Why support Israel?

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

According to Wikipedia Jews have lived in Poland for over a thousand years...but y'all still don't consider them Polish?

Yeah, because Roudy sounds Polish. Haha.

 

[Coyote]

Why support Israel.

Well...first of all, question is completely open ended and vague. Support Israel in what way...under what circumstances?

Are people saying they would support Israel in all circumstances no matter what they did? So...when Israel uses absentee property laws to confiscate the property of landowners who are unable to return - do you support that?

Are people saying they would never support Israel no matter what happened, what was done to them or what they did? So when Israeli hospitals take in and treat Palestinian children or Syrian refugees pro bono - you would not support that?


I support Israel in some things:
her right to exist and her right to soveriegnty as a Jewish nation if that is what her people want, after all - every other nation is allowed the same self determination.
her right to protect her borders and her citizens within those borders but they need to be clearly defined and established borders.
her right to established laws, customs and free trade as her people desire

I do not support:
inequality in citizenship, rights, priveleges and the law
the treatment inequity under the law between Palestinians and Jews, in particular in regards to children
the expansion of settlements until borders are decided.

Well, I think it's most important for the U.S to stop supporting Israel monetarily.
But, I happen to think that in general about much of the World.

It's obvious that Jews displaced many Palestinians off the lands in the Nakba.

It would equally be wrong to displace Israelis now.

However, the Israeli settlements keep expanding,

Israel is an important ally and it's not the only mideast ally we send a lot of money too. Egypt is another. As is Pakistan. They support us in intelligence sharing, and have been a steadfast ally. They also do things we can not directly do. Support is based on strategic value in a large part. I suspect there is also a level of support based on guilt - guilt for doing nothing while Hitler slaughtered them.

 

[Coyote]

According to Wikipedia Jews have lived in Poland for over a thousand years...but y'all still don't consider them Polish?

Yeah, because Roudy sounds Polish. Haha.

Well ... I bet you didn't know Roudy's real name is Zbignew Przemysław did you?

How long must one exist in a country to be come accepted?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why support Israel.

Well...first of all, question is completely open ended and vague. Support Israel in what way...under what circumstances?

Are people saying they would support Israel in all circumstances no matter what they did? So...when Israel uses absentee property laws to confiscate the property of landowners who are unable to return - do you support that?

Are people saying they would never support Israel no matter what happened, what was done to them or what they did? So when Israeli hospitals take in and treat Palestinian children or Syrian refugees pro bono - you would not support that?


I support Israel in some things:
her right to exist and her right to soveriegnty as a Jewish nation if that is what her people want, after all - every other nation is allowed the same self determination.
her right to protect her borders and her citizens within those borders but they need to be clearly defined and established borders.
her right to established laws, customs and free trade as her people desire

I do not support:
inequality in citizenship, rights, priveleges and the law
the treatment inequity under the law between Palestinians and Jews, in particular in regards to children
the expansion of settlements until borders are decided.

Well, I think it's most important for the U.S to stop supporting Israel monetarily.
But, I happen to think that in general about much of the World.

It's obvious that Jews displaced many Palestinians off the lands in the Nakba.

It would equally be wrong to displace Israelis now.

However, the Israeli settlements keep expanding,

Israel is an important ally and it's not the only mideast ally we send a lot of money too. Egypt is another. As is Pakistan. They support us in intelligence sharing, and have been a steadfast ally. They also do things we can not directly do. Support is based on strategic value in a large part. I suspect there is also a level of support based on guilt - guilt for doing nothing while Hitler slaughtered them.

It seems the U.S support of Israel, props up the roughly 15 million Jewish egos, and props up the roughly 1.5 billion Muslim tempers at us.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

According to Wikipedia Jews have lived in Poland for over a thousand years...but y'all still don't consider them Polish?

Yeah, because Roudy sounds Polish. Haha.

How long must one exist in a country to be come accepted?

Well, how long must one exist in a country to assimilate to that society?

Hint, speaking Yiddish is not assimilating.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Why support Israel.

Well...first of all, question is completely open ended and vague. Support Israel in what way...under what circumstances?

Are people saying they would support Israel in all circumstances no matter what they did? So...when Israel uses absentee property laws to confiscate the property of landowners who are unable to return - do you support that?

Are people saying they would never support Israel no matter what happened, what was done to them or what they did? So when Israeli hospitals take in and treat Palestinian children or Syrian refugees pro bono - you would not support that?


I support Israel in some things:
her right to exist and her right to soveriegnty as a Jewish nation if that is what her people want, after all - every other nation is allowed the same self determination.
her right to protect her borders and her citizens within those borders but they need to be clearly defined and established borders.
her right to established laws, customs and free trade as her people desire

I do not support:
inequality in citizenship, rights, priveleges and the law
the treatment inequity under the law between Palestinians and Jews, in particular in regards to children
the expansion of settlements until borders are decided.

