"Sacrosanct Israel"

[12 12 2000]

Just sent the following comment to the Obama campaign, for all the good it will do...

A few weeks ago my wife and I made a donation to the Obama campaign of $50, a small contribution, but one we hoped would help this country turn the page from the Bush catastrophe to a future of social justice and peace globally. We were deeply disturbed, therefore, by Mr. Obama's pledge at the last Ohio debate to affirm as president the U.S. commitment to Israel as "sacrosanct," this while that country's horrific illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing policies go forcefully forward, abetted and unchecked by gutless U.S. policy makers and politicians that cower before the powerful pro-Israel forces here. We expected something different from Mr. Obama. Unfortunately it sounds like the same old same old, only delivered with more grace and aplomb. Peace in the mideast will only come when justice for all people in the area is achieved, and that means, foremost, freedom and self-determination for the Palestinian people at pre-1967 borders. Unless we hear something from Mr. Obama that indicates he will end the unconditional support for 'sacrosanct' Israel, there will be no more contributions or other forms of support from the two of us, for whatever minuscule worth that is to you. Sincerely...

[Recursion]

1. Good luck, but America isn't ready for that conversation yet

Which is unfortunate

[LSK]

17. exactly

[Usrename]

18. DU isn't ready to have this conversation.

:hi:

[Zynx]

65. What exactly do you want our stance to be?

Israel is surrounded by neighbors whose states do not seek its destruction, but whose people most certainly do. Israel fights protectively the vast majority of the time. 1948, 1967, 1973, and the most recent Lebanon conflict were brought upon Israel. Granted the Suez crisis was a different animal, but other countries were involved in that too.

[cali]

2. A presidential candidate who disavowed Israel would immediately

wound himself irreparably. But I'm still hopwful that if he gets elected, Obama will be more even minded. I believe that he will be. What you suggest is political suicide. period.

[Hieronymus]

55. I totally agree .. perhaps after Obama's elected.

[AntiFascist]

79. See Brzezinski, one of Obama's foreign policy advisors...

In 2006 he stated that solving the Israeli-Palestine conflict is central to solving problems in the Middle East, and calls for bringing together moderates from both sides in solving issues and bringing about peace. This is the only sane solution, as opposed to the neocons' insane solutions.

[ellacott]

3. Neither Dem Candidate would make that pledge

[Big Blue Marble]

4. And how much support does Hillary give Israel?

Get real at this time in American politics, you have to support Israel to get elected.

Plenty of us are deeply disturbed with the occupation and the treatment of the Palestinian People.
But all the major candidates for president support Israel, so who will you vote for?

[Alexander]

5. If you think Obama's bad, just wait until you hear Hillary's position on Israel.

At least Obama has indicated that he might be open-minded on the issue.

Hillary, not so much.

Neither of the nominees will dare say anything to anger AIPAC. In fact, as far as I know the only Congresscritters who do criticize our approach to Israel are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

And they both dropped out.

[Independent-Voter]

8. Indeed - I'd cut them off tomorrow, but anyone wanting to get elected would be crazy to suggest that

[Alexander]

10. Even Howard Dean got flak for saying he'd have an "even-handed" approach...

and he had to take it back.

This is why all lobbying groups need to eventually be banned. If you want to petition your government or donate to a politician, you should have to do so as an individual.

[AndyTiedye]

11. And They Are Trying to Run DK Out of Congress

[JerseygirlCT]

6. I think our commitment to Israel should be sacrosanct. I don't think

that means we must approve of or support every decision that the Israeli government makes. But geopolitically, they are our best bet in the region, a truly functioning democracy, and one that is still surrounded by enemies eager for its destruction.

There's an awful lot of history there, and it most certainly isn't one-sided. It's easy to reflexively take one side or the other of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, but there simply isn't one side. There are actually many of them, and they all contain truth.

Bottom line is that Israel has every right to exist, and exist in peace. Doesn't mean the way to get there is through offensive violence, however. And the best way to influence the actions taken by the Israeli government is to be a true friend and to actually work with them and the surrounding countries and the Palestinians, toward peace. Engagement works, ignoring the situation and making fiery speeches does not.

[fascisthunter]

9. I Don't... I Believe Support Should Be Conditional

[theboss]

84. Whatever replaces Israel would be a hell of a lot worse

That's the risk the US can't take.

