What Does Support For Israel Really Mean?

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

One load of balls is as good as the next. The point is that none of those condemning the Palestinians have enough balls to step forward and tell us what they would do if they had their land stolen, their home demolished, their children killed and their livelihoods taken by an invading army.

There are several interesting books about the founding of Israel, one that I am reading now and the other that I have already read a year or two ago. The new one is "A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel" by Allis and Ronald Radosh and the older one is called Standing With Israel by David Brog. I have attempted several times over the last few years to personally come to grips with the discussion that Plad has eloquently brought to the forefront with his challenge.

I know how I feel now about the situation today but I still do not wish to fall victim to the current revisionist history that seems to be taking place everywhere without knowing as much as I can about the actual founding of Israel and division of Palestine. For me, it is much more important now to fully understand the situation then because our alliances might surely lead us into yet another armed conflict with consequences that my last for many many years in to the future.

While I am not ready to take up Plad's challenge I will submit a quote from one of the most important persons involved in Truman's eventual recognition of Israel, Chaim Weizmann. He referred to the dispute over Palestine division and creating a Jewish state as the "lesser injustice versus greater injustice."

What he was referring to was the fact that displaced Jews everywhere from WWII prison camps had nowhere to go except back to the countries where they had been imprisoned and their families murdered. Weizmann urged countries, including the USA and Britain to give support and meaning to old the 1917 Balfour Declaration even though others including Secretary of State Gen. George Marshall felt Truman's recognition was endangering America's oil and strategic interests in the middle east just as the hostility of the Cold War just heating up. Ultimately, Truman felt that recognizing Israel was the right thing to do despite the Arab hostility towards the plan and the rampant anti-Semitism here at home and throughout the world.

I have to add that recognition was also supposed to help stop the Soviet Union from gaining a further stronghold in oil rich Mid-East. And it might have been Truman's way to right a wrong. That wrong was the fact that the Palestinian Arab leadership had supported even if they didn't actively aid the Nazi war effort including the Nazi "Final Solution." (see Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini).

So, taking all that into consideration, along with the fact in my opinion that a deeply religious and troubled President that had recently OK'd the use of nuclear weapons against Japan might have felt that what he was doing had deeply religious and Biblical overtones. The stories were that Truman had again prayed and searched his conscious before committing to recognition. Again, I refer to the quote that the recognition of Israel and the division of Palestine was "lesser injustice versus greater injustice."

Now as to Plad's challenge, I would say that yes, I probably would be doing exactly what the Palestinians are doing. But at some point; even they have to learn to, "not tug on Superman's cape or spit into the wind."

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Again, I refer to the quote that the recognition of Israel and the division of Palestine was "lesser injustice versus greater injustice."

Well lets go back to the 1946/47 partitioning of Palestine and accept, for the sake of moving the discussion on, that the partitioning was the best of a bad job, as your post seems to imply. That still does not excuse Israel's continued expansion outside the partition borders since 1946/7. We are still left with a situation whereby Israel has taken Palestinian land by 'force of arms,' contrary to international law and is refusing to give it back.

Now as to Plad's challenge, I would say that yes, I probably would be doing exactly what the Palestinians are doing.

Of course you would...as we all would.

But at some point; even they have to learn to, "not tug on Superman's cape or spit into the wind."

Then what do you suggest they do? Just shrug and say 'Oh well!'??

...and let's not lose sight of the fact that they are only 'Superman' from the fact that they are being supported financially and militarily by the USA and to a lesser extent, the UK. Take away that support and.............??

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

Watch Red Dawn II

...and if YOU were one of the 'Wolverines' in the film, you'd be doing exactly the same to the Koreans that were invading your county as the Palestinians are doing to the Israelis that are invading their country...the only difference would be that the Koreans would consider you a 'terrorist' whilst you would consider yourself a 'freedom-fighter'....right old boy?

[Morbidus]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

One load of balls is as good as the next. The point is that none of those condemning the Palestinians have enough balls to step forward and tell us what they would do if they had their land stolen, their home demolished, their children killed and their livelihoods taken by an invading army.

You speakum with forked tounge-kimosabe!

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Well lets go back to the 1946/47 partitioning of Palestine and accept, for the sake of moving the discussion on, that the partitioning was the best of a bad job, as your post seems to imply. That still does not excuse Israel's continued expansion outside the partition borders since 1946/7. We are still left with a situation whereby Israel has taken Palestinian land by 'force of arms,' contrary to international law and is refusing to give it back.

