Not that your argument will cleave to, ahem, honesty, eh?
America: love it exactly as it is or [del]move to Canada[/del] expel our ambassadors?
Were you also for Freedom Fries and cutting off France, or is your outrage, shall we say, selective?
Considering that most of the military loans/defense contracts we have with Israel are actually a subsidy to our own defense industry, you’re coming off as more than a little bit ignorant.
Leaving aside all your silly errors (Diamonds from Europe? Want to guess how many of DeBeers mines are in Europe?), do you even have a baseline understanding of economics? If Israeli products weren’t competitive on the global market, we wouldn’t be buying them.
I know that your argument is based on screaming ignorance rather than a reasoned analysis of facts, but come on. Even with the current slump, Israel’s high tech sector is more than 10% of their economy. Israel has more tech stocks on the Nasdaq than any country other than the US or China. I suppose I could go ahead and point out all the inventions we use that are Israeli, all the contributions that Israel has made to global science, etc… but something tells me if you were interested you’d have found out before you started making claims from ignorance.
Ahhh yes “ZOMG, spizorz!!!”
Newsflash: every capable country on the planet spies on pretty much every other country on the planet. The US spies on our allies, including Israel. How many of our allies can you spot on this list on page 62 representing just the domestic spies we’ve caught? Funny, but you’re not calling for outrage against the UK, Japan, South Korea, etc… How many of the more than 90 countries spying on our technological and corporate secrets are you advising people to be outraged at? Do I even need to mention China?
I’m sure you can provide a list of all of our allies that we’ve spied on, and you’ll quickly voice reasons why they, too, should cut off diplomatic and economic contact with us, right?
Or are we only talking about selective outrage, emphasis on selective?
That is literally Israel’s “insane populace”. Ben Gvir is a National Front politician and a former Kahanite who was quite possibly involved in the bombing of Zeev Sternhell. Matar has compared the Israeli government to Jewish collaborators with Nazism and accused them of wanting to complete the Holocaust.
These people are far right activists, and they don’t represent the Israeli population as a whole. Remember, it’s not that hard to find Americans who claim that Obama is a Muslim terrorist either.
If Israel doesn’t like the U.S., there is no need to move to Canada, just stop accepting welfare payments from the Treasury. I was not outraged with France but I can understand why some Americans were. In WW2, it was America that liberated France from the Nazis and it was disheartening when the country turned its back on us during the Iraqi invasion and subsequent reconstruction. Keep in mind that there were other European countries like the Netherlands, Britain, Denmark, whose populace did not agree with the war. Those countries still had troops on the ground in Iraq.
No, Israel’s economy is hinged on welfare payments from U.S Treasury. According to the U.S government, “Israel is not economically self-sufficient and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy.” It goes on to say that in 2005, Israel received “$240 million in Economic Support Funds, 2.28 billion in Foreign Military Financing, and $40 million dollars in refugee assistance.” Here’s a nice gem from the .pdf (bolding mine).
Too bad those reductions didn’t happen, eh? The United States has already appropriated over 2.6 billion dollars for 2009 for Israel with a projected 2.8 billion for the 2010 budget. Those numbers don’t even include the supplemental that Obama signed that appropriates 700 million dollars to rebuilding Gaza and to provide humanaritian assistance like food and clothing; this is money that the Israel should be spending. Israel is the force that bombed the shit out of the buildings and left children homeless in Gaza - why should the United States appropriate any money for this?
My mistake. I was under the impression that DeBeers was a European company since the British had colonized South Africa. A search on Wikipedia shows that you are correct. DeBeers is certainly a South African company and not a European one.
That’s the thing. They aren’t. I’ve shopped in the U.S all my life, and I’ve never, ever seen a piece of produce or a clothing that indicates it was made in Israel; Have you or has anyone? Serious question.
That might be true, but according to the U.S, you guys are still receiving welfare payments from the Treasury. Welfare payments that are projected to increase in 2010 despite the fact that our economy is in the shitter. Its very hard to swallow the idea of Israeli economic independence when the government is so dependent on U.S. handouts.
By all means, please. I am very interested to see what Israeli scientists and engineers have done in the last 10 years. I’ll even start to make this fun: Apple, an American software company, developed the iPhone in 2007. Your turn.
Who are you referring to as “we”? The U.S or Israel? In either case, I subscribe to the view that if a country admits to spying on us, that the diplomatic relations between the two countries should be reviewed.