[LeftyMom]

99. Israel is only a democracy in the sense that Apartheid South Africa was.

You can't have democracy by any real meaning of the word while oppressing huge swaths of the population.

[fascisthunter]

7. I Agree with Your Sentiment on this Issue

I don't want either candidate saying as much, but they will out of fear of retribution. It really is sad...

[UALRBSofL]

12. Hmm that is a hot topic

I havn't heard many politicians speak about this issue.

[L0oniX]

13. They way this country fawns over Israel you'd think it should become the 51st state.

IMO Israel is just as much a terrorist country as the USA is.

[leftynyc]

34. Thankfully you're very much

in the minority. Take a look at Israel's neighbors and then we'll talk about terrorism. We can start with the way they treat their own women.

[14thColony]

71. There's more than enough blood to go around there

Do you know what's still the biggest single terrorist attack in the Israel-Palestine conflict? The bombing of the British Mandate HQ in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, July 1946; 91 killed and 45 injured. Group responsible: the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group led by later Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

Ever hear of the Lehi? Another Jewish terrorist group also known as the Stern Gang. Here are some of their "Greatest Hits":

6 November 1944 - Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne in Cairo; Lord Moyne was the highest-ranking British diplomat in the Palenstine Mandate. The two Lehi assassins were caught, tried, and executed. In 1975 their bodies were returned to Israel where they were honored with a state funeral.

12 January 1947 - Lehi members drove a truck laden with explosives into a British police station in Haifa, killing 4 and injuring 140 (Jewish terrorists get credit for first use of car bombs in the Palestine conflict)

29 February 1948 - Lehi blew up the Cairo-Haifa train north of Rehovot, killing 28 British soldiers and wounding 35. On March 31, another train was blown up near Binyamina killing 40 civilians and wounding 60.

9-11 April 1948 - Lehi and Irgun joined forces in the massacre of between 100 and 120 Palestinian Arabs at the village of Deir Yassin, an incident referred to as the Deir Yassin massacre. Most of the dead were women and children gunned down as the Lehi and Irgun fighters went house-to-house.

17 September 1948 - Lehi assassinated the UN Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, who had been sent to broker a settlement in the Arab-Israeli war.

This is just a sampling. Irgun was killing Palestinian Arabs from the 1930s, and these are just Lehi's greatest hits - they killed plenty more people than this.

Israel has publicly honored Lehi with the Lehi Ribbon, an honorary military decoration which may be worn by the organization's former members.


If you're looking for the good guys in white hats and lily-white vests, there aren't any. There's more than enough "wrong" on both sides of this conflict, and the only way it's ever going to end is if everyone admits that no one's moral highground is really any higher than anyone else's.

[Zynx]

64. What does that make Syria and Iran?

For that matter all the Arab states that held fundraisers for suicide bombers back during the massive suicide bomb offensive in 2002?

[question everything]

14. Um.. a lesson in hisotry: Israel was ATTACKED in 1967

Countries turn the table on their attackers and seize territory that later is return after peace negotiations. No peace, no giving back land.

Before 1967 the people there lived in refugee camps under the rules of Jordan and Egypt but no one ever demanded that they be provide "self determination."

Last, these refugees escaped Israel after the Arab Israeli war of 1948. A similar number of refugees came to Israel from Arab countries, but they became equal contributing citizens.

[sellitman]

15. What?

A reasoned thread reply on Israel on DU?


:toast:

[LSK]

19. UN Resolution 242

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible

[Moh96]

94. .

[JerseygirlCT]

20. And many refugees who left did so voluntarily because

their Arab brethren told them to - as it would make it easier to attack and destroy Israel. Israel just had the unmitigated gall not to be destroyed, but to successfully attack their attackers.

Many Palestinians continue to live in an uncertain status in Jordan, denied citizenship in Jordan though they've lived there generations now. The Jordanians, along with the other surrounding Arab countries, find it politically useful to keep the Palestinians in bad shape. Used as a weapon against Israel, they're way too useful to actually help.

Not to mention the many Jews in the area who were forced to leave *their* homes in the surrounding countries. I don't hear a whole lot about giving them those back.

This is a complex situation, and there's plenty of blame to go around. Making this into some sort of Palestinians=good/Israelis=bad argument will only lead to greater confusion and less understanding.

