Some replies for you Irate:
1. I really don't believe people give back territory they've invaded because it was the losing country's to begin with. The british empire should be MUCH bigger than it is today in that case. So should the french, portuguese and spanish. someone here actually stated that the US should belong to the native indians. That's true, and we havn't done anything about it, so I don't see why israel is an exception.
3. The original article states israel should be there because of : "the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture." I'm just saying that no one has ever been given land because of their agricultural expertise. The only thing that has gotten anyone land is military superiority, and perhaps being very rich. agriculture alone in some land non-viable in an agricultural sense doesn't cut it.
4. The article gives reason number 4 as: "the grounds of humanitarian concern." This is obviously bullshit, seeing as how there's a whole bunch of humanitarian crisis going on out there and he convieniently forgets to mention them. Darfur's a huge humanitarian crisis right now. By his logic, we should have given them California, or atleast LA.
5&6: I never said I welcomed the destruction of israel. I'm not telling the US to withdraw funding. I'm just stating that it's no surprise israel follows the US in every decision it makes. If it didn't, and US funding was withdrawn, then they'd go down pretty fast.
What do you think the soviets and the US were doing by providing funding to the arabs and the israelis? They were getting an arm of political influence on the countries. That's the only reason. They needed influence in the region, so they decided to support one nation, so when they had won the war, they would be on the side of the soviets or the US.
7: Bible belt christians don't exactly take it like your quote. They take each and every word, down to the dot on the i and the cross on the t to be god's word come down from heaven. They won't do the most basic things to ensure human rights are preseved just because the bible told them so literally. When interpretting the bible, catholics from the vatican and mainstream catholics don't do it literally. They take several factors into consideration, such as culture at the time of writing, and any symbolism. There's a part of the bible that says if your arm causes you to sin, cut it off. I don't think god actually wanted to have our arms cut off, but the biblebelt christians take other stuff like that pretty literally.
conclusion: If Israel had given back every territory it's taken, then why did they start invading and taking territory in the first place? That certainly doesn't seem like peaceful action to me. Anyways, I have hardly supported israel in this argument, but at the same time, I don't support the other arab nations either. Peace works both ways. It takes 2 to tango. If neither country wants peace, then like I said maybe one of them should just give it up instead of going to war forever. Lots less people would be dead.
I'm also interested. When has there EVER been peace in israel? I don't think any of the arab countries have ever "let well enough alone", nor will they ever. Suicide bombers are just as bad as rocket attacks. There shouldn't be any difference between the two in terms of "peace". Both of them disturb it.
And my posting in this thread wasn't even about israel originally. It's about that stupid article and the idiot who wrote it. So if you're arguing with me, then you're pretty much telling me that you think the guy was smart and what he wrote about is good reasoning.
edited for grammar
Facebook
Twitter