Why The Hell Do Americans Care So Much About Israel?

[Locke_at_War]

It has little to do with the fact that Israel is a democracy- even LESS to do with "Religious beliefs". Those are all excuses if anything. Look at all of Latin America- democracies and religious beliefs, yet the entire aid to the region combined pales to what Israel has received [excluding, MAYBE Colombia, and even then it pales]. As for the Jewish lobby, it has nothing to do with that either. The US sends tons of Aid to Egypt, and how big could anybody claim the Egyptian lobby to be? Insignificant. The answer is almost entirely geopolitical: Israel is basically a Western colonial offshoot right next of the largest strategic energy resources in the world. The place is virtually run by relatively recent Western colonists - much like America once was, and many are even American colonists now, but even from the beginning, it was perfectly known that whoever controlled that region had the advantage internationally, and that remains true today. Israel, as the strongest power, has gotten the biggest cut of the aid pie, but basically any regime that ensures safe access to the gluttonous world market gets a cut, whether they maintain their populations controlled through imperialist expansionism [Israel] or through brutal repression [Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq pre-1991 and post-2003] - so long as they play by the rules of the game set forth by The Godfather.

Best post I've read so far. The part about the gas and Israel being the strongest power is right.

I mean why wouldn't you aid Israel. They are a great ally. With perfect positioning in case any major war breaks out. And we could use them as a pawn when/if a major war breaks out.

Let's face it...war is inevitable. There is going to be a "War" sooner or later. So why not get good positioning and all the allies while we can. I think we should stop fighting in Iraq and set it up as a military base. That would give us strong holds in Iraq and Israel.

But, i don't know. That's just a theory. Even if the government isn't aiding Israel for preparation of a future war. They are still a good ally and make Americans feel a bit safer when it comes to middle eastern affairs.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

@ Tech_Esq and Locke:

See, I realize that we're on opposite sides of the [hypothetical] "spectrum," but I can really appreciate that you guys don't sugar-coat it or fall pray to the shallow analyses of "Oh, it's because our religion is similar" or "we've got such great history together". You see it and call it for what it is: Power politics- a massive game of chess played at world scale.

 

[editec]

Why do we support Isreal?

National politics, mostly.

There is no good geopolitical or stategic reason to do so now. Isreal is not a good jump off for a war with Islam or to protect oil interests or whatever.

One can see how creating Israel might have seemed like a good idea for the Western Powers post WWII, of course. But I do not think that we really believed that 50 plus years later their neighbors would still be objecting to that nation's existence.

So we've inherited this situation, and now, we know that we either support the continued existence of Israel or we watch the people of Isreal become victims of Islam.

I don't think that the USA will abandon Isreal.

At this stage of the game I'm not sure it would help our relationship with the Islamic world much even if we did.

The die is cast.

 

[Shogun]

This is an easy question to answer: Christian salvation REQUIRES blank check support of jews. The same people who lampoon 72 muslim virgins themselves hedge this conflict for the sake of their afterlife. If jesus were an Italian pagan there would be not isreal today.

THAT is a fact.

 

[Shogun]

Why didn't you mention that they are the first "democracy" in the Middle East, and proving that is the fact that Arab-Israeli's living in Israel are fully suffraged and that there are Arab-Israelis who also serve in the Knesset? It appears that the options you gave the members on which to vote are not complete.

I fully admit that I don't know much about this issue.

I read that Arabs don't have suffrage. I don't remember where I read it, so I can't verify the validity of the article, so I can't claim that its a fact. What's the Knesset? Is that like the Israeli parliament or congress?

Why does the US insist on supporting Israel because its a democracy? Aren't there other democracies in the Middle East? Still, doesn't supporting Israel reduce our national security and isn't it a major reason why Islamic fundamentalist extremist terrorist groups target the US?

The Knesset is the legislative branch of the Israeli government. Since 1949 Arab citizens have had voting rights and the right to serve in the Knesset. Recently the Central Elections Committee (CEC) banned two Arab parties: the "United Arab List-Ta'al" and "Balad" from running in next month's parliamentary elections amid accusations of racism from Arab Members and calling for the desctuction of Israel. Both of those parties intend to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

The CEC voted overwhelmingly in favor of banning those two parties, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Arabs haven't had it better in self government anywhere else in the Middle East except for possibly Iraq. Turkey is in Asia Minor and not formally a part of the M.E.