[Independent-Voter]

22. I say screw 'em all. Israel should have never been formed in '47, and we have no business still

being stuck dependent on the ME for our energy needs. 500 Billion dollars wasted in that sandpit would have gone a long way towards energy dependence

[question everything]

41. Well, Israel did not ask for your opinion, thank you

Dependency on Middle East oil goes a long way and Israel has nothing to do with it.

Until Israel and Egypt signed a peace agreement in 1978, the area there was a test place for weapons by both sides.

You may dislike everything military, but whenever Israel got hold of a Soviet made fighter plane, or other weapons, this country was invited to inspect and test it.

And many American made weapons got their real world test in the battle fields there.

[Independent-Voter]

51. That's the thing - I don't dislike all things military. I just think the Israel Experiment has been

an abject failure by most objective measures. That's the bottom line for me.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. I think the Israelis might have a different opinion on that

It's a thriving democracy in a part of the world where that term can be used only very loosely if at all.

[leftynyc]

59. By what objective measures are

you using. Perhaps you don't realize that just about every component in the computer you're using was invented by the Israeli's.

[WilyWondr]

67. Here is one that wasn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives

Let me know when you find something that was invented by an Israeli.


The state of Israel has been a 60 year test that has failed.

[cali]

74. that's so arrogant and so absurd

in fact, it's pretty repugnant. Learn the difference between opinion and fact. I'm not a big fan of Israel but it's just bullshit to suggest that Israel is a failure as a state or that it's some sort of experiment. By most objective measures, it's not a failed state. I'm suspicious of people making statements such as yours.

[laugle]

82. Thank you! nt

[PCIntern]

72. Like we care what you say...

since you said it.

[14thColony]

21. I'm going to hate myself for typing this...

but Israel was NOT attacked in 1967. Grab any old history book you want, they all read the same - Israel launched pre-emptive offensive operations when it became clear to the Israeli leadership that the combined Arab forces were only days, if not hours, away from launching an invasion.

I do not blame Israel for this and I am not trying to make a moral judgement, just a point of order to correct an inaccurate portrayal of well-documented historical events. Personally I'm not a big fan of Israel, but in June 1967 I think they were left with no choice but to do what they did. Anything else would have been risking national suicide.

[Alhena]

24. They weren't just about to attack Israel, the Arab press was full of gloating

stories about how Israel was about to be wiped off the face of the map. It was a war for survival for Israel.

To characterize the 1967 war as anything other than a defensive war is incorrect. Now, you can argue Israel shouldn't have kept the territory it gained as a result, but the intent of the opposing forces was to conquer and keep all of Israel so turnabout seems fair play.

I am a proudly pro-Israel democrat and am glad Obama is as well.

[14thColony]

26. Yes...

hence my closing statement that any other course of action besides the one they took would have been "risking national suicide." Is there some point we are disagreeing on that I'm failing to notice?

[Alhena]

28. Sorry- should have read your post better

[14thColony]

30. No worries

[question everything]

39. Blocking the Straits of Tiran was an act of war

recognizable the world over... except when it relates to Israel, of course.

There were millions in Europe who were more than willing to mourn the "nice experiment" of the State of Israel.

The pre-emptive attack was on Egypt because of the blockade.

Then both Jordan and Syria decided to "join" the festivities. And they lost.

[14thColony]

48. Actually

The pre-emptive attack on Egypt (Operation Moked) was because President Nasser had massed virtually the entire Egyptian Army in its jumping-off positions in the Sinai right on the main roads into Israel, and the Egyptian Air Force was in the midst of an operational stand-down which is almost always what an air force does to get ready for a massive surge in operations. I'm not sure how a country launches a pre-emptive attack to stop a blockade that's already in place (unless time travel is involved), but I damned well know how to pre-empt an imminent invasion: attack first and as hard as possible, and don't let up, which is just what Israel did.

Again, I'm no fan of Israel but their actions on 5 June 1967 are difficult to fault. I honestly can't see what reasonable choice they had.

[JerseygirlCT]

50. Delete

wrong post...

[JerseygirlCT]

49. Yes, you're right on a technicality. But as you say, if you know

for a certainty that the attack is coming w/in days, if not hours, I'm not really sure that technicality counts for a heck of a lot. Any implication that the hostilities originated with Israel is just wrong, IOW.

