Should America always side with Israel no matter what?

Published on January 5th, 2009

Should we always side with Israel? Is Israel always right?

93 users responded in " Should America always side with Israel no matter what? "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Define: “side with”

Get Real with: “no matter what”

But, basically: yes until Israel takes out Iran for us since we don’t have the attention span or backbone to do it ourselves.

# 2 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Before we start again, read this article…

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1230937462

A very respectable figure involved in Israel from near the beginning…

And why would Israel attack Iran for the US? It’s meant to be the other way around.

# 3 Zybch said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Bobbo, But why? What the heck has Israel done for the US? Ever?

# 4 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

And since you might not know who Uri is…

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

Well, they almost destroyed the USS Liberty, didn’t they? Accidentally, of course.

# 5 Mondain said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

# 6 1x4x9 said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

Short answer, absolutely not.

Long answer, do you ALWAYS side with your partner, Mom, Dad, Boss, co-worker, whomever?

Nations and international politics (especially when distorted and/or controlled by religious zealots) are far too complex to say “always” and “forever”.

Lastly, take all the bibles and quarans and throw them in a big pile. Then light that pile on fire. Once that fire dies down, ask the “people” (not the politicians) to decide what is worth fighting for and why.

Nothing is worth killing children.

Double so when the whole mess is because of some old, tired, and faulty words on some page that someone says is the “holy writ of God.”

# 7 sargasso said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

America’s broadest interests are aligned with Israel’s, going far beyond complimentary circumstance. There’s room on that flag, for another star.

# 8 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Whose flag?

# 9 J6stik said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

I’ve heard from various religious figures in my life (pastors, people like that) that, in the Bible, it says that a great Western nation would aid the Jews (Israel) back to power, or something along those lines. Sorry, can’t quote it, but that’s the general premise.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of our politicians have a subconscious or maybe conscious motive to keep Israel in power for religious reasons, in addition to them being our only real ally in the area. I think religious reasons for governing are about as corrupt as corruption gets, but it seems like once a power starts down that path it’s unlikely it’ll change.

Also, even America fighting Israel’s fight for purely political reasons is stupid. Since when has Israel been a colony of America? It’s amazing how bass-ackwards America’s role in the world has become.

# 10 eaze said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

LOL all this is so damn funny.

The US AND Israel are both pawns of Britain, its pretty obvious, anything that they do for each other is irrelevant.

Oh and v funny with the picture Marc.

# 11 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

How the US used to deal with Israel?

http://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950716,00.html

# 12 daveg said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Israel should deal with its own problem and the US should keep them at arms length. We are supplying money, arms and political support and they are not acting responsibly with it.

We will expereince part of the blowback that will come from this action in Gaza, plus the inhumanitarian(?) blockade that was taking place before that attack.

Isreal is a sectarian/ethnic state and that is going to cause problems within our current Western moral system for the foreseeable future.

# 13 MattG said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Only if the US values politics and power over morality.

Which I guess means yes?

# 14 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

2–named==you are an interesting guy. Unique point of view in posting. I like the fact you use links.

So far, NONE of your links address the points you are responding to. More some kind of “word association” process going on. Like mystical code words one uses when talking to someone when nothing need be said to begin with but are just gibberish to those who have opposing opinions.

Why don’t you take a step back and try to engage the world you disagree with: should America generally support Israel or force them to take steps immediately leading to their own destruction and the imposition of another Muslim Dictatorship in the Middle East?

3. Zybch==I think Israel has long been a proxy force in the Middle East for the USA. First Against Russia, now against Fundies who want our oil (sarcasm!!). I don’t think much would change one way or the other for the USA if Israel continues or not.

History does that. It continues no matter what.

# 15 Misanthropic Scott said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Israel is not always right. U.S. should not always side with Israel.

That said, the U.N. and Amnesty International should not always side with the Palestinians in condemning Israel while ignoring the atrocities from the Palestinians.

It is often the case in that region that BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG. It is not OK for the U.N. to repeatedly condemn just one side.

Also, some things are not OK no matter what happened before. The ends do not justify the means. Some means must be condemned consistently without regard for anything that happened before.

# 16 daveg said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Great Quote from Glenn Greenwald:

Ultimately, what is most notable about the “debate” in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. … American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it’s often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.

Yup. When the attack comes and they want to take away MORE of your civil liberties (Gitmo West!) don’t let them tell you they hate us because of our ‘freedom’. It is blowback for US international policy.

# 17 Mr. Fusion said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

America should always side with any nation that believes in freedom, equality, and democracy AND PRACTICES THE SAME.