Kinda like how those ******* never had it better than Mississippi circa 1935, eh? Clearly, they should have been glad to be second class citizens too.. I mean, we see how jews accept that kind of status here in the US.. For a people whose very fucking business card reads "Persicuted since the Garden of Eden" one should expect them to SIMILARLY enjoy the most freedom they've ever had since Egypt even if they are second class to us white folk, eh?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It has little to do with the fact that Israel is a democracy- even LESS to do with "Religious beliefs". Those are all excuses if anything. Look at all of Latin America- democracies and religious beliefs, yet the entire aid to the region combined pales to what Israel has received [excluding, MAYBE Colombia, and even then it pales]. As for the Jewish lobby, it has nothing to do with that either. The US sends tons of Aid to Egypt, and how big could anybody claim the Egyptian lobby to be? Insignificant. The answer is almost entirely geopolitical: Israel is basically a Western colonial offshoot right next of the largest strategic energy resources in the world. The place is virtually run by relatively recent Western colonists - much like America once was, and many are even American colonists now, but even from the beginning, it was perfectly known that whoever controlled that region had the advantage internationally, and that remains true today. Israel, as the strongest power, has gotten the biggest cut of the aid pie, but basically any regime that ensures safe access to the gluttonous world market gets a cut, whether they maintain their populations controlled through imperialist expansionism [Israel] or through brutal repression [Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq pre-1991 and post-2003] - so long as they play by the rules of the game set forth by The Godfather.

I wouldn't have put it exactly like that, but that's pretty much it.

Real Politick. We have to have access to oil or the American civilization collapses. Despite what the touchy feely people like to think, they don't want their cushy existence ripped from them any more than anyone else.

Check the Carter Doctrine pronounced by the lord high touchy feely himself:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Viewed in this light and in the final analysis of what Bush actually did, as opposed to what he talked about, I suggest that the Bush Doctrine, was not in fact the Bush Doctrine, but the Bush Corollary to the Carter Doctrine.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

Your reasoning here seems in light of my experiences and learning, as the most likely for our current continued involvement with Israel (though not the only contributing factor as to why we got involved in the first place). Do you think thatis the US's official reason; or is it sort of talked around and left unsaid despite its being obvious to those who reason about it analytical?

And what about the American people? Do you think that your reasoning is what the majority of Americans believe as to why we so strongly support Israel?

 

[Tech_Esq]

It has little to do with the fact that Israel is a democracy- even LESS to do with "Religious beliefs". Those are all excuses if anything. Look at all of Latin America- democracies and religious beliefs, yet the entire aid to the region combined pales to what Israel has received [excluding, MAYBE Colombia, and even then it pales]. As for the Jewish lobby, it has nothing to do with that either. The US sends tons of Aid to Egypt, and how big could anybody claim the Egyptian lobby to be? Insignificant. The answer is almost entirely geopolitical: Israel is basically a Western colonial offshoot right next of the largest strategic energy resources in the world. The place is virtually run by relatively recent Western colonists - much like America once was, and many are even American colonists now, but even from the beginning, it was perfectly known that whoever controlled that region had the advantage internationally, and that remains true today. Israel, as the strongest power, has gotten the biggest cut of the aid pie, but basically any regime that ensures safe access to the gluttonous world market gets a cut, whether they maintain their populations controlled through imperialist expansionism [Israel] or through brutal repression [Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq pre-1991 and post-2003] - so long as they play by the rules of the game set forth by The Godfather.

I wouldn't have put it exactly like that, but that's pretty much it.

Real Politick. We have to have access to oil or the American civilization collapses. Despite what the touchy feely people like to think, they don't want their cushy existence ripped from them any more than anyone else.

Check the Carter Doctrine pronounced by the lord high touchy feely himself:


Viewed in this light and in the final analysis of what Bush actually did, as opposed to what he talked about, I suggest that the Bush Doctrine, was not in fact the Bush Doctrine, but the Bush Corollary to the Carter Doctrine.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

Your reasoning here seems in light of my experiences and learning, as the most likely for our current continued involvement with Israel (though not the only contributing factor as to why we got involved in the first place). Do you think thatis the US's official reason; or is it sort of talked around and left unsaid despite its being obvious to those who reason about it analytical?