You're right; there really wasn't an option. And it seems some would like to punish them for being successful in fending off the united efforts of their neighbors to wipe them off the map...

[14thColony]

60. I think there's fault on both sides, just like any story involving humans

Israel had no choice in 1967, but some would argue that their involvement with France and Great Britain in 1956 was more opportunistic, although I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on that one too due to Egypt's unrelenting provocations from blockading the Suez Canal and Straits of Tiran to their (much worse to me) overt support of the fedayeen raids that were killing innocent Israelis. But then the US got together a coalition to go boot Iraq out of Kuwait because as President Bush I lectured over and over no country today can be allowed to seize territory by force. Yet Israel still occupies the Gaza, West Bank, and Golan Heights. Regardless of the whys and wherefores of it, they're the only country on Earth that I know of still occupying captured territory seized in the 20th Century. So you see some rules not applying to Israel (why are they faulted for defending themselves?) but so do I (why are they allowed to ignore multiple UN resolutions and hold captured territory - we invaded Iraq twice over this very thing). Nothing is every black-and-white, and while Israel may be a lighter shade of grey than some of their neighbors, they sure ain't pearly white either. Just like every other country on Earth.

[ieoeja]

69. Technically we're still holding territory captured last century in Iraq.

We have occupied large swathes of southern Iraq since the Iraq/Kuwait war.

In fact, our remaining there, in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait is the reason the Blind Sheik gave for attacking the WTC in 1993 and the reason Osama bin Laden gave for attacking the WTC in 2001. So where our current misadventures are concerned, the question should not be, "why are we in Iraq," we should be asking, "why did we stay in Iraq in 1991?"

[14thColony]

89. Really?

I must have missed that, and I was involved in those operations. We maintained UN-sanctioned (well, kinda) No-Fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, but the Iraqi Army was still present on the ground, and no US or other Western forces were in Iraq once the withdrawal happened shortly after the end of Gulf War I. There was a small US/UK/French presence in northern Iraq at Dahuk during Operation Provide Comfort to coordinate relief for the Kurds, but I don't recall that being more than about 60 people.

We did remain in Saudi Arabia (gone now thank God), Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE, but I don't think you could argue that we were there as an occupying force in captured territory.

Even with our on-going occupation of Iraq, the difference is the Israelis have viewed their Occupied Territories as de facto Israeli sovereign territory since 1967; settlers move there and buy land, start businesses, etc. Israeli law prevails and Israeli police patrol there to protect Israeli citizens. We're a long way from moving families from Kansas over to Iraq. At least I hope.

[JerseygirlCT]

92. I don't know... if this thing goes for McCain's 100 years

any of that might be possible! What an awful thought!

[JerseygirlCT]

77. Tibet? nt

[14thColony]

90. I'll admit my ignorance of the specifics of that situation.

I did say that I wasn't aware of one, not that there wasn't one! :-)

[JerseygirlCT]

91. LOL, yes you did.

I'm not very educated on that situation, either. But it did occur to me that it might be the criteria.

At any rate, I understand your point.

[question everything]

80. Israel withdrew from Gaza in the summer of 2005

and since then Israeli towns have been bombarded daily.

And as it was before 1967, Egypt looks the other way when missiles and supplies cross the Sinai to Gaza.

Israel has expressed its willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights for a peace agreement with Syria, the same with the West Bank. Though based on the results with Gaza, why should Israel trust any agreement?

This goes back to 1948 when refugees from both countries moved across the border. Israel absorbed the refugees from the Arab countries while Jordan and Egypt and Lebanon have kept them in refugee camps, even though Jordan, at least, annexed the West Bank.

Had the oil riches of the Gulf states been used to resettle the refugees and provide them with decent lives the whole region could have lived by now in co-existence. The problem, of course, has been that since none of the Arab countries is a true democracy (the ruler gets 99% of the votes), it has been easy to flame the hatred for Israel as a diversion from their own oppression.

I have always thought that Gaza could have been an island of financial centers and tax free like Hong Kong. Both are probably the same size, as well as a major tourist attraction. I have heard the beaches along the Gaza strip are quite enticing. This is something that the oil rich kingdoms of the Gulf could have pursued.