I have seem pharmaceuticals advertised. I receive a catalog that advertises artistic and religious gift objects made in Israel, but not a lot of my income is spent on it.
Israelis developed the USB flash drive. Some interesting robotics with a military application.
It should also be pointed out that, once you provided your link, it’s now also obvious that there was zero honesty in the claim that anybody depicted Obama as a terrorist. They depicted him in traditional Palestinian garb, that’s it.
Let’s see… first off, as I already showed you and you’re avoiding acknowledging, most Israelis aren’t at all hostile to Obama. In fact, most Israelis quite like the US. But, of course, you’d pretend that disagreement means they should stop accepting money… as if they force us to give them cash, or something.
with the war. Those countries still had troops on the ground in Iraq.
Ahh yes, we’ve already had sillyness about “colonialism” why not “welfare” too.
How “self-sufficient” do you think America would be without China? No nation is self-sufficient in a global economy, least of all us. That Israel also isn’t self-sufficient is not much of a surprise. And, if you check the very basic math, you’d see that the vast, vast, vast majority of funds are actually subsidies to our own military supplies, as I pointed out.
So you’re surprised that the tally of money sent to Israel does not include money sent to places that are not Israel? This is a shock to you?
So you’re claiming that Israeli goods are bought not because they’re viewed as being worth the money, but becasue they’re not? Kay.
Us guys? Would that be my family, New York state in general, Tompkins County or Ithaca in specific, or what?
You can also stop with that silly “welfare” bullshit any time now.
If you were, you’d have done the research before making the claim. I’m not going to be baited into some weird tangent where we take turns posting inventions. Nor am i going to be baited into playing with your weird non sequitor digression that aims to compare the output of the US with a tiny nation with very few natural resources.
As I’m sure you’re being honest, you can certainly provide cites as to all the other threads in which you’ve said that all the nations which have spied on us should have things reevaluated. And all the threads where you’ve said that all the nations we’ve been caught spying on should reconsider their alliances with us. Why, I’m sure that you’ve got many such posts. At least fifty. Twenty five? Ten? Five?
Surely you have at least one, honesty?
Ahh yes, we’ve already had sillyness about “colonialism” why not “welfare” too.
FinnAgain, you’re informed enough to know that China is investing in US bonds which will make them a profit. Israel is getting free money from the US. It is insulting for you to not recognize that.
That has nothing to do with the reason why calling mostly military aid to an important strategic ally in the region, “welfare”, is an absurdity.
Israel is not getting “free money”, a portion of what Israel gets are loans. Even the money we do send as direct aid has been an investment in a strong military partner in the region since the Cold War.
And, of course, regardless of how insulted you may want to be, you’re ignoring the fact that the US is not self-sufficient at all and our economy wouldn’t be anywhere near where it was without international investment. Which, of course, was the point.
“An important military strategic ally in the region?” When, in the last 50 years, has Israel been able to provide military assistance to the US in the region? This “strategic ally” business has been going on for far too long. Our long-lasting and principled support for Israel has helped Israel’s defense posture, but has been a detriment for our diplomacy in the region, and you can’t deny it.
That answers points one and two, it seems to me.
For point three, I’d never make the case that the US was self-sufficient. Nor would I deny, for instance, that British investment in the 19th century funded the building of railroads. Do you think those who have invested in the US wisely haven’t been repayed? But there are no countries (and haven’t been, as far as I know) providing the US with any funds cost free. Can you say that about Israel? And are you denying that Israelis or supporters of that aid shouldn’t make sort of recognition for the fact that it is freely given?
Also, the NESS L300. It’s a neat little thing. People with foot drop from paralysis wear it, and when they walk it sends electrical pulses to the nerves in the foot and leg so that they can walk normally.
Actually, there’s a whole bundle of electronic and medical devices that were invented by Israelis.
The US used Israel as an ally against the Soviet backed Arab states during the Cold War, that we have a valuable port open to us that we can base out of, and so on.
Yes, Israel is an important military ally in the region.
Of course, Israel has force projection capabilities. Israel has been able to for to for the roughly 40 years since we started giving them substantial aid. The question you mean to ask is “have we taken advantage of those capabilities?” the answer is, in general, no. Of course, part of the reason Sadaam never got nukes was due to Israeli intervention.
Facts have a way or sticking around like that.
Of course, you also should know full well that “strategic ally” does not mean “makes its neighbors like us”. Britain was one of our strategic allies during WWII. Do you think that improved our relationship with Germany much?
How do you “make sort of recognition for [a] fact”?
