Skip to main content

View Diary: Will M..E. Peace => internal values crisis in Am. Jewish community? (299 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am Jewish and I agree with this - (7+ / 0-)

    I will say I am American First before anything else. I care about the continued existence of Israel. Those two are seperate facts. As Americans we have a right to use our aid $ however we want. I think our money spent with Israel is a good investment. However, I think that if we want to use a carrot and stick approach to push Mid-East Peace we should. It is our money after all.

    What more gets me is - Why is this even a question? Is this Japan and WWII all over again. I would say to the diarist - Don't you dare question my loyalty to the U.S. it is simply not right.

    •  Convince me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Arken, borkitekt

      I think our money spent with Israel is a good investment.

      •  Well I am at work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hikerbiker

        so I am not going to spend the time but I believe:

        1. We have a reliable friend and ally
        1. Use of Military areas for staging (Ports and I am sure air / land bases if we asked)
        1. Intelligence (and yes I am aware of spy issues)
        1. High tech trade and development

        The Israelis are our allies and our friends. They are reliable and they support us. Maybe that does not count for you but, it does for me. AND despite what is becoming a worsing situation they are still the only country really like us in the area.

        •  But do you really think all of that would (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          borkitekt

          disappear completely if we didn't send them so much military aid?

          It's really not wise for any nation, especially one in such a precarious position, to go against the U.S.

          •  No why would that disappear completely (0+ / 0-)

            I just said I think it is a wise investment and Plubius said why do you think that. I think supporting Israel makes sense. I also think we should use that aid in a "carrot and stick" scenario regarding the peace process.

            All I was saying is that we get back good things. That was pretty much it.

            •  I just wonder what that special relationship is? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Terra Mystica

              I don't think we are projecting our influence in the region for peace and democracy- Iraq is going no where, that a rape law in Afghanistan could have been passed with our guy signing it is an huge failure, and, I don't know if you are following it, yesterday morning it was said over the Swedish news radio that 650,000-1 mil. people were fleeing their homes in Pakistan due to our military strikes. And, we are now apparently using WP in Afghanistan.

              And what happens if our money for military aid goes away?

              Or, what happens if we decide that it makes more political sense to oppose Israel- ME politics change quite quickly.

              Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

              by borkitekt on Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:46:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  My position (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ptah the Great, Radical def
          1.  We have a reliable friend and ally

          Since bombing Iraq in  Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor in 1981, what has Israel done for us?

          And I'd like to know what kind of ally and friend starts wars without consulting us?  Not a good one.

          1. Use of Military areas for staging (Ports and I am sure air / land bases if we asked)

          We can't use them as a base, because our Arab (and European) allies flip out.

          1. Intelligence (and yes I am aware of spy issues)

          Since the Cold War, what?

          srael fed the Bush administration bogus info regarding Iraq, to get us to go to war.

          1. High tech trade and development

          Israel, population 6 million.  How many other nations do not trade with us because of our undying support for Israel?

          Israel has been abusing her alliance for over a decade.  It time to reign her in and reset the terms of our alliance.

          •  I disagree and can point to a lot of (0+ / 0-)

            things but like I said I am in a work project. Perhaps if you diary this or are on line later we can continue the discussion.

          •  Pardon the typos (0+ / 0-)
          •  To play Devil's Advocate re: 1 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Plubius, volleyboy1

            Bombing the Syrian reactor a couple of years ago and re:3 Iran.

            Again, just playing devil's advocate.

            •  Except (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rusty Pipes, Arken, Terra Mystica

              The Syrian "reactor" was almost certainly not a reactor.

            •  Well, me too (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Arken, Radical def

              I think one of the mains problems for we liberal Jews is the same problem for we  Liberal Dems.

              The Left's pacifistic nonsense.

              The most compelling reason for the US's support of Israel comes down to the demands of realpolitic.

              The US support for Israel fits well with a view of American power that is an anathma to the peacniks

              But even given that,I think it is time for the US to reign in Israel's right wing.