Last, many here, especially during the Lebanon-Israeli war have questioned the "right" of Israel to exist (I have yet to hear anyone questioning the right of the US, for example, to exist, or of Australia, or of Canada, not to mention all the new European nations after WWI), especially as a Jewish state.

Yet no one would question the right of Lebanon to exist, which was created about the same time as Israel precisely to assure the Christian majority there. This is why Syria still considers it as part of it. And, of course, the Christians are no longer the majority.

[14thColony]

88. Oops...

You got me on Gaza. It's just so natural to type all three names without thinking.

You're right that the Arab states have fostered this problem for a long time, and are more than willing to use the Palestinians as pawns in the game rather than work together to solve the problem. The Palestinians are convenient to have around to trot out when needed; solve the problem and they don't have that anymore. Besides, none of the surrounding countries are too keen on absorbing the refugee population once and for all. So there the Palestinians sit, as much betrayed by their fellow Arabs as by anyone else.

I don't question Israel's right to exist. They've got more internationally-agreed paperwork behind their existance than most countries on Earth.

[JerseygirlCT]

93. Very good post, thank you.

Peace won't ever be possible until all parties want peace more than continued violence. As you say, some of the parties to this mess think they have more to gain by allowing it to continue. Meanwhile, both Israelis and Palestinians are suffering.

And excellent point about Lebanon.

[Zynx]

62. You are correct, they had no option.

To sit back and wait for the massive Arab invasion to hit would have been suicide. Nasser's declared aim was the destruction of the Israeli people.

[14thColony]

68. To be honest

and this isn't to fault Israel through 20/20 hindsight, but having studied the 1967 in some detail it appears the Israelis had decidedly over-estimated the capabilities of their Arab neighbors. Egypt had 100,000 troops and nearly 1,000 tanks in the Sinai. Israel attacked this force with 70,000 troops and 300 tanks and routed them. Against equally trained and equipped forces the attacker usually needs a 3:1 ratio to defeat the defender; Israel didn't even have 1:1. How do you suppose those Egyptian forces would have fared in an attack against 70,000 defending Israeli troops, in dug-in and fortified positions, and with the Egyptian Air Force shot out of the sky any time they tried to penetrate Israeli airspace? Only difference is the Egyptian corpses would have been piled up on Israeli territory instead of on Egyptian territory. And things were far worse for the Syrian forces, who weren't even as good as the Egyptians. The only Arab army the Israelis respected and later said had fought hard and well was the Jordanian Army, which was at best a reluctant participant in the war at all.

[The Stranger]

32. Um .. a lesson in hisotry [sic]: Israel actually did the ATTACKING in 1967.

It was a preemptive war.

The West Bank land seized was never given back to the Palestinians and has been settled by Israeli hard liners illegally.

If anything is "sacrosanct" for Progressives, it is "self determination." Don't ever let anyone tell you anything different.

[leftynyc]

36. The West Bank was

never the Palestinians. The Jordanians occupied the west bank before 1967. Where were the cries about the conditions then?

[14thColony]

54. The West Bank is an interesting case.

It was captured and annexed by Jordan in 1948 as you indicate, but then it was supposed to be given to them anyway in the 1948 UN partition plan. It was then captured by Israel in 1967, but Israel has never (and probably will never) annex it. In 1988 Jordan gave up all claims to the West Bank, even though they probably had the best legal case for permanent ownership. So an interesting question is: what soveriegn state legally owns the West Bank? It appears the answer is 'none' now that Jordan has washed their hands of it.

[question everything]

44. Blockading the Straits of Tiran by Egypt was an act of war

recognized all over the world. Thus Israel was justified to attack.

But then, both Jordan and Syria were invited to join in the promised spoils that never materialized.

Why didn't Jordan give the land to the Palestinians prior to 1967?

Where were the "progressives" then?

[JerseygirlCT]

53. Or allow the Palestinians living in Jordan now for generations

have any hope of Jordanian citizenship?

Let's face it, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia... every bit as "manufactured" countries as Israel is. The whole region was recreated... I'm not sure why it is that Israel's existence is so questioned.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. You know, the world is one long history of

land acquired through warfare.

Are you suggesting maybe what Israel acquired after the unified attack against it is the starting point for a different way of looking at things? Or maybe we ought to get to redrawing the map of Europe... we'd have to go back quite a long way and still have no hope of getting it all right.