Yes, some aid given to Israel is not aid to our own military suppliers or loans. Nobody has denied that a non-zero portion of aid to Israel isn’t in the form of loans. But, by the same token, you are denying the rather obvious fact that we support Israel and have supported Israel since the Cold War due to strategic concerns. That’s why we shifted our stance after 1967, precisely because we viewed Israel as a military asset to be used against Soviet backed Arab states.
I am cutting out FinnAgain’s posturing, insults, repetitions, and other under-handed techniques. This leaves a much shorter post to respond to. When Finn addresses a point he bites it, snarls and thrashes around, provides nothing in the way of support, then releases it and repeats the exact same process with the next item that catches his eye.
Look at his response to my last post. You could take any one paragraph of his response and apply it to a different point I made, and you’d hardly be able to tell the difference from his original post.
As for the many claims that I am engaging in “bluster” (swaggering bravado and braggadocio, an assertive show of confidence) I will note that it is the opposite of what I am doing, and an eerily accurate description of his prose. Nice projecting, Finn. Want to take it to the Pit or make a better attempt to discuss like a civilized person?
The claim of exclusive and solely religious significance is your own reading. I do not draw that conclusion from the Wikipedia article. Whatever aliyah may be for some atheists or secular people, do you disagree that it is originally a religious concept?
Or would you attribute this confusion to the nation/religion duality involved in being Jewish? If so could you please show how, preferably with brevity and without your customary diatribes.
My argument is that since inception Israel has had to deal with and pander to a religious political extreme. This did not arise in recent times, it affected the fabric of the new nation. Even the very first document of the state of Israel was carefully worded to appease **both ** the secular and non.
By the way, are we still waiting for official Israeli clarification of what some of the religious language in the Declaration refers to? Last time I checked was in the 90s, did that ever materialize or has it been permanently shelved?
I do not disagree with you that the Haredim present a problem today by dint of their voting power. My point is that Israel has had variations of this problem since founding and is not, de facto, a secular state for the reasons already argued at length. Religious groups should not enjoy such disproportionate influence and privileges in properly secular states. Hence my example of Turkey, which I would consider more secular than Israel (in spite of being much more religiously uniform than Israel).
Preference for Judaism is institutionalized in Israel. That’s not secular.
The problem is that you refuse to consider anything that does not fit your preconceptions of what constitutes tangible value.
Resolution 181 was passed with a two thirds vote - an extremely important message to Zionists and to their opponents. Quite aside from 181, the efforts of the LoN and the UN to assist the Zionist movement and establish a Jewish home in Palestine constituted an international movement that sanctioned the presence of a growing Jewish population in Palestine. These efforts culminated in 181, which was so successful that no fewer than 7 delegations stormed out in protest and threatened war (Arab delegations + Pakistan). That kind of thing puts a damper on diplomatic efforts, but it certainly signalled sufficient support to the Zionists, who a few months later declared independence.
Not all UN resolutions result in action; many exist only to send a message or a signal, and some that are intended to be put into action never are (like 181) but nonetheless demonstrate intent, signal what is considered acceptable, indicate the direction of diplomatic current, and/or allow parties to formulate their strategy accordingly - as with the Zionists, who acted a few months after 181 because they had received clear support from this resolution and from the international community.
The 1948 war is also an interesting showcase of how valuable international relations are. The UN, after intense diplomatic efforts and threatening to cite some Arab countries for aggression under the UN Charter, managed to institute truces in June and July 1948 that allowed Israeli forces valuable time to improve their positions (these opportunities were largely squandered by the typical bickering of the Arab aggressors).
You ask how many tanks were stopped, aircraft landed, and guns silenced by these “pieces of paper”? Technically, all of them.
I generally try to take the long view. In this discussion I have talked about Zionism and Israel from the very early 1900s to present day.
Ah, now you are calling me a liar.
Moral support; I already mentioned it, but I am not given to describing issues in such passionate terms. Re-read some of my posts and you will see very similar points made using different terms.
In your example above, over a specific period of time Jews were **illegally **immigrating to Palestine as a political movement in order to take it over, a piece of land to which they had no valid claim. What did you expect the administrators of the land to do? Welcome them with open arms? The British had enough problems in Palestine from both Jews and Arabs, I can’t blame them for trying to avoid an influx of hundreds of thousand of illegal immigrants.
I’ve cited instances of international political goodwill for Zionists and support for a Jewish state from the early days of the 20th century to independence. You can certainly find some examples that do not match the trend, but you will need more to show that the trend was otherwise.
