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thanks for that thread, I'll study it.
There's no question the Presidents and other Christian Zionists favored it.
What I question, is how much pressure they exerted... or whether it was U.S. pressure/force who carried it out or bought it to pass. I think not.
In hindsight, perhaps U.S. should have opposed it for reasons we are discussing now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Mo, I think you may be making some inexact assumptions here.
All valid points--but the Bible really doesn't say which is true--we both may be equally right, or partially right -so I'm willing to declare a draw :)
Abigail,
The United States voted For the creation of Israel, as did all the commonwealth nations, except Great Britain after the question was put to the UN. It came to the UN because of decades of mismanagement, and broken promises both to the Jews and to the Arabs by the British. The British government was equally concerned with securing the economic advancements the Jews brought to the area through their land reclamation projects etc and the use of the Arabs as spies and mercenaries in the war against Rommel. First the Jews were promised a homeland, then the British did a double face with the "White Paper". In short the mess was already a mess when it got to the UN --the question before the UN was "what to do about the thousands of Jews who were already there, Deport them?? --To Where??
the only logical step - give them a homeland with set boundaries.
The resulting fighting and carnage is a result of The Palestinians and the Israelis making choices for the actions. The United states doesn't send emissaries every morning to put guns in these peoples hands and declare- Fighting starts in 10 minutes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Here is a website you might find very informative, with regard to the Israel/Palestine issue. It has maps and is easy to understand. I will post some excerts from it below:
" Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I"
"the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews! "
"In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan "
"Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. "
"The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River."
"On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well."
"When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."
"The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine"
I will only add that the U.S. has supported the notion of Israel and a "homeland" for the Jews from the beginning, for political and religious reasons.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Because a. it is not worthy of an intellectual response, and b. an intellectual response was provided and ignored. Let's be real, here:
The Ashkenazi Jews for the most part share a genetic link with other Jews, proving the very common background ck claimed would not be found.
Somewhere between five and six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.
Many were gassed.
And it was a coordinated campaign to exterminate Jews.
This is indisputable history, not some idea the Jews made up to gain sympathy from the world (fat lot of good that did them, anyway: much of the world still hates them). We've documented this, and anyone who cares to do the slightest research on this, real research, will see it because it is so well-documented.
So the people who believe in documented history are now the "detractors" who "smear," according to WTH, and you demand OTHERS provide an intellectual reply? Here's an intellectual reply: If this thread were the only posts I'd ever seen from CK and WTH, I would be forced to conclude that they are among the stupidest people on the face of God's green earth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldies, lean real close to the monitor for this one:
It was an intentional, systematic, planned, event by Hitler and Co.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"The resulting fighting and carnage is a result of The Palestinians and the Israelis making choices for the actions. The United states doesn't send emissaries every morning to put guns in these peoples hands and declare- Fighting starts in 10 minutes"
Mo, I am not sure what your point is here. In reality, the U.S. puts guns in the hands of many people in many countries, because we make a profit by doing so.
In either case, the U.S. was supportive of the events that took place which lead to the current situation. Am I saying it is entirely the fault of the U.S.? Heck no! I am simply saying we played a part.
I would add, as a Jew, that a part of me understands and supports the notion of a homeland and the reasoning behind why Israel should be it. On the other hand - as I said previously, I think it would be foolish for all Jews to live in one land, given the amount of hate so many have for us. Additionally, given the history between the Jews and the Muslims, it was foolish to make a homeland that was surrounded by them. Perhaps, not so very different than trying to give the Jews a homeland right in the middle of natzi germany.
I would end by saying I am aware that there are some generalizations in this post with regard to Jews and Muslims. I realize that not all Jews and Muslims are at odds with each other and I have had a number of Muslim friends over the course of my lifetime. I am simply trying to speak to the larger issue of how things have gone in the 'political arena'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What has been profitable about U.S. decades-long support for Israel? Really.
Or perhaps a better question maybe would be ... are there any policies we may apply right now that would be more profitable to the U.S., than our current policy?