And what about the American people? Do you think that your reasoning is what the majority of Americans believe as to why we so strongly support Israel?

No. I think most Americans would gag on the power politics aspect of this. I think the popular wisdom is that people need to 'feel good' about something to support it. Rarely does the government find itself with the luxury of being able to satisfactorily explaining something to the American people based on its Real Politick merits and having them be comfortable with it.

I think most Americans individually support Israel (for those who do), for any number of reasons they have become comfortable with over time.
- Evangelicals are a big part of that. I think they fall under what Shogun was talking about.
- The Holocaust issue is another one.
- An underdog theory (useful if you forget Israel has 300 nukes). Little Israel against all the Arabs.

Plus, I think people here are ambivalent about the plight of the palis. Not that they have anything against them, they just don't care. They were on the losing side of the conflict. Tough. I think that's pretty much the sentiment. Think about it, nowhere else do you have a situation where one side lost and they left to stay in permanent refugee status. Eventually most refugees are absorbed into different societies, not here.

I also think that if Americans really start looking at the Palestinian issue, they quickly get the idea that if the rich Arab countries were so concerned about the Palestinians, they could have resolved their plight by collective action and created a state from them out of their lands. But no. They leave them in crowed refugee camps. Strange way to treat your Islamic brothers who are in need.

 

[Shogun]

yea dude. it's so crazy to see other muslim nations reject the population of paliestine since you sure can't see the dame damn thing happen when Mexico sheds ITS fucking unwanteds, eh?

 

[Tech_Esq]

yea dude. it's so crazy to see other muslim nations reject the population of paliestine since you sure can't see the dame damn thing happen when Mexico sheds ITS fucking unwanteds, eh?

I might be missing your point, but.... if you are talking about Mexico sending its "unwanteds" your words not mine, to the US, there is an economic advantage for their country to do that. A nice $20 Billion /year of repatriated money. Further, the Mexican government continues to provide assistance and services to Mexicans in the US. So, it isn't like they are abandoning them.

The Palis have no state to send money back to. (They could if the Saudis or the Egyptians or both ceded land to them.)

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No. I think most Americans would gag on the power politics aspect of this. I think the popular wisdom is that people need to 'feel good' about something to support it. Rarely does the government find itself with the luxury of being able to satisfactorily explaining something to the American people based on its Real Politick merits and having them be comfortable with it.

I think most Americans individually support Israel (for those who do), for any number of reasons they have become comfortable with over time.
- Evangelicals are a big part of that. I think they fall under what Shogun was talking about.
- The Holocaust issue is another one.
- An underdog theory (useful if you forget Israel has 300 nukes). Little Israel against all the Arabs.

Plus, I think people here are ambivalent about the plight of the palis. Not that they have anything against them, they just don't care. They were on the losing side of the conflict. Tough. I think that's pretty much the sentiment. Think about it, nowhere else do you have a situation where one side lost and they left to stay in permanent refugee status. Eventually most refugees are absorbed into different societies, not here.

I also think that if Americans really start looking at the Palestinian issue, they quickly get the idea that if the rich Arab countries were so concerned about the Palestinians, they could have resolved their plight by collective action and created a state from them out of their lands. But no. They leave them in crowed refugee camps. Strange way to treat your Islamic brothers who are in need.

Very interesting and perhaps that says something about human nature and the nature of greed and self-interest. Perhaps to provoke those Islamic nations Obama is trying to extend somewhat an olive branch and make a "shining" example of the US by attempting to support or show support of the Palestinian plight?

I would also go so far as to add that couldn't it be possible that many Americans aren't just ambivalent to the plight of Palestine, but are even Islamaphobic (has that term been coined yet?) and are unwilling to sympathize either because they are Islamaphobic or because they don't want to be seen as anti-Israel or a mixture of both?