Written in a hurry. I should add to my above comment that the time between resolution 181 (November 29, 1947) and Israeli independence declaration (14 May 1948) was just 6 months. During this period the UN and its member states were not sitting on their hands. There was intense effort to reach a solution but it was stymied both by some UN member states and the increasingly chaotic fighting in Palestine (thousands of casualties in mere months - and this is before the war).
I would also amend the clumsy line “who acted a few months after 181 because they had received clear support” to “who acted a few months after 181 as a consequence of the support shown in 181”.
Okay, I don’t know how to work the board to isolate points. So bear with me.
FinnAgain. “The US used Israel as an ally against the Soviet backed Arab states during the Cold War, that we have a valuable port open to us that we can base out of, and so on.
Yes, Israel is an important military ally in the region.”
Sorry, the geopolitics of the Cold War don’t have much utility today. You’re 20 years out of date.
FinnAgain" Of course, Israel has force projection capabilities. Israel has been able to for to for the roughly 40 years since we started giving them substantial aid. The question you mean to ask is “have we taken advantage of those capabilities?” the answer is, in general, no. Of course, part of the reason Sadaam never got nukes was due to Israeli intervention."
So, in fact these force projection capabilities have never, ever, been made use of.
FinnAgain “Facts have a way or sticking around like that. Of course, you also should know full well that “strategic ally” does not mean “makes its neighbors like us”. Britain was one of our strategic allies during WWII. Do you think that improved our relationship with Germany much?”
Though there is great virtue in defending Israel, it might make sense for Israelis and supporters of Israel to recognize, with some gratefulness, that it really isn’t in the US interest to do so. No, I can’t imagine that anyone’s support for Britain would improve anyone’s support for Germany. What are you getting at here? Given that Israel didn’t exist at the time?
FinnAgain "That’s why we [the US presumably, added by NotAsSmartAsIThought] shifted our stance after 1967, precisely because we viewed Israel as a military asset to be used against Soviet backed Arab states.
Yep, that’s again, 20 years out of date.
American support of Israel doesn’t depend on a “strategic partnership” in my view, but in a great sense of '“rightness.” But in return, Israelis and their supporters must, in my view, recognize that billions of dollars of American money go to Israel and at least be appreciative. And we’re not getting much in return. (And to forestall questions, I make the same sorts of questions to Egypt when I find an Egyptian interlocutor). I won’t agree that any military assistance is anything but a gift in defense of Israel by the American people. We’re not getting any US benefit from that, as you’ve refused so far to acknowledge, but not to deny.
I don’t know what loans you are talking about, the cite I provided from the State Departmentshows these as non-repayable grants. For example, the U.S government spent $9,941,000 dollars on Rabin Center for Israel Studies and the Center for Human Dignity Museum. Who is Rabin and why are my tax dollars being spent on a museum in Tel Aviv? These are projects that Israel should financing.
We don’t have this relationship with China. China purchases our bonds because U.S bonds are one the safest investments in the world. While this may annoy you, Congress doesn’t sent a wishlist to Chinese Ministry of International Welfare to request a non-repayable grant for our ailing automobile industry or fund a Harriet Tubman Museum in Columbus, OH. The U.S draws income from the Chinese because they think our securities are worth investing in and we’re free to use that money as we see fit.
Far as I’m concerned, if its been the official position of the United States for 30 years to stop expanding settlements in the West Bank, Israel should have ceased construction in deference to the very generous welfare we provide.
I see how very against such underhanded techniques you are.
Yeepers.
Correct. Your argument is full of shit in exactly the same way on each individual point you raise. Glad you’ve realized that.
Pit you? What for? Your argument is shit and I’m more than capable of pointing out that fact, and that you’ve steadfastly avoided actually making an argument other than this same sort of silly bluster. You’re still just blustering. Care to aruge with actual facts and causal relationships, in GD, where the debate is going on, what support if any you have for your position that things like 181 did anything?
Or just more of the same, then?
Nope, I just quoted it, and itemized the list of things that your uncited, mob-created wiki article said.
It’s intersting that, even now, you are either unable or unwilling to address what was actually said, and must keep up this empty bluster about how I’m just wrong. Of course, you can’t and won’t explain why the plain text isn’t saying what it’s saying. Just more of this empty bluster “Nuh unh poopyheadfinn, you wrong!”
The point, here, is that the cite you offered is self-contradictory and its claims are uncited. But of course you’d rather change the subject from the support you (haven’t) offered for your argument to me. Shocka.