[14thColony]

73. True

So then you oppose Gulf War I and the liberation of Kuwait, correct? Hey, Iraq was just acquiring land through warfare, which "the world is one long history of." So no biggie. Or does that just apply countries you like?

[JerseygirlCT]

76. I wasn't too keen on it, actually

Not because I think Iraq was such a good guy, but I'm not terribly fond of the Kuwaiti regime, and didn't know that we had any business spending lives and treasure on that adventure.

My point, which you seem to have passed by, is that arguing about land acquired in war is sort of impossible. It's always happened, it's a good bet that it will continue to happen. That's when the self-interest of a country comes in, hard as that can be to swallow. And, forgetting about Israel's interests, it's in *our* best interest to support Israel.

Some of the disputed territory is essentially a very good bargaining piece. Trade it for anything more than ironclad security for Israel and it's been given away too cheaply, IMO. And right now, the Palestinians are in no condition to govern themselves adequately. That also plays into it. The solution is only going to come when all the players are brought to the table. That means concessions from the surrounding countries as far as both peace and settling some of the Palestinians they currently have within their borders fairly and permanently.

[14thColony]

87. Then it appears we agree on practically every point

although I have trouble seeing how supporting Israel either helps or hurts the US. It seems more altruistic than realpolitik to do so once we set aside all the emotionalism, Biblical prophecy, and whatnot. Were Israel to cease to exist tomorrow, I would have trouble identifying one resulting threat to US national security, not that I would be happy with that happening. But I must say I respect your position on Iraq/Kuwait - while I might not agree with it, at least you're consistent in your views. Most people aren't.

[question everything]

81. Iraq and Kuwait is an interesting case

It was Churchill who drew the maps, putting the three major groups that hated each other together, and purposefully tore the oil rich Kuwait from Iraq. So Hussein did have a claim for Kuwait.

But the whole world has accepted the borders that were drawn by the British and the French from what used to be the Ottoman Empire but, as you correctly mentioned, above, only Israel is still questioned not just by its neighbors but by "progressive" people on DU, of all places.

[Zynx]

63. Of course Israel attacked in 1967. They had no choice.

[The Stranger]

33. Um .. a lesson in hisotry [sic]: Israel actually did the ATTACKING in 1967.

It was a preemptive war.

The West Bank land seized was never given back to the Palestinians and has been settled by Israeli hard liners illegally.

If anything is "sacrosanct" for Progressives, it is "self determination." Don't ever let anyone tell you anything different.

[leftynyc]

35. Thank you and well said

The free pass given to some of these mid-east countries astounds this liberal.

[subsuelo]

45. Get your history straight: Israel attacked first

No serious person with knowledge of the history even tries to pretend otherwise.

Now, if you agree or not on why Israel attacked - that is another story.

But please, leave the false history somewhere else. There's too much disinformation out there as it is

BBC: On This Day (5 June)

1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt
Israeli forces have launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt and destroyed nearly 400 Egypt-based military aircraft.

Israel took decisive action today claiming the element of surprise was the only way it could stand any chance of defending itself against the increasing threat from neighbouring states.

[question everything]

47. Blockading a major water ways, as Egypt done with the Straits of Tiran

is a recognizable act of war.

And as was proved later, Egypt was on the brink of war.

Next, Syria and Jordan joined in. Had they not, the West Bank would still be a Jordanian territory and no one would pay attention to the Palestinians. But when it is Israel, which, as a small country was expected to fold back and die, letting bleeding heart liberals mourn the "nice experiment," chose, instead to fight back, then this is a problem. Now Israel is the aggressor, providing an outlet for old European Anti-Semitic sentiments - that had to be curtailed following the Holocaust - a great outlet.

[MadHound]

58. Yes, and Israel kicked these people out of their own land in 1948

Thus making a wave of refugees, all essentially at the barrel of a gun. Israel stole the land out from underneath these people. Israel is reaping what it sowed, death and destruction, that is what you get when you steal the land and home out from underneath an entire people. Israel had no right, yet did so anyway.

[question everything]

86. Israel did not steal anyone's land

Perhaps you need a simple lesson in history instead of just repeating what you hear:

The whole are was part of the Ottoman Empire which collapsed at the end of WWI.

The British got a mandate on the area that is now called Israel and the West Bank.