              I do not see how our support of Likud's policies helps either Israel or us.

              Israel going into Gaza without our approval was the final straw.  Its over.

              •  Actually (4+ / 0-)

                The most compelling reason for the US's support of Israel comes down to the demands of realpolitic.

                That's the most compelling reason to ABANDON Israel: ally with the 300 million Arabs with the oil, not the 6 million Israelis with the attitude.  If you are looking for reasons, you must look elsewhere than realpolitik.

              •  Very briefly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Arken, Plubius

                You said:

                But even given that,I think it is time for the US to reign in Israel's right wing.

                I do not see how our support of Likud's policies helps either Israel or us.

                Israel going into Gaza without our approval was the final straw.  Its over.

                Point 1 - I agree with
                Point 2 - I agree with
                Point 3 - I think the Bush admin. did approve of it - but more so something had to be done to stop Hamas. Read my diary on that - it spells out my thoughts.

                Also, I do favor the Syrian strike. Something was up there and people that know a lot more than I do made that decision. Notice the outside of some small complaints the Syrians are a tad silent regarding it. I wonder why?

                •  I happen to know that the Bush administration did (0+ / 0-)

                  not.

                  •  Hmmm then I have a lot of questions (0+ / 0-)

                    if you know what the Bush admin. did and did not do about this.

                    But whether or not Bush approved - Israel needed to do something about Hamas strikes. I don't agree with how far it went, but, I do agree with the general idea behind "Cast Lead".

                    •  Israel did need to act, and they forgot their (0+ / 0-)

                      place.

                      They must be reminded.

                    •  the hamas strikes (0+ / 0-)

                      were not occurring during the ceasefire until israel invaded gaza on nov 4th (nyt headline said 'israel breaks ceasefire', it was our election day and goes unnoticed, maybe you think israel wasn't considering the US election in their timing, but i doubt it) under the pretense they allegedly had intellegence hamas was going to kidnap soldiers. cough. another alleged 'pre emptive' strike that killed multiple hamas security forces.

                      Israel needed to do something about

                      did hamas need to do something about israel invading and killing 6 people?

                      this whole 'reaction' mustification can go on forever.

                      I do agree with the general idea behind "Cast Lead".

                      and what about resistance to 60 years of refugee status and occupation, do you agree with the general idea behind that? and what if the real 'general idea' behind operation cast lead was more akin to 'do as much damage to gaza while the cheneyco/neocon  permission slips are still handed out lavishly prior to the arrival of a new american administration who will likely push israel to negotiation'. what about that 'general idea'.

                      because if the 'general idea' was stopping hamas strikes, israel acted in bad faith by planning this invasion during the ceasefire and had an incredible stroke of good luck by getting this 'intellegence' of the alledged kidnappings just in time to carry out their invasion on schedule.

                      just saying. i think your 'general idea' was generated in some propaganda think tank as opposed to the outcome, which was massive destruction carried out by 100's of bulldozers with lends itself to the concept the general idea had more to do w/uprooting villages of farmers and wiping out lots of UN infrastructure and schools etc.

                      •  oh, and killing palestinians /nt (0+ / 0-)
                        •  Oh and when were they supposed to plan (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          deaniac20

                          it - when Hamas was busy capturing soldiers? What the hell do you think Hamas is doing during a cease fire. They wouldn't be rearming would they?

                          Of course they were planning Cast Lead during the ceasefire. They would be stupid not too.

                          •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

                            when Hamas was busy capturing soldiers? What the hell do you think Hamas is doing during a cease fire. They wouldn't be rearming would they?

                            well, we won't ever know now will we. israel saw to that. israel has captured how many palestinians? thousands are languishing in jails and they start a invasion in gaza over alleged 'intelligence' about a 'kidnapping'. whose intelligence? intellegence garnered from torture? i mean really, this false flag is the oldest game in the book. who gained? israel.