Yet again, try to look at this rationally instead of trying to rationalize your position. if it wasn’t the fact that there was a significant percentage of Israelis who wanted religion to be important, why would there have had to be language that appealed to them?
As it is, you’ve repeatedly ignored the fact that without the Orthodox, the laws that they and only they support wouldn’t get passed in the first place. Which shows that the system itself is not religious but that voting blocs can get their agendas turned into law. I expect you’ll avoid this point, yet again, and talk about how much of a poopyhead I am.
No, you have not provided any reasons, at all, that is a fiction.
What you have done, in fact, is to continually rebut your own claims by again and again demonstrating that Israel’s religious laws are in place only due to a voting bloc and that, without them, there would be no such laws.
WTF is the problem here? You’re claiming it did anything? Show how this ‘message’ effected a single thing. Were the Arabs not going to attack and then did? Was Israel not going to be created and then it was? Or was everything already in motion and the resolution did nothing.
I am still waiting for you to even attempt to start proving your claims.
Are you finally going to?
“Sam and Jessica got married, but i said they should so I’m to credit, since I sanctioned it.”
Yet-a-freaking-gain, show how this “sanction” effected anything. Did it change the minds of the Arabs? The Israelis? Anybody involved in the actual creation of Israel?
Yet again, you make nebulous claims which avoid you actually trying to show how this “sanction” did anything.
Why don’t you at least try?
That’s what you’re claiming it did? Is this a joke? It was “effective” in making people leave a room and they wouldn’t have declared war anyway? You’re claiming that those people leaving a room somehow did anything? They wouldn’t have threatened to declare war on Israel if Israel had, all on its own, declared Independence? They’d have been fine with it?
Or, as the facts show, would they not have been fine with it, Israel would have declared independence anyways, and there still would have been a war? Do I even need to ask? Along the same lines, if your claim is that it actually caused war when war wouldn’t have happened otherwise (which is the only way it would have done something other than causing people to leave a room) then your argument is actually that it made it harder for Israel to be created. That is, 181 frustrated the creation of Israel.
Unless, of course, this is just more of the same and you’re not actually alleging any causal relationship between 181 and the actual formation of the state of Israel.
Yet again, I’ve pointed this out several times and you’ve simply ignored it. If you’re claiming that this did anything, you need to show that the Zionists would not have declared independence without it. Otherwise, it did nothing since what you’re claiming it “did” would have happened anyways.
We’re not talking quantum math here. This is basic logic.
“Sure, Pete and Suzy were going to get married anyways and would have if I’d said nothing. But, I did say they should get married. Therefore, I did it.”
Point of fact: 181 was a UN General Assembly resolution, not an Security Council resolution. As it is, it would’ve had to have been made under Chapter VII to have any intent to be put into action. it wasn’t. It was never anything more than mere rhetoric.
:rolleyes:
Give proof or retract. Show that the Zionists had not, in fact, planned to act and acted because of 181. All you’ve done is offer up the fallacy of post hoc ergo proper hoc. Got any non-fallacious reasoning?
“I said that Billy and Debby should get married and, look, several months later, they did! I did it.”
Because, the actual facts show that the Zionists were committed to acting without any support, at all. Even if it meant opposing the UK. The actual facts of the matter, as opposed to your story, was that at least five years prior to the Partition plan, Zionist leadership had already declared that they would form a commonwealth. And then, as with 181, they used international agreements as justification for what they’d already chosen to. And in the case of The Biltmore Program, they actually went beyond what the Peel Commission and the Balfour Deceleration had authorized, even while claiming to be carrying out their intent.
Finally, something you claim actually did something. Not 181, and not any international good will, but a specific action taken by the UN. Good. But, of course, your claim that it was “diplomacy” is gainsaid by the actual UNSC Resolution 50 which, if violated or not agreed to, would be enforced under Chapter VII, that is, via military force. So rather than any silliness about “citing” anybody for anything, the truce was enforced because the UNSC threatened to use military force.
Of course, you’re still shifting the goalposts as you’ve gone from “the reason Israel exists today is thanks to the international community, who laid important groundwork for what would become Israel.” to saying that, yah, the groundwork and blah blah blah didn’t accomplish anything, but threatening to go in with guns blazing secured a bit of a halt to the fighting.
Likewise, the truce was not an instance of international support for Israel. It was, specifically, crafted “without prejudice to the rights, claims and position of either Arabs or Jews”. Had it been about support for Israel, it would have utilized Chapter VII to make the parties adhere to 181. It didn’t.