In 1947 the UN voted to end the British mandate and to create two states: a Jewish and an Arab one. (No one was talking about Palestinians then). The Jews accepted it, the Arabs did not and a war started. Not between the Jews and the Arabs in the area, but between the new nation of Israel and between well equipped and strong armies of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (was then called Trans Jordan) and Egypt. During the war, many Palestinians escaped and their descendants still live in refugee camps. New cease fire lines were drawn to be finalized once peace accords were signed with the fighting nations, but nothing happened and they ended up being the borders of Israel.

At the same time, a similar number of Jewish refugees from the same Arab countries fled to Israel and, yes, some of them got the property of the Arab refugees who escaped, joining the attacking armies, hoping for a smashing victory that never came.

I don't know why you think that attacking armies and people should be rewarded.

Most of the countries of the world went through series of wars where territories exchanged and were final borders were drawn to accept the facts on the ground. Shall California be returned to Mexico, then?

Only in the minds of refugee camps in the West Bank and Lebanon, and in naive (at best) and full of hatred (at worst) minds of DUuers is Israel the only evil in the world.

Thankfully, Israel does not need your opinion to live a successful, democratic nation.

[MadHound]

96. At least some people here can be intellectually honest

And acknowledge the wrongs they did to the Native Americans during our long and bloody history. Granted, it took a few hundred years, but it happened. It would be nice if Israel and Israelis could get that lesson in a shorter amount of time.

Your lesson is half propaganda at best, much akin to our noble "history" concerning how we "won the West" and what a fine fellow Christopher Columbus was. Please at least have the intellectual honesty not to fall for such nonsense.

[Jim Sagle]

16. So vote for Ron Paul and leave us Dems alone.

And btw, Israel RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel

[Independent-Voter]

25. 30% of our foreign aid goes to Israel as it is. A wee bit much, don't you think?

[14thColony]

29. A small price to pay

if by doing so we fulfill Scripture, trigger the Rapture, the Tribulations, Armageddon, and the resulting Second Coming and Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth.

now... how does one make that 'sarcasm' icon...?

[Independent-Voter]

37. I hear ya! Not sure about how to do the sarcasm thingy though.

That's pretty much where I'm coming from.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Considering that they are our only ally which is almost surrounded by enemies, it is a wonder

that it is not more.

[Independent-Voter]

42. Makes you wonder why in the hell was Israel put there in '47. Again, I couldn't care less about all

the religious nonsense surrounding that sandbox.

[14thColony]

43. Not quite

Of Israel's 1290km of borders, 42% consists of either the Mediterranean coastline or the border with Egypt, a country Israel has been at peace with since (late) 1973 and in a formal peace treaty since 1979. Kinda hard to make an argument for "surrounded" based on geographic realities.

Of the other states they share a border with, Jordan is in a de facto truce/state of peace with Israel; the Jordanians were never particularly concerned about Israel and were at best lukewarm members of the Arab armies of 1967. Same could be said for Lebanon until Israel's 1982 Operation Peace for Galillee invasion to get rid of the PLO, which not only didn't get rid of the PLO but was the catalyst for the formation of the southern Lebanese resistance group that would become Hezbollah, now amazingly the most militarily capable threat Israel faces. So that border (all 79km of it) is NOW hostile. Next border: Syria - yes, very hostile towards Israel, so we have a clear winner there. But with a military that's beyond pathetic and would be hard-pressed to stop an Israeli invasion, let alone have any chance of success if they launched their own.

So Hezbollah's ok and can inflict damage, but threaten the existance of Israel? Only in their wildest fantasies. The rest of the Arab 'armies' around Israel have the overall combat capabilities of a pack of poorly-armed Cub Scouts. WAY worse-off militarily by comparison with Israel than they were in 1967 and 1973, and they never came close to threatening the existance of Israel then, so how on Earth are they a serious threat now?

[PassingFair]

102. Is Egypt our enemy?

I hadn't KNOWN that.

Perhaps we wouldn't HAVE so many
"enemies" if we had a more
"even-handed" policy in the M.E.

[question everything]

46. Most of it comes back to purchase weapons

and other merchandise.

You may not like anything military, but Israel, and other countries, are obligated to turn back and purchase fighter planes and other weapons make in the good ol' USA. You can say that Israel and other countries have been an important factor in the military industries (until five years ago, that is.)

And then, there are the other requirements.

