Thank you brother, much respect for your perspective.
However, I disagree with some of it.
Arabs are ever bit as "semitic" as Israelis, thus the term "anti-semitism" is a misnomer and created to avoid conversations and critical thinking on Israel.
I am aware of the misnomer in regard to the term "antisemitic" insofar as the original definition of the word goes.
However, as the word is currently used:
antisemitic
adjective
relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews [syn: anti-semitic]
antisemitic definition | Dictionary.com
If it makes you feel better, you can replace it with Jew-hating.
Israeli hard-liners exist in both mainstream corporate parties .. this in spite of being 3% of the US population.
I'm sure. I didn't say they didn't exist.
Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any nation on earth, including Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. The US consistently intervenes in any and every attempt by the world community to moderate Isareli aggression and atrocities.
And the UN has consistently ruled against Israel and in favor of Palestine. Imagine that. There are no rules to survival except "win."
The "terrorists" from 9/11 were from Saudia Arabia .. would you suggest we invade Saudia Arabia no matter how many "terrorists" are found there?
Not sure where you are coming from on this one. To my knowledge, we have not invaded Palestine, nor do we intend to. I have not suggested invading anyone.
The fact that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists came from Saudi Arabia means little to me. That's like saying Oklahoma could invade Timothy McVeigh's homestate. What does point of origin have to do with their criminal activity?
If your point is that Wahabbism, the extremist version of Sunni Islam presents a threat, and originated in Saudi Arabia to counter Shi'ism when it first began to spread following WWII, I agree.
However, Saudi Arabia is not a terrorist nation, and in fact is having to combat terrorism itself. That's a far cry from the people of Palestine democratically electing a terrorist organization to act on its behalf as their legitimate government.
The Rand Corporation, whom I'm sure you're aware of, says the war on terroris a hoax and chasing terrorists would be better done by polce organizations.
Hoax? I disagree with that term. However, using conventional military force to combat terrorism is like conducting surgery with a battleaxe.
I do not agree that those who stand against Israel are "the enemies of civilized people" .. especially given that many of those who stand against Israel and the ocupation are Israelis themselves.
Okay.
Israel is an artificial state created in Arab lands by European colonial powers after World War II. Instead of working to win acceptance and overcoming Arab hostility to Europe shipping off "the Jewish problem" to the Middle East, Israel has antagonized its Middle East neighbors. Israel can play the bully-boy role, because the US acts as Israel's big brother. With its policy of fang and claw, Israel endangers its own right to exist.
Israel is a state that was first conceptualized following WWI, and as I previously stated, by the rules of the day, to the victor goes the spoils. The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side. As a consequence, the empire was broken up and the victors assumed mandates in its former satellites.
Kind of revising history calling Israel the bully boys, aren't you? The Arab nations have on several occasions, acting alone or in concert have attacked Israel. Basically, you are accusing them of defending their lives and property as if it's a bad thing.
Now that Israel does exist, regardless of its inception, I support it's right to continue to exist, but as a responsible neighbor and citizen of the world. I do not support it's right to bring down America with it.
Again we're back to this. I don't support Israel bringing the US down with it either. However, the argument itself is a strawman.