Or, as Joe Walsh said, “just leave a message, maybe I’ll call”.
Maybe it is time to le Israel know and comprehend, that embarrassing the only friends you’ve got, to build ever more settlements without end, is a dumb thing to do.
The problem here is that many Jews and Israeli’s have a sense of racial/religious self-entitlement. They will never admit that they could possibly be wrong because they see themselves as “God’s chosen people”. If you are not a “Jew”, Israeli’s don’t give a fuck about you and they could care less if they had to shoot you to get at your land.
A country has a responsibility to protect its citizens regardless of whether those citizens are good or bad people, because the bad people are just as much citizens as the good people are.
That’s why France wouldn’t extradite Roman Polanski, even though he raped a thirteen year old. That’s why Louisiana evacuated prisons near New Orleans before Katrina, even though they were filled with murderers, rapists, thieves and drug dealers. That’s why Canada’s formally complained to the US about the treatment of Canadian citizens held at Gitmo, even though it’s likely most of them were involved with terrorism.
It has a responsibility to help them commit crimes?
Does this mean that you think that we should cut off all aid to Israel now, because of, for example, the continued building in the settlement of Beitar Illit? Or does this building fall into a different category from “expanding settlements”, because it was planned before the current Israeli moratorium on West Bank settlement building came into effect?
If you consider that the current Beitar Illit construction doesn’t count as an “expansion of settlements”, then what would? In your view, does “expanding settlements” refer exclusively to building new settlements, or does it also include additional construction in existing settlements? Does it include only construction undertaken during the Israeli government’s current 10-month moratorium, or would it also include construction undertaken after the moratorium expires?
In short, do you feel that the US is at present justified in cutting off all US aid to Israel due to settlement activities? If not, then what specific settlement-construction actions taken by Israel would in your view justify the cutting off of all US aid?
The settlers aren’t committing crimes right now. It’s legal to settle on the West Bank. The international community doesn’t like it, the Palestinians don’t like it, and I personally think that it’s bad public policy and will get in the way of some sort of long term peace. But it’s legal.
I wouldn’t want to aid and abet someone I know is wrong either. Seriously. Save you from genocide? Yes, we already did that (WW2). Set you up in the state of Israel? We already did that (right after WW2). Bankroll you for decades? Did that too. Maybe it’s time to cut the apron strings, especially if you wanna take the “we got your money so piss off” track. We look after each other? It’s been a one way street for a long time.
Think on this for a while too. Here in the USA, if a shitload of people moved onto my property and were trying to crowd me off my land, land my family had lived on for along time, the cops would come and haul them away. If they don’t someone gets hurt. For every family you “settle”, how many families are thrown out (“evacuated”)? All based on racial lines? So where do they go? Or don’t you care?
No, I think maybe my country should cut the apron strings and the purse strings. We could take that money and help our own people.
Oh, I know very well. That was a leading question, and you did give the answer we all already knew - that Israel does not and, sadly, never will accept the existence of Palestine, or the rights of anyone but themselves to live there.
We’ve had the demonization discussion many times here, in many arenas, but it never gets through.
No. WW II was not about preventing genocide, and we didn’t then act to prevent the announced war of annihilation in 1948.
No, we didn’t do that either. The proto-Israelis set their own state up with marked lack of international support (other than some Czech support, oddly enough). In point of fact, the British pulled out, in a manner that was designed to favor the Arab powers and hinder the proto-Israelis, and the resulting war set up the state of Israel. We most certainly “set them up”, and most certainly not right after WW II. As for “bankrolling”, we only did that once it was clear after the '67 war that Israel was a solid bulwark against the Soviet-funded Arab nations.
Your analogy about settlements is also a good bit off, but ah well.
I believe that the point of a lever is wasted if you snap it in half and then try to fulfill its function later. I believe that the US should outline a very specific set of circumstances, borders, boundaries and a way for natural growth to progress without settlement expansion along geographic axes. And that, after that point, various violations should carry various penalties up to and including a complete cessation of aid coupled with calling in all the loans which we’ve provided amnesty for. As already discussed for numerous reasons, I do not believe this should apply to Jerusalem, and I do believe that a peace treaty should, ideally, include compensation for the Jewish refugees who were driven out of Arab nations circa 1948 and whose population is roughly equivalent to the Palestinian refugees of the same time period, as well as, again ideally, land being given from Jordan and Egypt (whose actions prevented the formation of a Palestinian state in 1948 in the first place).