Of course you would...as we all would.

Then what do you suggest they do? Just shrug and say 'Oh well!'??

...and let's not lose sight of the fact that they are only 'Superman' from the fact that they are being supported financially and militarily by the USA and to a lesser extent, the UK. Take away that support and.............??

You are correct, it was the best of a bad job but President Truman had his reasons and as you know, it was not a unanimous decision. It took a lot to discount General Marshall's strong objections. The Zionists had some support here that included even an esteemed member of the SCOTUS. The connection I made between Truman's decision to drop the bomb and this decision are strictly my opinion. I have read very little connecting the two decisions but I don't feel wrong on this subject.

At some point, we as a country have to divorce ourselves from the Israeli expansion and ask yourself would the Israelis have expanded if the Palestinians had peacefully accepted the division and not continued to kill and harass the Israelis along with other Arab States and their sponsors?? There were many here that said that the conflict would continue including the Palestinians themselves. I think those arguments fell short and silent on an evangelical Christian haberdasher that prayed for guidance and thought he received it. Maybe he did? Faith is a gift that many do not share. I personally don't think that either side is ever going to give up until one side exterminates the other or enough of the other. It is a shame too.

So, are you suggesting that the USA cut Israel loose? Would that earn us more points with the Arab States or just prove their arguments that we are and always have been an untrustworthy ally? There are some, and I suspect that our President is one of those, that feels we should change our allegiance. Is he the polar opposite of Truman? Maybe he is just the other swing of the pendulum for a war weary and soon to be broke America? As of now .... the Israelis can continue even without our help unless they get engaged in an all out protracted war. I wonder how long until their new "magic wand" is active and online?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

At some point, we as a country have to divorce ourselves from the Israeli expansion and ask yourself would the Israelis have expanded if the Palestinians had peacefully accepted the division and not continued to kill and harass the Israelis along with other Arab States and their sponsors??

Yes, I think they would have continued to expand. Expansion was always part of the Zionist plans.

I personally don't think that either side is ever going to give up until one side exterminates the other or enough of the other. It is a shame too.

Well, you could be right but I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of a step towards peace until Palestinians get their homes back and I would support them on that.

So, are you suggesting that the USA cut Israel loose?

Yes. I think the USA has too many fingers in too many pies as it is but even if they didn't, their continued military and financial support for an unjust regime is doing nothing for their credibility on the world stage. The cost would be better used at home.

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Yes, I think they would have continued to expand. Expansion was always part of the Zionist plans.
Well, you could be right but I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of a step towards peace until Palestinians get their homes back and I would support them on that.

Yes. I think the USA has too many fingers in too many pies as it is but even if they didn't, their continued military and financial support for an unjust regime is doing nothing for their credibility on the world stage. The cost would be better used at home.

Maybe that was the plan? It makes sense for them to have their own "Manifest Destiny." Every other modern country has had one at one time whether it be "spheres of influence" or some sort of "Monroe Doctrine" or colonialism to protect their borders and increase their strength, wealth, and world power. Who can fault a country for looking after their own self-interests? That is the one thing that EVERY country has in common if it wants to survive long.
All Republics and democracies are self interest groups and morals and ethics are secondary, if that.

[evileye]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Yes. I think the USA has too many fingers in too many pies as it is but even if they didn't, their continued military and financial support for an unjust regime is doing nothing for their credibility on the world stage. The cost would be better used at home.

Not going to happen, the USA is entrenched in the business of the world to far to let it go now. The USA kills civilians and military of other countries as they see fit. Without major changes in the US government and military that will not change.

I personaly would like to cut aid from the rest of the world until a time when the USA is not in debt.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

...and if YOU were one of the 'Wolverines' in the film, you'd be doing exactly the same to the Koreans that were invading your county as the Palestinians are doing to the Israelis that are invading their country...the only difference would be that the Koreans would consider you a 'terrorist' whilst you would consider yourself a 'freedom-fighter'....right old boy?

No argument.

[Wouldhe]

I don't now enough about the history to carry on an intellegent discussion. I seem to think though that we have to look at the history of the region leading up to 1947 to get a better understanding. At least for me.