 

[strollingbones]

no i am going with religion...they jews publish this magazine...they say merry christmas...hell if you didnt pay close attention you would think it was a christian publication

 

[Shogun]

yea dude. it's so crazy to see other muslim nations reject the population of paliestine since you sure can't see the dame damn thing happen when Mexico sheds ITS fucking unwanteds, eh?

I might be missing your point, but.... if you are talking about Mexico sending its "unwanteds" your words not mine, to the US, there is an economic advantage for their country to do that. A nice $20 Billion /year of repatriated money. Further, the Mexican government continues to provide assistance and services to Mexicans in the US. So, it isn't like they are abandoning them.

The Palis have no state to send money back to. (They could if the Saudis or the Egyptians or both ceded land to them.)

yea.. for THEM. undermined wages really have treated the US pretty well, hasn't it?

but I digress, so, are you suggesting that it's the support of mexico that keeps the US at rejecting the assimilation of Mexico's unwanteds? Think before you answer that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

No. I think most Americans would gag on the power politics aspect of this. I think the popular wisdom is that people need to 'feel good' about something to support it. Rarely does the government find itself with the luxury of being able to satisfactorily explaining something to the American people based on its Real Politick merits and having them be comfortable with it.

I think most Americans individually support Israel (for those who do), for any number of reasons they have become comfortable with over time.
- Evangelicals are a big part of that. I think they fall under what Shogun was talking about.
- The Holocaust issue is another one.
- An underdog theory (useful if you forget Israel has 300 nukes). Little Israel against all the Arabs.

Plus, I think people here are ambivalent about the plight of the palis. Not that they have anything against them, they just don't care. They were on the losing side of the conflict. Tough. I think that's pretty much the sentiment. Think about it, nowhere else do you have a situation where one side lost and they left to stay in permanent refugee status. Eventually most refugees are absorbed into different societies, not here.

I also think that if Americans really start looking at the Palestinian issue, they quickly get the idea that if the rich Arab countries were so concerned about the Palestinians, they could have resolved their plight by collective action and created a state from them out of their lands. But no. They leave them in crowed refugee camps. Strange way to treat your Islamic brothers who are in need.

Very interesting and perhaps that says something about human nature and the nature of greed and self-interest. Perhaps to provoke those Islamic nations Obama is trying to extend somewhat an olive branch and make a "shining" example of the US by attempting to support or show support of the Palestinian plight?

I would also go so far as to add that couldn't it be possible that many Americans aren't just ambivalent to the plight of Palestine, but are even Islamaphobic (has that term been coined yet?) and are unwilling to sympathize either because they are Islamaphobic or because they don't want to be seen as anti-Israel or a mixture of both?

As to what Obama may do in resolving the issue, I'm like the General in War Games, "I'd pee on a spark plug if I thought it would help." Good luck to him.

Concerning your newly coined phobia, Americans were ambivalent about the Palis LOOOOOONG before this recent spate with Islamo-Fascists. So, I tend to discount that. Also, I'm not sure what it's like where you are, but we have a great many Muslims in DC and don't see much in the way of phobia over them going on.

Then again we have a lot of everything. Very cosmopolitan here, racists would be busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. I don't think too many people have that kind of time.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As to what Obama may do in resolving the issue, I'm like the General in War Games, "I'd pee on a spark plug if I thought it would help." Good luck to him.

Concerning your newly coined phobia, Americans were ambivalent about the Palis LOOOOOONG before this recent spate with Islamo-Fascists. So, I tend to discount that. Also, I'm not sure what it's like where you are, but we have a great many Muslims in DC and don't see much in the way of phobia over them going on.

Then again we have a lot of everything. Very cosmopolitan here, racists would be busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. I don't think too many people have that kind of time.

I wasn't thinking regionally so much because I haven't had much interraction here in Denver with anyone who hates Muslims, other than one Phillipino woman with whom I work. But I'm certain you must've come across some of the posts by other USMB members who have written very anti-Islamic sentiments. Hell, I'll post a recent one I just read:

We hate and fear tyrants and despots.

That means we stand against every Muslim nation on the face of the earth.

If AllieBaba's opinion represents at least a small segment of the US population, one can safely assume that many more silently feel the same way.

 

[Tech_Esq]

yea dude. it's so crazy to see other muslim nations reject the population of paliestine since you sure can't see the dame damn thing happen when Mexico sheds ITS fucking unwanteds, eh?