The point is to threaten to cut off the spigot and use that as leverage, and not cut off aid and then use its resumption as a carrot.
Ah, a leading question. I get it now. You so cleverly trapped me! And there’s a difference between what Israel will accept and what the settlers will accept. After all, there are plenty of Americans who think that President Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, but that doesn’t mean that America, or even that the majority of Americans think that President Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. The settlers are a minority with extremist views.
Am I required to believe that Yasser Arafat wasn’t a murderous bastard? Because the evidence suggests he was.
Except, ya know, when it did accept that and Arafat refused that and then orchestrated the Second Intifada. Which, naturally, just shows how that what Israel accepted would never be accepted by Israel. Naturally.
And that, while we’re at it, Arafat was acting out of the milk of pure human kindness and gave up 97% of what was the PA’s territorial demands were because he was so very afraid of assassination and instead started a war. Which of course means that what you’re actually arguing is that it’s a lethal proposition for any Palestinian leader to make peace because they’ll be murdered by their own people. And you use this, of course, to claim that Israel’s at fault for not making peace. Something tells me you don’t notice the irony either.
But of course pointing out the actual facts about Arafat is “demonization”, because facts get in the way of certain stories. Arafat was a murderous, racist monster who not only scuttled peace, but stole massive amounts of cash from the Palestinians themselves in order to pad his own wallet. But you have a need to ‘get through’ the claim that Arafat is being so unfairly demonized.
I agree with those as statements of general principle; the reason I was asking about your views concerning specific actions is because I think it may be relevant to the disconnect in perceptions of your position here. That is, several other posters perceive you as never willing to find fault with Israel, whereas you feel you’ve often expressed willingness to find fault with Israel and are frustrated that this isn’t acknowledged.
And I wonder if this disconnect is partly because your willingness to find fault with Israel may come across as “jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today”.
In other words, you are willing to state hypothetically that IF Israel were to do X, Y or Z, you would oppose it. But have you made similar NON-hypothetical statements that Israel IS doing A, B, or C and you DO oppose it, and think Israel should be penalized for it?
Mind you, I’m not asserting that you haven’t ever made any such statements. I don’t follow every Israel discussion thread and I don’t remember every statement made even in the threads I do follow, so I can’t tell.
But I can see how other posters might get the impression from the general trend of your posts that on any particular issue concerning Israel, your support for Israel’s actions is always definite, specific and immediate, while your opposition to Israel’s actions is always hypothetical, conditional and vague.
But, if someone hadn’t stopped “you know who”, for whatever reason, he would have gone on and on and on, with his “answer to the Jewish question”. Right?.
So they did it ALL by themselves? With no outside help or support whatsoever? AMAZING.
A threat is useless, unless the “other guy” knows you are willing to do it. In short, you have to be willing to cut off the spigot, and the “other guy” has to know it. Otherwise, it’s just a meaningless empty threat.
The early history of Israel is pretty amazing, but yes, they did it by themselves. There was some Czech aid, as mentioned, and some heroic volunteers, but in its early years, Israel didn’t have much international help.
Well then they don’t need our money now.
Yes, but WW II was no more about ending the genocide than it was about eventually reinvigorating West German auto industries. It’s not accurate to talk about WW II as if it was about ending genocide.
Many things are amazing if you’ve never actually studied the facts, I suppose. Why don’t you describe the help you claim that other nations (other than the very limited Czech aid which I already pointed out), actually rendered?
I suggest you read The Pledge, it should really fight a lot of your ignorance on this topic.
Kim, check your PM’s.
You’re right, they don’t. But it’s in both countries’ interests that the aid continue.
The Pledge? Point me to it or link it (either one).
I think he means the book by Leonard Slater.
Well, there are things The Pledge doesn’t cover, but yes, they did. Unlike, say, the Arabs.
Who were commanded, armed, and supplied by the British.