Well, I think it's most important for the U.S to stop supporting Israel monetarily.
But, I happen to think that in general about much of the World.

It's obvious that Jews displaced many Palestinians off the lands in the Nakba.

It would equally be wrong to displace Israelis now.

However, the Israeli settlements keep expanding,

Support is based on strategic value in a large part. I suspect there is also a level of support based on

What strategic value does the Mid-East hold for the U.S exactly?

 

[MaryL]

From the Lavon affair, to the U.S.S Liberty bombing, to Jonathan Pollard..... It just seems to be a one sided affair.... Especially considering support for Israel makes Muslims more angry at the U.S.

Can someone please tell us what's the purpose for us to support Israel?

Just because you read about Israel in the bible, or because they're Jewish.
Really?
as if those are logical explanations?

I can't answer that. We have Watergate and Vietnam, what about that? Jews were backed into a existential corner and they had nowhere else to go.

 

[Shusha]

inequality in citizenship, rights, priveleges and the law
the treatment inequity under the law between Palestinians and Jews, in particular in regards to children
the expansion of settlements until borders are decided.

Are you going to apply this to both sides?

For example, no Arab settlements within Israel "proper" are to get any new housing, even for natural expansion until the borders are decided?

Are we going to agree that there should be Arab-free areas?

Are we going to suggest that the presence of Arabs is an obstacle to the peace process?

Are you going to demand equality in Palestine and Gaza with respect to the treatment of Jews? (Starting with the simple idea of permitting them INTO Palestine and Gaza).

Do you demand that the Temple Mount immediately and permanently allow unrestricted Jewish visitation, including the right to pray, worship, celebrate and study there according to their religion? Do you demand that the Jewish people build a synagogue there?

Just curious.

 

[Coyote]

inequality in citizenship, rights, priveleges and the law
the treatment inequity under the law between Palestinians and Jews, in particular in regards to children
the expansion of settlements until borders are decided.

Are you going to apply this to both sides?

Well...since the topic was on supporting Israel...that's what I stuck to...

For example, no Arab settlements within Israel "proper" are to get any new housing, even for natural expansion until the borders are decided?

No - what ever is in Israel proper is up to Israel - and natural expansions ought to be accommodated for both Jews and non-Jews.

Are we going to agree that there should be Arab-free areas?

No. Nor should there be Jew free areas.

Are we going to suggest that the presence of Arabs is an obstacle to the peace process?

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

In an ideal solution - and we've discussed this before - the residents of the settlement would become citizens of what ever state they ended up in. But in less than ideal world, that exists now - it's unlikely they would be excepted by - or, in many cases desire to be citizens of another state. Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Are you going to demand equality in Palestine and Gaza with respect to the treatment of Jews? (Starting with the simple idea of permitting them INTO Palestine and Gaza).

Yup. But - until there is a state with a uniform set of laws and government - we can't really make comparisons.

Do you demand that the Temple Mount immediately and permanently allow unrestricted Jewish visitation, including the right to pray, worship, celebrate and study there according to their religion? Do you demand that the Jewish people build a synagogue there?

Just curious.

Yes to all but the last. I'm not sure ANY new construction should be permitted on such a site - whether Jewish or Muslim. It's ancient, valued and contentious. Everyone should be allowed access to it according to their religious dictates unless they violate the peace.

 

[Coyote]

According to Wikipedia Jews have lived in Poland for over a thousand years...but y'all still don't consider them Polish?

Yeah, because Roudy sounds Polish. Haha.

How long must one exist in a country to be come accepted?

Well, how long must one exist in a country to assimilate to that society?

Hint, speaking Yiddish is not assimilating.

That's it?

How many languages are spoken in China? How about Russia? Or Spain?

And a thousand years is a very long time.

 

[Shusha]

Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

Only because the Palestinians (and their supporters) begin with the notion that there can't be any Jews on land that will eventually belong to the Palestinian State. If you get rid of that idea, then all the problems of "settlements", whether Arab or Jewish, just go away. Any land can become part of either the redrawn State of Israel OR the new State of Palestine. Doesn't matter who lives there. (Though both states will likely want a cultural majority and that is fair enough in my world).

The Jewish people want one thing -- a safe, secure homeland. Its the easiest thing in the world for the Palestinians to give it to them. Why don't they?

 

[Coyote]

Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

Only because the Palestinians (and their supporters) begin with the notion that there can't be any Jews on land that will eventually belong to the Palestinian State. If you get rid of that idea, then all the problems of "settlements", whether Arab or Jewish, just go away. Any land can become part of either the redrawn State of Israel OR the new State of Palestine. Doesn't matter who lives there. (Though both states will likely want a cultural majority and that is fair enough in my world).