With that criteria, neither Palestine nor Israel qualify.

# 18 orangetiki said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Someone send that picture to Viceland.com

# 19 BryanP said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

#6 Nothing is worth killing children.

Obviously you don’t have the right cookbooks.

# 20 whaap said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

The US should just let the two sides fight to the death and stay out of it.

# 21 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

14,

You know, I was particularly expecting the following statement from you…
“should America generally support Israel or force them to take steps immediately leading to their own destruction and the imposition of another Muslim Dictatorship in the Middle East?”
And also WHY I was particularly happy to provide the link from Uri which in my mind was timely AND salient. His understanding of the country HE helped create is clear… And particularly to your interest is this…
“This will have historic consequences. A whole generation of Arab leaders, a generation imbued with the ideology of secular Arab nationalism, the successors of Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, Hafez al-Assad and Yasser Arafat, may be swept from the stage. In the Arab space, the only viable alternative is the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.

This war is a writing on the wall: Israel is missing the historic chance of making peace with secular Arab nationalism. Tomorrow, It may be faced with a uniformly fundamentalist Arab world, Hamas multiplied by a thousand.”

I know you read the article… Well, at least I hope you did… Maybe you just missed that last part.

So, what are America’s interests in the region? Hope that Israel dominates and controls the entire Middle East and then hope that Israel shares the resources due to past good behavior? Or perhaps to let Israel go nuclear, have total destruction in the region and then walk in and pick up the pieces? Or is there some altruism I’m missing?

# 22 BigBoyBC said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

I’ve always thought that “America” has had a problem separating the “Jewish faith” from the “Israeli Government”.

They’re not the same thing, at least to me, the Israeli Government represents Israelis not the Jewish faith (despite what they may think), just as the Italian Government represents Italians not the Catholic faith (yea, them too).

# 23 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

#20–named==reality isn’t your close friend is it?

Yes, I read the link. It is all BS, no one rational finds anything but blatant propaganda there.

My first clue after beginning with “think of the kiddies” appeal was the following nonsense: (Para 6) “Then there came the small provocations which were designed to get Hamas to react.” Zealots with a propaganda axe to grind will treat history as a series of cogs and levers: “the enemy” did this which caused that.

The smaller the act described, the less possible for it t o be true. History is complex, layered, contested. Not so simple except for dedicated propagandists to motivate the simple minded.

Re-read the article though, at first blush, I do agree the virtual blockade of Gaza was tantamount to an act of war. If YOU weren’t so TAINTED as an historian, I wouldn’t suspect there is a lot being left out of this general description. Same goes for the overwhelming slant of the link. The appeal to emotion that begins the tract makes all else not credible on its face. Could be true, probably not.

BUT THE ISSUE WAS, that you still haven’t responded to at all is as stated: should USA support Israel or not? I already gave my directly responsive opinion. Can you be as direct?

# 24 Dallas said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

YES

# 25 bhavekost said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

The U.S. should side with whomever is in their best interests. Case in point, the famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld with Sadam Hussein. At that point in history, it was in our best interests; things change with time.

# 26 Gaolbird said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Yes

Islam is an existential threat to all other civilizations. Anyone kicking its butt should get our support.

# 27 Jim W. said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

This book could explian one reason why we should,

http://tinyurl.com/7m2e7s

# 28 locomotivebreath1901 said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

“Should we always side with Israel? Is Israel always right?”

Let me answer it this way: Like many liberal democracies, Israel has its share of flaws and problems. But constantly proclaiming a violent religious ideology of global conquest via worldwide death and destruction of other religious ideologies is not one of those flaws.

Besides, what other liberal democracy with good looking army babes in the Mid-East should America support??

Oh. That’s right. There aren’t any other liberal democracy with good looking army babes in the Mid-East because they’re all totalitarian regimes!

Case closed.

# 29 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

#26–Jim: “In this book, Bill Koenig provides undeniable facts and conclusive evidence showing that indeed the leaders of the United States and the world are on a collision course with God over Israel’s covenant land.”

I hope you and your ilk used the bible as your investment guide in the last few years. hahahahahhah!

# 30 Mister Mustard said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I’d side with the soldier. Nothing like hot babes with guns for good PR.

# 31 Grandpa said, on January 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

When Hamas rockets are pounding Israel, the answer is YES!

# 32 chuck said, on January 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Let’s look at another question:
Should America ever side with Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran against Israel?

# 33 deowll said, on January 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

No but the other side (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) is so bent on genocide and revenge that anybody that sides with them is nuts.

I wish it wasn’t that bad.