Sometimes in the 90s, I do not remember exactly when, El Al, the Israeli airlines company, was debating between purchasing new jets from Airbus or from Boeing. Our State Dept. informed Israel in no uncertain terms that it expected it to purchase from Boeing, which it did.

[cali]

75. make that claim, you better put up links

because I know that's incorrect.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Does that go for Sri Lanka, Botswana, and Jamaica, too?

Israel being on the "sacrosanct" list couldn't have anything to do with all that oil in the region..could it?

[JerseygirlCT]

57. No oil in Israel

So I'm not sure where that idea is coming from...

Now, our buddying up to horrific regimes like the Saudis could definitely be explained by our thirst for oil. But they're most definitely a whole 'nother animal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Israel serves as a client state protecting "our" oil in the ME.

Without the oil in the region, almost the whole ME would be a backwater of little interest to the west.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Except Israel, which doesn't depend on the oil

for its survival at all.

I'm not at all sure how it is you see them protecting our access to oil in the ME... would you expand on this?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressIn2008]

31. Obama: defense co-op between the US and Israel a model of success"

http://www.nysun.com/article/71813?page_no=1

The Defense cooperation between the United States to Israel has been a model of success and I believe it can be deepened and strengthened. Now the gravest threat as Robert mentioned to Israel today I believe is from Iran.

However, this is pretty much business as usual -- it's not like he's worse than the rest of 'em. Did anyone really expect otherwise? Again, here the problem isn't Obama's positions -- they're par for the course. The problem is the disjuncture between the packaging and the reality.

[Political Heretic]

40. No one can win unless they take the standard line on Israel

Sad, isn't it?

[Zynx]

61. "Ethnic Cleansing"? Hardly.

If a misinformed view of Israel is your reason for witholding support from Obama, shame on you.

[tokenlib]

66. In 2004, Howard Dean said we should be "even-handed" in the Middle East

...I was overjoyed. But He got dumptrucks of crap thrown at himself for speaking the truth. I was ashamed and discouraged by the response he received.

I'm willing to trust Barack on this issue based on his overall approach to foreign policy.

[theboss]

83. You ain't gonna get a candidate whose going to turn on Israel

It's simply not going to happen.

[Moh96]

95. As Palestinian-American I still support Obama after what he said in the Debate

because I knew if he said anything otherwise it would have meant a political career suicide, but I do believe he has the best heart out of all candidate to understand the suffering of Palestinian people.

now let me ask you here since all of you here are good smart people here is my family situation :

my father's house and land was seized after the 1948 war, now a jewish family live for free in our own house
our city will not be part of any peace agreement since it was occupied in the 1948 war.
our house and land worth over $10 Mil right now, and there is no way of getting it back

Now you tell me what are we supposed to do ?
you tell me what would you do if that happens to your own house?
Really think about it
if a country comes and occupy your city because in their religion it says that your city is their promised land, and they took over your house and you were kicked out

What would you do?

[subsuelo]

98. Wow. Quite a story you share.

You know, it's amazing to read people right here in our very own Democratic forum, talking about how there is no such thing as Palestinians, how there never was any theft of land. How Israel has always only defended itself from aggression, instead of being the aggressor. How do these myths and outright lies permeate so thoroughly - even within the progressive community?

[moodforaday]

97. Recommended viewing / reading

The movie:
Occupation 101 (dvd)


The book:
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Or, if you can't be bothered to buy the book, try this Electric Politics podcast, an hour-long conversation with one of the authors. You won't get all the hard facts from the interview, but you'll get the big picture, as well as some fascinating insights into the support and the criticism the book has received. Hint: the harshest criticism isn't coming from Israel.

[subsuelo]

103. Thanks

[LeftyMom]

100. The US should not be in the business of supporting oppresive regimes. Period.

None of this carrot and stick nonsense, when your state is nearly six decades old you can buy your own damn carrot.

[saltpoint]

101. IMO George Bush and Dick Cheney do not equall the United States and

the officials of the Israeli government do not equal the people of Israel.

IMO that distinction is crucial and should be considered before any candidate is debased for assenting to deserved and understandable support for a people, whether it be Israeli people or Palestinian people or Nicaraguan people.

Or New Orleans people.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Barack Obama would abandon the scope and depth of the duties attendant to peace-seeking.