The Jewish people want one thing -- a safe, secure homeland. Its the easiest thing in the world for the Palestinians to give it to them. Why don't they?

Actually - I take issue with that claim. My understanding is that there will be no ISRAELI's or ISRAELI security forces - not Jews.

AND I'm not so sure that Israel would be willing to take Palestinians either.

 

[Shusha]

Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

Only because the Palestinians (and their supporters) begin with the notion that there can't be any Jews on land that will eventually belong to the Palestinian State. If you get rid of that idea, then all the problems of "settlements", whether Arab or Jewish, just go away. Any land can become part of either the redrawn State of Israel OR the new State of Palestine. Doesn't matter who lives there. (Though both states will likely want a cultural majority and that is fair enough in my world).

The Jewish people want one thing -- a safe, secure homeland. Its the easiest thing in the world for the Palestinians to give it to them. Why don't they?

Actually - I take issue with that claim. My understanding is that there will be no ISRAELI's or ISRAELI security forces - not Jews.

AND I'm not so sure that Israel would be willing to take Palestinians either.

Israel ALREADY HAS Arabs.

And if it means no Israelis, then you make my point for me. As long as the people (Jew or Arab) become Palestinians -- the settlements are not an obstacle to peace.

 

[Bleipriester]

Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

Only because the Palestinians (and their supporters) begin with the notion that there can't be any Jews on land that will eventually belong to the Palestinian State. If you get rid of that idea, then all the problems of "settlements", whether Arab or Jewish, just go away. Any land can become part of either the redrawn State of Israel OR the new State of Palestine. Doesn't matter who lives there. (Though both states will likely want a cultural majority and that is fair enough in my world).

The Jewish people want one thing -- a safe, secure homeland. Its the easiest thing in the world for the Palestinians to give it to them. Why don't they?

Actually - I take issue with that claim. My understanding is that there will be no ISRAELI's or ISRAELI security forces - not Jews.

AND I'm not so sure that Israel would be willing to take Palestinians either.

Israel ALREADY HAS Arabs.

And if it means no Israelis, then you make my point for me. As long as the people (Jew or Arab) become Palestinians -- the settlements are not an obstacle to peace.

Occupation is in fact an obstacle to peace.

 

[Coyote]

Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

Only because the Palestinians (and their supporters) begin with the notion that there can't be any Jews on land that will eventually belong to the Palestinian State. If you get rid of that idea, then all the problems of "settlements", whether Arab or Jewish, just go away. Any land can become part of either the redrawn State of Israel OR the new State of Palestine. Doesn't matter who lives there. (Though both states will likely want a cultural majority and that is fair enough in my world).

The Jewish people want one thing -- a safe, secure homeland. Its the easiest thing in the world for the Palestinians to give it to them. Why don't they?

Actually - I take issue with that claim. My understanding is that there will be no ISRAELI's or ISRAELI security forces - not Jews.

AND I'm not so sure that Israel would be willing to take Palestinians either.

Israel ALREADY HAS Arabs.

And if it means no Israelis, then you make my point for me. As long as the people (Jew or Arab) become Palestinians -- the settlements are not an obstacle to peace.

That's the problem though.

You are asking the Palestinians to TRUST that the Israeli government isn't going to confiscate all those areas for Israel.

You are asking the occupants of those settlements to TRUST that the Palestinians will accept them into a new nation and keep them safe. IF INDEED they WANT that - they may very well be assuming - and calling for - the settlements to become part of greater Israel.

A lot of trust and little reason to trust on all sides.

So yes they are an obstacle to peace.

 

[Bleipriester]

Why support Israel.

Well...first of all, question is completely open ended and vague. Support Israel in what way...under what circumstances?

Are people saying they would support Israel in all circumstances no matter what they did? So...when Israel uses absentee property laws to confiscate the property of landowners who are unable to return - do you support that?

Are people saying they would never support Israel no matter what happened, what was done to them or what they did? So when Israeli hospitals take in and treat Palestinian children or Syrian refugees pro bono - you would not support that?


I support Israel in some things:
her right to exist and her right to soveriegnty as a Jewish nation if that is what her people want, after all - every other nation is allowed the same self determination.
her right to protect her borders and her citizens within those borders but they need to be clearly defined and established borders.
her right to established laws, customs and free trade as her people desire

I do not support:
inequality in citizenship, rights, priveleges and the law
the treatment inequity under the law between Palestinians and Jews, in particular in regards to children
the expansion of settlements until borders are decided.

Well, I think it's most important for the U.S to stop supporting Israel monetarily.
But, I happen to think that in general about much of the World.

It's obvious that Jews displaced many Palestinians off the lands in the Nakba.