                      •  Sure.... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MoshebenAvraham

                        Let's let Hamas shoot rockets randomly into S'Derot day after day. I mean you have no problem with that right??? And during the ceasefire there were only 4 per month instead of a lot more.

                        I think Israel went too far in during Cast Lead - the use of WP is wrong. The wide scale civilian desolation was wrong. BUT... Can you honestly tell me that if Hamas did not have as it's state goal the destruction of Israel AND rockets were not coming out of Gaza that Cast Lead would even have happened. AND if you say yes - why didn't it happen in the West Bank?

                        •  according to the Intelligence and Terrorism (0+ / 0-)

                          Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) website

                          Situation on the Ground (As of November 5, 1700 hours)

                          1. It was the first time since the lull arrangement went into effect that Hamas participated in firing rockets into Israel . It was also the first time that the terrorist organizations attacked Israel with massive amounts of rocket and mortar shell fire (until now there were occasional violations of single rockets or mortar shells being fired).

                          IOW, on november 5th, the day after israel broke the ceasefire (after planning the invasion since june) hamas reacted.

                          Hamas blasts militants who break truce with Israel

                          check out these graphs and read the text

                          note the nov 4th date , the way this gov site places that pink box there w/that info. nov 4th.

                          huff po

                          graph from The Israeli consulate in NYC

                          Figure 2. For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day (white). Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.

                          Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.

                          The lessons from these data are clear:

                          First, Hamas can indeed control the rockets, when it is in their interest. The data shows that ceasefires can work, reducing the violence to nearly zero for months at a time.

                          this invasion was timed for the israel election. it was going to happen irregardless of what hamas did, or did not do.

                          why didn't it happen in the West Bank?

                          because israel's narrative right now is hamas equals terror.

                          perhaps you should check out hama's rise to power

                          maybe, just maybe you should consider some of the radicals in israel might be complicit in creating a false narrative for the express purpose of thwarting resolution before it begins.

                          do you ever even ask 'what if' wrt to this possibility. it fits perfectly w/the whole concept of not allowing press into gaza. if israel were transparent it would be one thing, but they are not.

                          it doesn't serve you to believe everything the idf tells you, not after the extensive hasbara campaign accompanying the war that was documented in the press. the on message. and you seems to fall for it hook line and sinker.

                          there ARE people who are working towards thwarting peace. if you really want a resolution you should arm yourself w/ammo against these people, they aren't all on the hamas side of things. the most power in the dynamic is coming from israel, they have the control and the motive, don't assume everything they tell you is true, not when the evidence points otherwise, be astute.

                •  Syrians were relatively silent (0+ / 0-)

                  because being open to attack with impunity is not something people necessarily like to broadcast.

                  When the camel stumbles, the knives come out. (Arab proverb)

                  by Ptah the Great on Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:30:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No one is talking about it (0+ / 0-)

                    This is not a "big swinging dick" contest - there was something in the desert that no one wanted to talk about.

                    If you were Israeli would you take a chance on a Syrian nuclear reactor. Oh wait of course you would because you think Israel should just walk away from their country and end their own existence.

        •  Reliable friend and ally? (0+ / 0-)

            1.  We have a reliable friend and ally

            2.  Use of Military areas for staging (Ports and I am sure air / land bases if we asked)

            3. Intelligence (and yes I am aware of spy issues)

            4. High tech trade and development

          After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US had pay Israel $2 billion to stay out of the fighting and not destroy the Arab coalition the US had put together to drive out the Iraqis.

          Such an ally.

          When the camel stumbles, the knives come out. (Arab proverb)

          by Ptah the Great on Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:23:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really - nice bullshit answer (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deaniac20

            Israel wanted to help - the U.S. said "no, no, no" we don't want your help. It would destroy the coalition. Hmmmmm, they WANT TO HELP yet we told them not too. Yep, that sounds bad... Uh huh. AND because we did not want their help they had to defend themselves from Iraqi missle attacks. You do remember those right. Saddam droping missles on Israel even though Israel wasn't even part of the fight.

            Got more B.S. to dish?...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site