Would the terrorists have done what they did on 9/11 if we did not have the relationship we have with Israel?
headed for GD…but for my two cents…
It wouldn’t matter. Would two towers in Islamabad got them the same noteriety?
Better question:
Should the US and other democratic nations rethink a policy which they believe is just and moral because a bunch of lunatics committed mass murder?
IOW: Those who suggest that the fact that a number of crazed lunatics are capable of mass murder necessitates a change in US policy are kooks. If this were so, then it would be real easy to change US policy…just kill a few thousand folks and we’ll all get real guilt ridden about how wrong we were and change our policies.
Pathetic.
Oh dear. The Israel/Palestinian issue again. Since the British were originally responsible for this problem, promising the same land to both parties, I feel entitled to ask you for details of which other democratic nations have actually come out and said that the US/Israeli relationship is just and moral.
I’ll take a look in GD for your reply.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering how come we haven’t been addressing the grievances of the Timothy Mcveigh and his cohorts. There MUST be some REASON why lunatics would hate us so…
This is not a general question. I suspect all these issues have been discussed at length in some GD thread or another, but none that I can find right now. Off to GD.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
"Oh dear. The Israel/Palestinian issue again. Since the British were originally responsible for this problem, promising the same land to both parties, I feel entitled to ask you for details of which other democratic nations have actually come out and said that the US/Israeli relationship is just and moral. "
I never claimed that other nations believe that the US/Israel relationship is moral.
What I said was that the US has a policy which it believes to be correct and moral. For some to then suggest that this policy be altered because some folks are so mad that they are willing to kill thousands of innocents over it is lunacy.
I think that this is why many European nations are rather wobbly in their support for the Us in this endeavor. They never had the freedom that the Us had in setting its policy along the lines of what it believed to be moral. The European always had to look and see who was breathing over their shoulder before adopting a policy. I believe that many European folks (especially the foreign press which keeps harping on US foreign policy in this) are quite pleased that the Us now finds itself in the position that they always were.
Some folks deride the Us policies as “Unilateral”, but all that means is that we chose to do what we believed was right because you can’t tell us otherwise.
Now of course, the dimwits think that we ought to change course from what we believed was moral before because some kooks have murdered a few thousand innocents.
Brilliant. Sounds like a good way to encourage terrorism.
Kuwait, not Israel. What really got bin Laden’s ire was the presence of non Islamic warriors (American military) on sacred Saudi soil during and after the liberation of Kuwait.
TQMshirt.
You have thus far contributed two posts to this thread. In the first of these posts you say:
Should the US and other democratic nations rethink a policy which they believe is just and moral because a bunch of lunatics committed mass murder?
In the second of these posts you say:
I never claimed that other nations believe that the US/Israel relationship is moral.
In the second of these posts you also say:
What I said was that the US has a policy which it believes to be correct and moral.
Please put me out of my misery and give me an explanation of the relationship between these three statements.
Nos…
You asked which Democratic nation believes that the US policy vis-avis Israel is moral. (Implying that I had made some comment regarding the position of other democratic nations vis-a-vis US middle east policy)
I replied that I was not referring to the position of OTHER nations vis-avis the policies of the US.
I simply said that democratic nations need not revise their own policies which they see as moral in order to capitulate to terror.
Clear enough?
TQMshirt, its 3am over here and I’m going to put any doubt in the matter down to fatigue. 
I disagree with you, TMQ :
I don’t believe so. I believe the US have a policy they think is useful, not moral.
If it was adopted because the US actually thought it was moral, it shouldn’t be modified, terrorism or not. If the US choose such or such policy because it was useful and if this policy is immoral, it should be modified, once again terrorism or not, IMO.
Let me first say that I am highly opposed to the U.S. support of Israel. But I certainly think that whether the U.S. feels this support is moral or useful or whatever, this policy should not be lifted as a direct result of a terrorist attack. That is, as TQMshirt pointed out, a brilliant way to ensure that terrorism becomes a valid means to achieve one’s political ends. I know many people think that terrorism is the only way in which the oppressed can make a point, but I still think that it is the wrong way. If this incident results in American people being more aware of foreign policy, and of the way the rest of the world views their government, then that would be one of the few positive consequences of the attack. But America should never give the impression of succumbing to the demands of terrorist groups as a result of their terrorist actions.
Ok, penny; what do you suggest we do, then? Abandon a friend to its enemies? Said enemies, btw, which not only do not merely disagree with Israel’s policies, but wish the country to no longer exist.
I just add the small comment. Israel is a democracy with a free press. Among all the Arab states, and all the other states in the Middle East, there is not a single democracy. Not one.
I suggest that U.S. policy could be adapted to be more pro-Arab by encouraging (or insisting) on democratically elected governments in those countries.
And to answer the original question, as noted before, Bin Laden’s fury is directed mostly at U.S. involvement in the Gulf War against Kuwait. Bin Ladin’s troops are almost all Saudis. Israel is a secondary issue, aimed at getting support from the anti-Israel countries.