It would equally be wrong to displace Israelis now.

However, the Israeli settlements keep expanding,

Israel is an important ally and it's not the only mideast ally we send a lot of money too. Egypt is another. As is Pakistan. They support us in intelligence sharing, and have been a steadfast ally. They also do things we can not directly do. Support is based on strategic value in a large part. I suspect there is also a level of support based on guilt - guilt for doing nothing while Hitler slaughtered them.

It seems the U.S support of Israel, props up the roughly 15 million Jewish egos, and props up the roughly 1.5 billion Muslim tempers at us.

Those 1,5 billion don´t control your finance system.

 

[BulletProof]

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

In just the West Bank, the number of Israeli Jews has only increased every year. In fact, 13% of Israel's entire Jewish population now lives illegally in the West Bank.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

The only remarkable restraint is in the world's patients with Israel. Israel is as belligerent as it thinks it can get away with. And, it's not much of a negotiated settlement hoped for when Israel has already entrenched itself in the land.

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

And, year we are, twenty, even fifty, years on. And, still not even a hint of a sincere peace deal from Israel. Israel has the power to deal unilaterally, if they weren't a bunch of lying, f1cking Antichrists. Israel could unilaterally recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.

 

[Shusha]

Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

Only because the Palestinians (and their supporters) begin with the notion that there can't be any Jews on land that will eventually belong to the Palestinian State. If you get rid of that idea, then all the problems of "settlements", whether Arab or Jewish, just go away. Any land can become part of either the redrawn State of Israel OR the new State of Palestine. Doesn't matter who lives there. (Though both states will likely want a cultural majority and that is fair enough in my world).

The Jewish people want one thing -- a safe, secure homeland. Its the easiest thing in the world for the Palestinians to give it to them. Why don't they?

Actually - I take issue with that claim. My understanding is that there will be no ISRAELI's or ISRAELI security forces - not Jews.

AND I'm not so sure that Israel would be willing to take Palestinians either.

Israel ALREADY HAS Arabs.

And if it means no Israelis, then you make my point for me. As long as the people (Jew or Arab) become Palestinians -- the settlements are not an obstacle to peace.

Occupation is in fact an obstacle to peace.

There is no occupation.

 

[Bleipriester]

Wouldn't freezing it be better for negotiating a solution?

Israel has not built a new "settlement" in 20 years. It just this summer broke ground on the first in 20 years and that only to home the residents of Amona who were forcibly removed.

Israel is building only in places it intends to keep in a negotiated settlement, and only for natural growth. It demonstrates remarkable restraint. Israel ISN'T actually leeching away land that the Palestinians "need".

And yet, here we are, twenty years on, and still not even a hint of any kind of viable peace offerings from the Palestinians.

It's not the same thing. It's not just the presence of Arabs or Jews that are causing contention. From the point of view of the Palestinians the settlements will either become part of the Jewish state - and their expansions represent "facts on the ground" towards becoming part of Israel proper thus removing that area from a possible Palestinian state rather then a negotiated settlement. How can you negotiate two states when one state is eating up the land the other state depends on for a coherent state?

Only because the Palestinians (and their supporters) begin with the notion that there can't be any Jews on land that will eventually belong to the Palestinian State. If you get rid of that idea, then all the problems of "settlements", whether Arab or Jewish, just go away. Any land can become part of either the redrawn State of Israel OR the new State of Palestine. Doesn't matter who lives there. (Though both states will likely want a cultural majority and that is fair enough in my world).

The Jewish people want one thing -- a safe, secure homeland. Its the easiest thing in the world for the Palestinians to give it to them. Why don't they?

Actually - I take issue with that claim. My understanding is that there will be no ISRAELI's or ISRAELI security forces - not Jews.

AND I'm not so sure that Israel would be willing to take Palestinians either.

Israel ALREADY HAS Arabs.

And if it means no Israelis, then you make my point for me. As long as the people (Jew or Arab) become Palestinians -- the settlements are not an obstacle to peace.

Occupation is in fact an obstacle to peace.

There is no occupation.

Of course not. It´s recently appeared land.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

According to Wikipedia Jews have lived in Poland for over a thousand years...but y'all still don't consider them Polish?

Yeah, because Roudy sounds Polish. Haha.

How long must one exist in a country to be come accepted?

Well, how long must one exist in a country to assimilate to that society?

Hint, speaking Yiddish is not assimilating.

That's it?

How many languages are spoken in China? How about Russia? Or Spain?

And a thousand years is a very long time.

Many of those people in China were conquered.

This is not the case with Jews.

If Jews are just Polish, what right do they have to Israel?

It seems Jews just spin what ever the heck they want to get theirs at all costs.

Then so be it, get them out of our lands, we don't want such deceitful people.