Why should we support Israel?

[BarneyFife]

I see no reason why the US government keeps supporting them.

The relationship does not bring anything positive to the US. They leech all the taxpayers money each year. They have caused the whole middle east to hate us which has brought terrorism to our soil. Their "democratic" government is one of the most corrupted governments in the world. The US gives them a free pass on EVERYTHING in the UN. They kill Arabs with our free military weapons so blood is on our hands too. Here is a table that shows the massive amount of welfare they get
Welfare

 

[chess9]

a. They've been a long time ally;
b. They provide a LOT of M.E. intel;
c. We feel guilty;
d. They are masters at exploiting guilt;
e. It's the right thing to do, regardless.

But, yeah, there are some serious downsiides to that "date". -

Just my .0002 farthing's.

-Robert

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The US has interests in the ME. Truthfully, it's not just the US but the entire world that is dependent on the oil the flows from the ME. ME governments have been notoriously difficult to deal with over the years. They have not been dependable friends. They are rather tempermental. At least Israel has been dependable. Sure, supporting them comes with its own problems but Israel is the one of the few countries we can rely on in the ME. It may suck but it's the best alrternative we have to secure our interests there.

The remainder of the world has an interest too because if the US economy is screwed by a problem with oil in the ME, our economy goes down the drain. Where the US economy goes, the rest of the world follows.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The US has interests in the ME. Truthfully, it's not just the US but the entire world that is dependent on the oil the flows from the ME. ME governments have been notoriously difficult to deal with over the years. They have not been dependable friends. They are rather tempermental. At least Israel has been dependable. Sure, supporting them comes with its own problems but Israel is the one of the few countries we can rely on in the ME. It may suck but it's the best alrternative we have to secure our interests there.

The remainder of the world has an interest too because if the US economy is screwed by a problem with oil in the ME, our economy goes down the drain. Where the US economy goes, the rest of the world follows.

Whats the point of having an Allie in the middle east if it doesn't have any oiil and it can't even help in wars because it would piss of any arab nations that might be providing assestance or fly over rights.

 

[maddogchen]

wow this issue seems to come up every week. we should have an uber-thread sticky on this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The US has interests in the ME. Truthfully, it's not just the US but the entire world that is dependent on the oil the flows from the ME. ME governments have been notoriously difficult to deal with over the years. They have not been dependable friends. They are rather tempermental. At least Israel has been dependable. Sure, supporting them comes with its own problems but Israel is the one of the few countries we can rely on in the ME. It may suck but it's the best alrternative we have to secure our interests there.

The remainder of the world has an interest too because if the US economy is screwed by a problem with oil in the ME, our economy goes down the drain. Where the US economy goes, the rest of the world follows.

Whats the point of having an Allie in the middle east if it doesn't have any oiil and it can't even help in wars because it would piss of any arab nations that might be providing assestance or fly over rights.

To quote an old SNL skit, I can give you the answer in one word:

"Strategery"

 

[chess9]

The underlying complaint to this relationship always seems to be that JEWS HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE. Good grief, at least no one has actually SAID it, but it is such an obvious undercurrent. Yes, American Jews expect us to support Israel and yes some powerful Jews lobby very hard for Israel's share of our foreign aid. So what? But, this deal is much, much more complicated than that. It would take 5,000 words to do it justice....

Anyway, I just wanted to clear the air because I know someone is going to bring this up in one of the next few posts.

Frankly, it just aggravates me to hear this question about supposedly excessive Jewish influence always raised....

-Robert

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: chess9
a. They've been a long time ally;
b. They provide a LOT of M.E. intel;
c. We feel guilty;
d. They are masters at exploiting guilt;
e. It's the right thing to do, regardless.

But, yeah, there are some serious downsiides to that "date". -

Just my .0002 farthing's.

-Robert

explain c. why is it we feel guilty?