I might be missing your point, but.... if you are talking about Mexico sending its "unwanteds" your words not mine, to the US, there is an economic advantage for their country to do that. A nice $20 Billion /year of repatriated money. Further, the Mexican government continues to provide assistance and services to Mexicans in the US. So, it isn't like they are abandoning them.

The Palis have no state to send money back to. (They could if the Saudis or the Egyptians or both ceded land to them.)

yea.. for THEM. undermined wages really have treated the US pretty well, hasn't it?

but I digress, so, are you suggesting that it's the support of mexico that keeps the US at rejecting the assimilation of Mexico's unwanteds? Think before you answer that.

Oh sorry, yeah I completely didn't get that as your underlying question.

I'd call it apples and oranges. (Leaving aside that we assimilated millions of Mexicans in the 1980s). The reason that I pointed it out the way I did, making a point of Islamic part of it, was that it is one of the five pillars of Islam to give alms to the poor. In this case, the Palestinians would be the poor and the rich oil countries their potential benefactors. Maybe it doesn't apply when it is on that scale?

In the US's case, we don't have societal commonality with the Mexicans. Some people here are Catholic I guess. Some people speak Spanish. But there is no overwhelming binding cultural structure like there is with the Arabs.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As to what Obama may do in resolving the issue, I'm like the General in War Games, "I'd pee on a spark plug if I thought it would help." Good luck to him.

Concerning your newly coined phobia, Americans were ambivalent about the Palis LOOOOOONG before this recent spate with Islamo-Fascists. So, I tend to discount that. Also, I'm not sure what it's like where you are, but we have a great many Muslims in DC and don't see much in the way of phobia over them going on.

Then again we have a lot of everything. Very cosmopolitan here, racists would be busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. I don't think too many people have that kind of time.

I wasn't thinking regionally so much because I haven't had much interraction here in Denver with anyone who hates Muslims, other than one Phillipino woman with whom I work. But I'm certain you must've come across some of the posts by other USMB members who have written very anti-Islamic sentiments. Hell, I'll post a recent one I just read:

We hate and fear tyrants and despots.

That means we stand against every Muslim nation on the face of the earth.

If AllieBaba's opinion represents at least a small segment of the US population, one can safely assume that many more silently feel the same way.

Yeah, I'm sure there is a "knee-jerk" reaction similar to Allies that strikes a chord with a small percentage of Americans. I was with her up until the word "every" then I was gone.

Of course my Avatar is "Sic Semper Tyrannis" so you might have expected that.

 

[Shogun]

I might be missing your point, but.... if you are talking about Mexico sending its "unwanteds" your words not mine, to the US, there is an economic advantage for their country to do that. A nice $20 Billion /year of repatriated money. Further, the Mexican government continues to provide assistance and services to Mexicans in the US. So, it isn't like they are abandoning them.

The Palis have no state to send money back to. (They could if the Saudis or the Egyptians or both ceded land to them.)

yea.. for THEM. undermined wages really have treated the US pretty well, hasn't it?

but I digress, so, are you suggesting that it's the support of mexico that keeps the US at rejecting the assimilation of Mexico's unwanteds? Think before you answer that.

Oh sorry, yeah I completely didn't get that as your underlying question.

I'd call it apples and oranges. (Leaving aside that we assimilated millions of Mexicans in the 1980s). The reason that I pointed it out the way I did, making a point of Islamic part of it, was that it is one of the five pillars of Islam to give alms to the poor. In this case, the Palestinians would be the poor and the rich oil countries their potential benefactors. Maybe it doesn't apply when it is on that scale?

In the US's case, we don't have societal commonality with the Mexicans. Some people here are Catholic I guess. Some people speak Spanish. But there is no overwhelming binding cultural structure like there is with the Arabs.

yea, see. I'm just not into that whole "when jews do it then it's unique, apples and oranges and cant be compared to any other example in history". After all, how many of those 80s mexicans did we insist remain second class citizens based on their race?