Yet again, as the facts show, unenforceable resolutions did nothing. The threat of military action, however, did. But even then, it wasn’t support for Israel. In point of fact, Bernadotte’s original intent was not for an independent Israel at all, but for a federalist state with Israel and an Arab territory made mostly from Jordan. Once he realized that was impossible, in his second proposal he acknowledged what I’ve been saying all along, which was that a Jewish state already existed in Palestine. It was not any support for creating a Jewish state, but an acknowledgment that the Jews had already created Israel and that the only further matters would be formalization of borders.
And like I’ve said, if you thought there were some facts to support this view, you’d have presented them.
Of course, since the facts are that they’d already decided to become a Jewish commonwealth and once it was clear that they’d have to fight for their independence they were totally committed anyways, your claims of “moral support” are vacuous.
No, that’s just your fiction, I never said anything of the sort.
And your fiction fiction has numerous blatantly false bits, from land which Jews who’d bought it from its rightful owners that they “had no claim” to, to some fabricated plan to “take it over”. Ignoring, of course, that the last owner had been the Ottomans who disintegrated as an empire and who the Jews never planned to overthrow and, then, the British who declared that they were not annexing the territory but rather creating a Mandate which was supposed to have “close settlement” over its entirety by Jews.
So aside from you being wrong in every particular and voicing a counter-factual gloss that’s not what I said at all, yah, I suppose.
Well, getting past the fact that you’ve invented a fictional alternate universe where ravenous hordes of Zionists descended upon British territory with the plan of taking it over, the actual reason for the White Paper of 1922 (and pretty much he same reason for those following) was Arab rioting and violence against Jews. Not, of course, the fiction that the British thought that the Zionist Horde was intent on invading and “taking over”.
Nah, of course you can’t.
Of course, they were only “illegal” because the British declared that they couldn’t come in. And they only declared that due to Arab rioting. And, of course, the Arab population swelled during the same time period while the British did not stop it.
“See, I told you! I said, all along, the Tommy and Martha were a great couple. And then they got married. i did it!”
I’m sure you would. But like the rest of your statements which you don’t even attempt to prove, you’re not only wrong but, yet again, you haven’t even attempted to show how the Zionists acted “as a consequence” of anything. Of course, you won’t, because you can’t, because they’d decided years ago that they were going to create a commonwealth anyways.
I didn’t claim that Israel is a military ally now in the same way it was against the Soviets. That’s the reason we started to use Israel as a military ally. We have continued to do so for similar reasons, with Russia replaced by states like Iraq and Iran.
No.
That’s why I provided a specific example of them being used to further goals that the west, and the US in particular, also held.
And I’d remind you that your original question was Israel’s ability to serve as a military force, not, as you’ve now shifted the goalposts to, a question as to how often we’ve made use of that capability.
That “will this alliance help relations with the ally’s neighbors” is not a determining factor in whether or not that ally can serve as a strong military ally.
Notice, please “that’s why we shifted our stance”. It’s not ‘out of date’ let alone the silly claim that it’s 20 years out of date. Because that’s really what happened to cause the shift. Then, the fact that Israel was a military powerhouse that we could make use of if we needed to continued that trend.
Who’s denying that billions are spent and who’s arguing for it as a good thing but denying that it’s a good thing?
I already pointed out Osirak.
There are other events as well, but I’d be nice not to have them ignored like you’ve been ignoring Osirak.
Your own cite gives the numbers on the loans. We’ve waived some of them, but not all, and there’s nothing to say we have to waive all. It’s a minor point and not really worth discussing, but it’s the sort of basic knowledge you should have. Such as:
Classic.
So, you got any of those, what, fifty or so posts of yours showing an intellectually honest attitude and saying that a single one of the nations we spy on or any of the (non-Israeli) nations that have spied on us should reevaluate the relationship?
Surely you’re about to cite at least one of those posts, right away.
Right, honesty?
Abe and FinnAgain, there is a school of thought that the difficulty in the Israel/Palestine issue is the difference in the two culture’s conflicting historical narratives. It’s interesting for you two to debate these issues but it seems to me that the two of you can go on for decades about whether there is a religious movement within Zionism. To no useful end.
FinnAgain, I just lost somehow, a detailed response to your post. And for the next several days I may or may not be out of touch–depending on how much down time I have driving to my daughter’s wedding and back. Meanwhile can you explain to me how you do the individual quotes from the same posting? I still can’t figure it out. Thanks.