 

[Tom]

the solution supporters of Palestine should look for isn't trying to drive a wedge between USA and Israel, that won't happen. A better tactic would be to get their own house in order, and the USA would love to support a democratic Palestinian nation too.

Have to drop the idea that someday they can get rid of Israel, the problem is they won't give up on that idea.

 

[Bumrush99]

It is more of jealousy issue than anything Chess. Of course people that are unable to mobilize effective campaigns are going to cry conspiracy of Jewish power.

The truth is we support Israel for a variety of reasons, everything from having a satellite country in the Middle East that we can use to gather intel, to the effective lobbying of groups such as AIPAC. On top of that, many Christians support Israel more than most Jews here in the US. Israel must be supported at all costs to them, they truly believe that Israel will be a major player during the "apocalypse".

Israel has a developed economy with literally hundreds of tech companies and has been able to use the aid to create a very succesful society. Surrounded by enemies on all sides that have launched multiple attacks and that have been humiliated every time. People cry about the money we give Israel, but nobody realizes that the money is recycled back in to the US economy. The gvt does not give handout checks, they give money towards projects that often use US employees. Total US foreign aid makes up for less than 1% of our GDP.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: chess9
The underlying complaint to this relationship always seems to be that JEWS HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE.

This goes more to the positive question of why do we support Israel. We're talking about why we SHOULD support Israel.

Since YOU seem to really want to talk about how people see jewish influence, I'll say it this way, jews have more political influence then their population size warrants. We all know money talks in the US. The Cubans do it too. Corporations exert influence this way too. It's not bad in itself that jews do it too but it's not really an argument as to why we SHOULD support Israel, which seems to be the real question in this thread.

Frankly, it just aggravates me to hear this question about supposedly excessive Jewish influence always raised....

It shouldn't. It's a problem when special interests overwhelm the majority's view in a democracy. I don't blame this on jews, but it's a systemic problem we need to address and this is an example of it.

 

[Wag]

This has nothing to do with "Jewish" influence.

Google "Christian Zionism".

 

[Aimster]

Because we supported Iran, but we never took any of the pre-revolution stuff seriously. We never thought it could happen nor did we offer Iran anything to help them. In our minds Shah was going to keep power.
Iran was a SHOCKER. Who the hell was president at that time? That idiot. Anyways...

Israel is now the only one left.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Because we supported Iran, but we never took any of the pre-revolution stuff seriously. We never thought it could happen nor did we offer Iran anything to help them. In our minds Shah was going to keep power.
Iran was a SHOCKER. Who the hell was president at that time? That idiot. Anyways...

Israel is now the only one left.

Enough bombs, puppet officials, and telling the Iraqis repeatedly that we brought them freedom till they beleive it will bring them in line within 10 years

 

[raildogg]

Israel is the only democracy in that region. what, Egypt is a democracy? in what sense?? its a tyranny like all the other scummy Arab governments.

Israel is on the front lines of this war on terror and has been for decades. Bush has said he wants to spread democracy through the middle east, well ... Israel is a good example of a successful democracy.

There are only 14 million or so Jews in the world, they only have one country ... it is a moral obligation to make sure that their country survives.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: chess9
a. They've been a long time ally;
b. They provide a LOT of M.E. intel;
c. We feel guilty;
d. They are masters at exploiting guilt;
e. It's the right thing to do, regardless.

But, yeah, there are some serious downsiides to that "date". -

Just my .0002 farthing's.

-Robert

explain c. why is it we feel guilty?

Ever read the world response to the Holocost? Remember, WWII was not about saving the Jews, especially in America.

Also, if anyone honestly thinks that the only reason the people of the Middle East(remember, not everyone in the M.E. is an Arab or a Muslim) hate us because of Israel, you are quite wrong. Yes, it does aggrevate many, but that is hardly the reason. We support some of the least free countries in the world. Here is one thing people tend to forget: those in the region have memories. When we supported the Shah of Iran, what did he do? Oppress his people. When we supported Saddam, what did he do? Oppressed his people. While we continue to support the Saudi royal family, what do they do? Oppress their people. And the list can go on for quite some time before it runs out of names.