I see U.S. support for Israel and Zionism as a net loss for our country, especially when you factor in the possible Iraq-war connection, started in 1991 and continuing to this day, with no end in sight. To me this is a HUGE issue. Next up: IRAN...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Let me ask you this Oldies,
If we were to wash our hands of Israel today, what do you think would happen? My guess is that there would be war and given the current climate - it is quite possible the Jews in Israel would be wiped out. Is that okay with you? Does it matter to you one way or another?
As a country - should we always act only in our own best interest? Or are there other things that should be taking into consideration, and if so what?
Also, what message would it send to the terrorists if we walked away from Israel today? Do you really think it would endear us to them or simply confirm for them that their acts of terrorism work.
Do you think the all our problems with the Middle East are based only upon our support of Israel? Is it not possible there is more to it than that? And if there is more to it than that, what do you see as the additional problems?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Or perhaps a better question maybe would be ... are there any policies we may apply right now that would be more profitable to the U.S., than our current policy?"
I am certain there are. I'm assuming you want this strictly limited to our dealings with Israel and not policies in general... :D
I think we could start by taking a look at what Jimmy Carter has done in the past. I am not saying he was succesful - but I think the idea of getting the leaders from all parties in one room and telling them they can't leave until they agree on a compromise would be a good start.
I also think we need to involve Jordan and some of the other neighboring countries, as they have much at stake to. Why is it that Jordan didn't want the Palestinian refugees? Afterall, they were of the same nation at one time. In truth - I think there is little the U.S. can do, beyond offering political support. True peace will only come when either 1) the Jews are wiped off the face of the middle east or 2) Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia put pressure on the Palestinians to further peace, offer refuge to those who need it, and put forth their own serious efforts to end terrorism.
Of course we won't put political pressure on our oil suppliers - see money makes the world go round regardless of what is "right" or moral. And therein lies the real problems - money, money, money. Same with Iraq - you can blame the war in Iraq on Israel - but I'd say it has far more to do with that precious oil.
In fact, I'd dare say if we were not dependant on oil from the middle east, our policies there would be vastly different.
Why is it that Bush has not supported the notion of a security fence? Bush does not want Israel to go after the Hamas leaders - who are terrorists - yet Bush himself has declared war on terrorism. Huh?
Which policies specifically would you like to discuss. OM?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I already presented my solution in a previous post: allocate the current $3-4 billions we send over there using it instead for repatration of Jews and others to come here and be Americans.
Get U.S. out of this perpetual support of Zionism, which not only deeply antagonizes the Arab/Muslim world causing all matter of endless wars and killings against us, and makes us look partial and subservient to this cause.
As opposed to instead acting in the best interests of another country, over ours?Abso-f-in-lutely!
We put our trust and monies in the hands of our elected officials, and we expect them to deliver for us, the people of the U.S. Anything else would be treason.
I am an Italian by ethnic background. But, when compared to U.S. interests, I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about "Italian interests of Italy". I am an American first. But that's also why I wouldn't stop folks of all ethnic backgrounds from coming here and enjoying what I do...
We wouldn't be walking away, we'd be changing policy to get out of their affairs and helping folks in the process; and terrorists would welcome that action and the terrorism against us would cease (why do you think we are targets now?), and it would make us safer. We are playing in THEIR backyard, we should get out...
I don't know, but at least we should try to eliminate the problems we do have, when we see them.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
WHAT HAS THE 'SOVEREIGNTY' OF ISRAEL GOT TO DO WITH THE HOLOCAUST AND THE MYTH OF THE SIX MILLION? That region is filled for the most part with "nomadic" peoples and the west imposed borders on them... it never worked in the previous 2000 years and it ain't gonna work now... but while it's here I'll address a couple of things...
OM, please quit pushing this agenda here, take it over to one of the political forums... OK? (me in BOLD)
Personally I'm for building a giant wall around the whole area and making sure no one can ever get out... or in.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"I already presented my solution in a previous post: allocate the current $3-4 billions we send over there using it instead for repatration of Jews and others to come here and be Americans.