Monty, I think you misunderstood me, I said that I think America should not discontinue its support of Israel as a result of terrorist attacks. I am opposed to the U.S. support of Israel in that I don’t really like it for several (probably biased) reasons which I won’t go into because at this time I can’t really suggest a good solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. But while I might normally have welcomed a lessening of the U.S. pro-Israel stance, I certainly wouldn’t now that it would look like succumbing to the demands of terrorists.
Very easy to answer, Monty. As I said before, I totally disagree with the massive support Israel receive from the US. But I would totally agree with an any kind of support from anybody if Israel withdraws from the occupied territories. Then the international community should give a full support (economical aid in particular) to the new Palestinian state dependant on the respect of democratic rules and on its good will to prevent terrorist organizations to operate within its boundaries.
And by the way, Saudi Arabia is amongst the countries which would like Israel to dissapear, and it doesn’t prevent the US from supporting this incredibly undemocratic state. So, your argument “we support them because they’re a democracy” doesn’t hold water.
Very easy to answer, Monty. As I said before, I totally disagree with the massive support Israel receive from the US. But I would totally agree with an any kind of support from anybody if Israel withdraws from the occupied territories. Then the international community should give a full support (economical aid in particular) to the new Palestinian state dependant on the respect of democratic rules and on its good will to prevent terrorist organizations to operate within its boundaries.
And by the way, Saudi Arabia is amongst the countries which would like Israel to dissapear, and it doesn’t prevent the US from supporting this incredibly undemocratic state. So, your argument “we support them because they’re a democracy and we doesn’t support the others because they want to destroy Israel” doesn’t hold water.
**clairobscur
**
I do not know what you think is “usefull” about our current support of Isreal is. A good idea of the costs of US/Isreal realtions are stated here http://www.arab-star.com/2001_2.html . Sure they are An anti-Isreal sentiment, and a few of the statements I find Highly biassed and maybe misleading. I do tend to agree with the “costs” of our support for Isreal.
I tend to think that the birth of our relations stemmed from many things. Foremost would be the opportuunity for the west to keep some sort of inluence in a major anti-west area of the world after WWII. The Brit’s had pretty much pulled out and the wealth of the area was becoming increasingly more apparent every day so the US had nothing to lose to supprt Isreal in their birth and fight for survival. Second would be the moral obligation from the mainly Christian nation, because to many fundamentals the rebirth of Isreal was foretold in the Bible and it also appealed to the “protector” in our fresh-from-war ideals to protect the underdog that Isreal apparently was.
Today things are very different, but our reasons are pretty much the same, accept the main reason, to me, has changed from usefull to moral. The US has a more “usefull” allie in Saudi Arabia. As listed in the link above, the costs of the US to keep supporting such a dire nation is economically and politically hurting us.
After saying that I do think we should keep supporting Isreal. I also think Isreal has every right to be a ntion as anyone. They have done some attrocious acts upon the Arabs, but not near as much as the Arabs have inflicted upon the Jews. YOu may tend to symapthise that the indiginous population was kicked from their homes by a more powerful and educated people, but “indiginous” is relevant. The Jews could be called the natives of Isreal if you look at history. And they were run from their homes and slaughtered in ways that are not worth considering today.
Also our biggest responsibility towards Isreal today is that they are allies. And without our support they are in danger of becomming extinct. The Arabs in the Middle East want nothing more than to “get rid” of them once and for all.
SO I would say that we had a moral obligation to Isreal that goes above who is “right or wrong” in the Palistinian/Isreal conflict.
Another good source of info of the Isreali/US history is here. RaceandHistory.com - The Birth of Isreal
As you can see both links I have posted do not exaclty support my opinnons, there are other sources of info I do not have time to produce that has influenced me. And what is a better way to state your side of the matter than with some arguments that refute your stance.
As you can see this is my very first post here. I have been lurking for a bit, and really enjoy the stimulating convo that is not very present in other boards. I look foreward to more debates here because I find the most of you intelligent and less biassed in your diatribes. Even more articualte than me so bear with me baecause I am a lazy speller on the net, and less articulate than most of you, but I am willing to give it a go.
Sounds real easy 'cept for one big problem.
Every time Israel has offered to withdraw in return for a full cessation of violence the Palestinians have either upped the ante or rejected it outright.
In the most recent talks, everything was moving along with Israel offering to hand over more than 97% of all disputed territories including parts of Jerusalem (sort of like Islam handing over parts of Mecca to Jews). Then the Palestinians got the bright idea to up the ante and demand “The right of return” of all supposed and real arabs who ever once lived or who had ancestors who lived in Israel proper. Because Israel is basically decent enough to be a democracy, the influx of these new arabs (who by and large hate Israel, Jews, the west, etc…) would render the entire state (at the next election) a part of the newly formed palestinian state…and voila’ no more Israel…
Because of this, many people believe that the position of most of the Palestinian leadership is not so much to get their own land but to destroy Israel (as they have stated over and over in their own Arabic news outlets, and which explains why the PLo was formed in 1964 before there were any “occupied territoties”).
For this reason (and much more, I might add) the US has taken the position that overall, the Israeli position is justified (defending its innocent civilians from terrorism because the opposing party refuses to accept any realistic arrangement) versus the Palestinian position.