And for our continued support for Israel, think of it this way: if Israel will essentially commit ethnic cleansing with the Palestinians with our support, what would they do without it?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

We support some of the least free countries in the world.

I despise this contention. It's used in a way that implies 'approval.' Having a relationship with certain countries is not support, it's more like a necessary evil. Did Clinton "suuport" NK when he struck his nuclear bargains with them?

In the same way, the US never "supported" Saddam. We had a relationship with him at arm's length, at best. At the time is was done for the "greater good" as well as to maintain balance in the ME. We subversively supported Iran too in oder to ensure their war went into a stalemate because there couldn't be a winner on either side of that conflict.

Until you step back and take a look at the overall though these things don't become apparent. Superficially stating we support this bad guy or that bad guy, then give a few case examples is often misleading and ultimately dishonest.

Edit: Sorry for the OT rant but I had to get that out of my system

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

We support some of the least free countries in the world.

I despise this contention. It's used in a way that implies 'approval.' Having a relationship with certain countries is not support, it's more like a necessary evil. Did Clinton "suuport" NK when he struck his nuclear bargains with them?

In the same way, the US never "supported" Saddam. We had a relationship with him at arm's length, at best. At the time is was done for the "greater good" as well as to maintain balance in the ME. We subversively supported Iran too in oder to ensure their war went into a stalemate because there couldn't be a winner on either side of that conflict.

Until you step back and take a look at the overall though these things don't become apparent. Superficially stating we support this bad guy or that bad guy, then give a few case examples is often misleading and ultimately dishonest.

Edit: Sorry for the OT rant but I had to get that out of my system

Sorry, but I don't differentiate passive and active support. When you do things like not prevent U.S. companies from selling substances you know are going to be used for chemical or biological weapons, that is support.

Much like we supported Augusto Pinochet.(we gave him lots of money)
We supported the Shah of Iran.
The State Department actively prevented refugees during WWII.(note: I'm saying the specific area that did it, as there were others who did try very hard not to do this)
We gave money to Pakistan during the Afghan War knowing the leader was fundamentalist with an abhorent human rights record.

That is just a few, but the list can go on.

Oh, and to quote Edmund Burke, or at least something attributed to him. All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing

 

[chrisms]

American Christians... supporters of Israel are blessed or some crap like that I recently heard a preacher say on TV.

 

[PusBucket]

It looks like impressionable Barney has been spending time at stormfront. So he's spouting tired old drivel. Next he'll start referring to the holohoax, and start capitalizing the word White. Just go and build yourself a nice little computer, or do your trigonometry homework.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Strk
Sorry, but I don't differentiate passive and active support. When you do things like not prevent U.S. companies from selling substances you know are going to be used for chemical or biological weapons, that is support.

I suppose you are speaking of the chemical/biological agents the US supposedly sold to Saddam? That has been debunked already, but I'll walk you through it if you insist.

Much like we supported Augusto Pinochet.(we gave him lots of money)
We supported the Shah of Iran.
The State Department actively prevented refugees during WWII.(note: I'm saying the specific area that did it, as there were others who did try very hard not to do this)
We gave money to Pakistan during the Afghan War knowing the leader was fundamentalist with an abhorent human rights record.

That is just a few, but the list can go on.

As I said previously:

Until you step back and take a look at the overall though these things don't become apparent. Superficially stating we support this bad guy or that bad guy, then give a few case examples is often misleading and ultimately dishonest.


I can also go step-by-step as to the greater considerations for all the cases you cited above, if you'd like, though I'd rather not waste the time when the information is readily available by googling. You may want to look at more than just the cases themselves and do some historical investigation.