Hell, how many times in christianity do we hear about alms to the poor, peace and love and, for fucks sake, TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK? yet you fine tooth comb muslims, eh? Where is this christian shit applied to PALIS?

and i'd disagree.. Mexicans had our soutwest before we did so it's rather disengenuous to road trip accross any state in that direction and deny the root influence of latino populations. so, you tell me... why can WE here in the US accept and assimilate a group of non-whites, given the ethnicity of those who created this nation, while jews get a free pass to be racist as fuck with demographics and who does and doesn't count in israel?

It's only apples and ornages to poeple who really don't want to admit what bullshit they support. I'm sure south Africa made similar statements back in 1979.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's have a list of peaceful, democratic Muslim countries....and a list of Muslim countries which haven't at some point had a leader make at least one sweeping condemnation of America, and voiced a desire to kill Christians.

 

[AllieBaba]

yea.. for THEM. undermined wages really have treated the US pretty well, hasn't it?

but I digress, so, are you suggesting that it's the support of mexico that keeps the US at rejecting the assimilation of Mexico's unwanteds? Think before you answer that.

Oh sorry, yeah I completely didn't get that as your underlying question.

I'd call it apples and oranges. (Leaving aside that we assimilated millions of Mexicans in the 1980s). The reason that I pointed it out the way I did, making a point of Islamic part of it, was that it is one of the five pillars of Islam to give alms to the poor. In this case, the Palestinians would be the poor and the rich oil countries their potential benefactors. Maybe it doesn't apply when it is on that scale?

In the US's case, we don't have societal commonality with the Mexicans. Some people here are Catholic I guess. Some people speak Spanish. But there is no overwhelming binding cultural structure like there is with the Arabs.

yea, see. I'm just not into that whole "when jews do it then it's unique, apples and oranges and cant be compared to any other example in history". After all, how many of those 80s mexicans did we insist remain second class citizens based on their race?

Hell, how many times in christianity do we hear about alms to the poor, peace and love and, for fucks sake, TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK? yet you fine tooth comb muslims, eh? Where is this christian shit applied to PALIS?

and i'd disagree.. Mexicans had our soutwest before we did so it's rather disengenuous to road trip accross any state in that direction and deny the root influence of latino populations. so, you tell me... why can WE here in the US accept and assimilate a group of non-whites, given the ethnicity of those who created this nation, while jews get a free pass to be racist as fuck with demographics and who does and doesn't count in israel?

It's only apples and ornages to poeple who really don't want to admit what bullshit they support. I'm sure south Africa made similar statements back in 1979.

Turning the other cheek is an individual directive. It is NOT a national one. As you know.

 

[Shogun]

Oh sorry, yeah I completely didn't get that as your underlying question.

I'd call it apples and oranges. (Leaving aside that we assimilated millions of Mexicans in the 1980s). The reason that I pointed it out the way I did, making a point of Islamic part of it, was that it is one of the five pillars of Islam to give alms to the poor. In this case, the Palestinians would be the poor and the rich oil countries their potential benefactors. Maybe it doesn't apply when it is on that scale?

In the US's case, we don't have societal commonality with the Mexicans. Some people here are Catholic I guess. Some people speak Spanish. But there is no overwhelming binding cultural structure like there is with the Arabs.

yea, see. I'm just not into that whole "when jews do it then it's unique, apples and oranges and cant be compared to any other example in history". After all, how many of those 80s mexicans did we insist remain second class citizens based on their race?

Hell, how many times in christianity do we hear about alms to the poor, peace and love and, for fucks sake, TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK? yet you fine tooth comb muslims, eh? Where is this christian shit applied to PALIS?

and i'd disagree.. Mexicans had our soutwest before we did so it's rather disengenuous to road trip accross any state in that direction and deny the root influence of latino populations. so, you tell me... why can WE here in the US accept and assimilate a group of non-whites, given the ethnicity of those who created this nation, while jews get a free pass to be racist as fuck with demographics and who does and doesn't count in israel?

It's only apples and ornages to poeple who really don't want to admit what bullshit they support. I'm sure south Africa made similar statements back in 1979.

Turning the other cheek is an individual directive. It is NOT a national one. As you know.

yea baba.. because we sure did see jesus throw his support to an army of jews who wanted to right rome..



it's sad, but predictable, how you act just like any other crusader looking for excuses despite your faith.