Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.
Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.
I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.
Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.
Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.
I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.
But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.
The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.
i don't think you can impose your, or a western european culture's, idea of "existence" upon peoples of other cultures, especially in this day and age. that's like saying australia didn't exist until the mid 1700s. many aboriginal cultures throughout the world had and have tribal governments that exist without political boundaries, and i respect that.
i very sincerely doubt if israel, or other tribes in the region, had well defined political borders two or three millinia ago.
I don't have to impose a damn thing, the Israelis are doing a good job on their own.
Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.
Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.
I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.
But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.
The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.
This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.
Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.
Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.
I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.
But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.
The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.
This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.
i don't think you can impose your, or a western european culture's, idea of "existence" upon peoples of other cultures, especially in this day and age. that's like saying australia didn't exist until the mid 1700s. many aboriginal cultures throughout the world had and have tribal governments that exist without political boundaries, and i respect that.
i very sincerely doubt if israel, or other tribes in the region, had well defined political borders two or three millinia ago.
I don't have to impose a damn thing, the Israelis are doing a good job on their own.
you're right, they are.
NAZI germany and stalinist russia did a better job though, huh?
but i will give you that. the israelis, indeed, are doing a great job of imposing their iron will on another culture. we finally are in a point of agreement.
Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.
But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.
The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.
This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.
Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.
This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.
Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.
I actually did a paper on the Lavon Affair way back when in one of my history classes though there is a lot more information available now than there was then to draw from. But don't get me wrong. Do I see Israelis as necessarily saints any more than anybody else? No I don't. Am I prepared to say that Israel has never engaged in overreach or overreaction or dubious policy? No I am not.
But in Israel's defense, it was never 'official' policy and they never attempted to defend it as 'the right thing to do'. Sort of like our own Iran Contra affair. We all know our government allowed it in a quasi fashion and condoned it, but official policy it was not and heads rolled as a result of it. You won't find any vote in the Knesset either authorizing or approving the Lavon Affair.
Israel's official stance since its inception is not to attempt to destroy or conquer its neighbors and it has restricted its official policy to a purely self defensive one.
I don't have to impose a damn thing, the Israelis are doing a good job on their own.
you're right, they are.
NAZI germany and stalinist russia did a better job though, huh?
but i will give you that. the israelis, indeed, are doing a great job of imposing their iron will on another culture. we finally are in a point of agreement.
Are they? What other culture are they imposing their will on? There is no restriction on Arabs fully participating in their mosques in Israel and they are restricted in no way whatsoever. You cannot find unrestricted Judaism in any Muslim country, however. The Israelis do maintain a healthy majority of Israelis on the Knesset because that is the ONLY way they can ensure protection of the Jews in Israel, but there are Arabs on the Knesset too. Can you name many/any Arab countries that accept Jews in their governments?
Outside of the United States, you will find few places on Earth that are less aggressive, more free, or more democratic than Israel.
I repsectfully disagree.
We, America, need to remove our support of Israel and let the region decide for itself who stays and who goes.
Here's what I've found so far...i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .
That's quite a bit!Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank .
What if Iran was in violation of that many?
Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun. Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions. Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile. And zionists got hostile right back. Both sides are guilty of the violence.The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody. And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.
Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.
I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.
But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.
The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination. They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land. For peace to occur, that has to end.
This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.
I repsectfully disagree.
We, America, need to remove our support of Israel and let the region decide for itself who stays and who goes.
I double respectfully disagree. WE need to stand firm with Israel.
An "occupational force", cannot claim self-defense.This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.
Here's what I've found so far...i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .
That's quite a bit!Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank .
What if Iran was in violation of that many?
It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today. If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. LOL
Romney was his usual Court Jester in Israel and if elected prez, will spend most of his time saying that what he meant to say ...
You can blame it on Obama or Romney but that won't change that what Obama said is true - They really do need to take responsibility for their own country's borders. They need to duke this out between themselves and, never mind what the R says, we can't and should not do this for them.
Obama is right about this. Romney is dead wrong. Especially about sending them even more money. (Why is it that the R always wants to spend more money on other countries than on their own?)
This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate. I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion. Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense. It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief. No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed. Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
The real history is there for those who choose to read it. For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.
Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.
I actually did a paper on the Lavon Affair way back when in one of my history classes though there is a lot more information available now than there was then to draw from. But don't get me wrong. Do I see Israelis as necessarily saints any more than anybody else? No I don't. Am I prepared to say that Israel has never engaged in overreach or overreaction or dubious policy? No I am not.
But in Israel's defense, it was never 'official' policy and they never attempted to defend it as 'the right thing to do'. Sort of like our own Iran Contra affair. We all know our government allowed it in a quasi fashion and condoned it, but official policy it was not and heads rolled as a result of it. You won't find any vote in the Knesset either authorizing or approving the Lavon Affair.
Israel's official stance since its inception is not to attempt to destroy or conquer its neighbors and it has restricted its official policy to a purely self defensive one.