Oh, and to quote Edmund Burke, or at least something attributed to him. All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing

"Sometimes lesser evil is necessary to batter greater evil." - TastesLikeChicken

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Strk
Sorry, but I don't differentiate passive and active support. When you do things like not prevent U.S. companies from selling substances you know are going to be used for chemical or biological weapons, that is support.

I suppose you are speaking of the chemical/biological agents the US supposedly sold to Saddam? That has been debunked already, but I'll walk you through it if you insist.

Much like we supported Augusto Pinochet.(we gave him lots of money)
We supported the Shah of Iran.
The State Department actively prevented refugees during WWII.(note: I'm saying the specific area that did it, as there were others who did try very hard not to do this)
We gave money to Pakistan during the Afghan War knowing the leader was fundamentalist with an abhorent human rights record.

That is just a few, but the list can go on.

As I said previously:

Until you step back and take a look at the overall though these things don't become apparent. Superficially stating we support this bad guy or that bad guy, then give a few case examples is often misleading and ultimately dishonest.


I can also go step-by-step as to the greater considerations for all the cases you cited above, if you'd like, though I'd rather not waste the time when the information is readily available by googling. You may want to look at more than just the cases themselves and do some historical investigation.

Oh, and to quote Edmund Burke, or at least something attributed to him. All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing

"Sometimes lesser evil is necessary to batter greater evil." - TastesLikeChicken

I have studied many of the cases, and yes I know of the reasons for them, but to me, that does not make it right when we support them(*edit* and to me support also includes inaction). I guess I'm just not capable of justfying things with the whole idea of "the lesser of two evils".

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: raildogg
it is a moral obligation to make sure that their country survives.

Why is it a moral obligation? Is it a moral obligation to make sure that the kurds can have their own country? Many people, some jews themselves, recognize that judiasm, is a religion as opposed to an ethnic people. Not all religions (and even ethnicities) get their own country. Sorry. If you feel its a moral obligation to support Israel, send them a check.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Strk
Sorry, but I don't differentiate passive and active support. When you do things like not prevent U.S. companies from selling substances you know are going to be used for chemical or biological weapons, that is support.

I suppose you are speaking of the chemical/biological agents the US supposedly sold to Saddam? That has been debunked already, but I'll walk you through it if you insist.

Much like we supported Augusto Pinochet.(we gave him lots of money)
We supported the Shah of Iran.
The State Department actively prevented refugees during WWII.(note: I'm saying the specific area that did it, as there were others who did try very hard not to do this)
We gave money to Pakistan during the Afghan War knowing the leader was fundamentalist with an abhorent human rights record.

That is just a few, but the list can go on.

As I said previously:

Until you step back and take a look at the overall though these things don't become apparent. Superficially stating we support this bad guy or that bad guy, then give a few case examples is often misleading and ultimately dishonest.


I can also go step-by-step as to the greater considerations for all the cases you cited above, if you'd like, though I'd rather not waste the time when the information is readily available by googling. You may want to look at more than just the cases themselves and do some historical investigation.

Oh, and to quote Edmund Burke, or at least something attributed to him. All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing

"Sometimes lesser evil is necessary to batter greater evil." - TastesLikeChicken

I have studied many of the cases, and yes I know of the reasons for them, but to me, that does not make it right when we support them(*edit* and to me support also includes inaction). I guess I'm just not capable of justfying things with the whole idea of "the lesser of two evils".

I understand completely. It's hideous when we have to embrace evil to further our own goals of bringing down the perception of greater evil. Life is full of things like that though. imo, this presidential election is a perfect example of that. For many people Kerry is evil, just the lesser one. For others Bush is the lesser evil, or at least the devil that you know. It's often the case when we are reduced to such choices and politics in particular is overwhelmed by such incidents.

 

[Jhhnn]

raildogg-

Israel is NOT a democracy. It has some democratic features, but the fact is that Israeli Muslims and Christians only get 3/5 vote, and palestinians who were conquered in 1967 get none... Some democracy.