Get U.S. out of this perpetual support of Zionism, which not only deeply antagonizes the Arab/Muslim world causing all matter of endless wars and killings against us, and makes us look partial and subservient to this cause. "
Yeah - I've seen your solution, however I find it to be very impractical and unrealistic. For example, say we could actually convince the majority of the Jews to leave Israel and move to the U.S. What would happen to the non-Jews in Israel? There are a large number of people there who are not Jewish. How do you think the "new Palestinian government" would treat the Christians who live in Israel? How do you think Americans would react if a couple of million Jewish people came here and either a)took jobs that otherwise might have gone to those born here and/or b) ended up on government assistance because there simply weren't enough jobs available to support a couple million Jews?
In addition, the reading I have done with regard to how the Middle East feels about Americans has little to do with Israel and much more to do with American morals - or lack of morality in their view, and our insistance upon pushing our values upon their countries. They are not overly fond of Christians, they despise women who walk around uncovered, much less women who show their bellies and more. They are discusted by our fast food and material good consumerism (though they have no problems with taking our cash).
"As opposed to instead acting in the best interests of another country, over ours?
Abso-f-in-lutely!"
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. While I certainly believe we should "count the cost", I would be hard pressed to urge our politicians to pull funding (for example) to help solve the AIDs problem in South Africa.
Nor do I necessarily want our country overrun with immigrants. Not that I am opposed to immigration in general mind you - but too much too fast would be detrimental to our economy. In addition, eventually we would run out of green space and other valuable resources. Better, I think, to work towards encouraging other countries to become equally wonderful, without hindering the people from living in them from have their own governmental system and their own values.
"We wouldn't be walking away, we'd be changing policy to get out of their affairs and helping folks in the process; and terrorists would welcome that action and the terrorism against us would cease (why do you think we are targets now?), and it would make us safer. We are playing in THEIR backyard, we should get out..."
Baloney. We will not "get out of their affairs" until we are no longer dependant upon their oil. Even then we won't if we think our economy will benefit by buying and selling goods with them - regardless of what they value, because those in power in our government as well as theirs profit greatly from it. For these same reasons, the terrorism would not cease. You seem to forget that most of the terrorists are fanatics, not average citizens. Many of them hold deeply fundamental religious beliefs and are not just opposed to the Jewish people but to all people who do not practice their version of Islam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
oh oh i know i am going to blasted but so what!
i don't give a rats a$$ about isriel or iran or any other country except the one i live in the good ole usa! i could care less if they all killed each other off
imo we be better off for it
after all they have been doing it for years and nothing the usa does will stop it
these people are fanatics
it democracy is such a wonderful thing {and i think it is}why are we running all over the world shoveing down peoples throats with a gun?
peacenick here.
imo to hell with all of those countries
let's take care of our own instead of sending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to thoes who don't even want us there
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
why cool... why on earth would you get "blasted" for that?
ya know... it does 'pay' to have loyal friends... and $$$ buy a lot of loyalty...
...at least in the "what have you done for me lately" world that we live in...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Tom, what we are discussing here are actually two issues... (1) the details/facts about the holocaust itself and (2) regardless of the facts, whether or not these facts are currently being used as propaganda for continued Zionist causes...
I believe it can be argued that #2 is relevant to this thread, because it was this "propaganda" issue that was a reason, I believe, why Dr. Wierwille included these books in the twi bookstore. There is evidence that he believed this information was being used as propaganda for continued financial Jewish/Zionist interests and therefore I believe it becomes one of the reasons why we were exposed to all of this, to begin with.
You seem to be the only one clamoring that this is off topic, yet others seem to find this debate useful, so why not leave the aforementioned arguments in this thread too? Don't you think this stuff is interesting? I do.
Here's some of what Wierwille wrote:
Excerpted from... By The Way
Victor Paul Wierwille
Sept. 26, 1980
St. Marys Evening Leader
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But the modern Jew is Semitic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Check this out:
U.S. Financial Aid to Israel: Figures, Facts, Impact
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.