I‘m sure there are some very nice people living in Gaza who deserve much better than they are getting but the homicidal maniacs run the place.

Time and time again these killers have snatched a better life from their own people but as long as the majority of their people support them I don’t see that anything can be done.

# 34 OvenMaster said, on January 5th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Should America side with Israel no matter what?

Certainly not.

If Israel is attacked by outside forces, I feel we should side with them as a defense issue. But if Israel attacks someone first, then no. Just like in grade school: if someone hits you first, then go ahead and pound the bully into the ground, but never, ever throw the first punch yourself.

My lame two cents.

# 35 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

#33–Oven==you don’t say. In the current dispute–who threw the first punch?

# 36 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

34,

As you said previously… Israel did. And it’s well documented too. Very well documented.

# 37 OvenMaster said, on January 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Et voila.

# 38 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

#34–named==the only way I can make sense of that statement is that you are going back to Israel’s founding. Even there you are wrong. Good Job.

With all the many well documented accounts of this first punch—care to provide just one? === and please, don’t post an article that has just the word “punch” in it without any further relevancy.

35–Oven==surely, you must know your own mind?

# 39 Dave W said, on January 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Since it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the Jews and the Muslims will NEVER play nice, and since their warring threatens the entire rest of the world,

Once again, I must say that the only workable solution is to neutron bomb the entire Middle East. Not pretty. Not nice. Not even particularly ethical, but very, very practical.

Oh, and then we can go in and suck up all the oil!

# 40 pedro said, on January 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

#15 A gem of a post.

# 41 damontsar said, on January 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

No Israel does what in the best for it and it only. the US could find itself on the wrong side of Israel one day than what.

# 42 noname said, on January 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Should America always side with Hamas no matter what?

Maybe in a Bush black and white world view.

Should America always side with Dvorak no matter what?

Yes!

# 43 Brett said, on January 5th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

I don’t support Israels genocide against innocent people but here’s a hotter Israeli female soldier: http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/eye_candy/maximidffemaleace.jpg

# 44 pedro said, on January 5th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Reversing the question, should some Dems. support US & western enemies no matter what?

Dems. guilty by association in the Israel/Hamas conflict: Bill Richardson, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Boston Group, Jimmy Carter, etc.

How? By supporting his good friend kuzco.

Why: Read this articles, although the second one it’s gonna be kinda hard, what with being in Turkish and all.

First: Dec 24, brought thru by AFP http://tinyurl.com/9xpxcz No coverage whatsoever in UIS mainstream media.

Second: Dec. 30, 22 Container From Iran to Venezuela labeled in the shipping manifest as tractor parts were seized in Turkey. The contents were radioactive material for bomb & grenade manufacturing http://tinyurl.com/7trwb6

Link to another Turkish news outlet with the same story http://tinyurl.com/7a23tt

# 45 Izzy said, on January 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

But Israel has great boobs!

# 46 fw said, on January 5th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

America seems really bad at math.
How many Israelis are killed by some things that mostly are like bottle rockets, and how many NON Israeli are killed by artillery and hi-tech missiles, things the USA has mostly paid for.

Provocation form both sides are extreme, but let Israel grow up stand on its own.
Perhaps with a “brother” at the back, but don’t let the Israel brother smooch cash and support when he starts fist fights, hes got to learn some day the harsh reality of reaping what you sow.

# 47 MikeN said, on January 5th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

I think the US should not support Israel when they exchange hundreds of prisoners for a few dead bodies. In that case we should complain about proportionality.

By the way, why doesn’t the left complain about Sri Lanka’s disproportionate use of force against the Tamil Tigers?

# 48 Mister Mustard said, on January 5th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

#37 – Lyin’ Mike

>>By the way, why doesn’t the left complain
>>about Sri Lanka’s disproportionate use of
>>force against the Tamil Tigers?

Because 30 countries (including India, the UK, the EU, Canada, the and the US) have classified the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organization because of their crimes against humanity?

# 49 B. Dog said, on January 5th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Israel is an ally of the U.S., so yeah let’s back them. The Israelis have done a spectacular, heroic and brilliant job of defending themselves against a horde of nasty enemies.

# 50 Thomas said, on January 5th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

I think all aid to Israel should be paid in pig penises. And all support of Israel should be on pig penises. All communication with Israel should be in Morse code implemented by slapping them with pig penises. As allies go Israel sucks, which while Tony Blair was giving Bush a rim job was entertaining, in the long run it is not good policy.

# 51 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

38
*sigh*

It’s obvious you don’t know how to use a computer or read facts… But, I won’t hold it against you. I’ll be your research guy.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=israel+broke+ceasefire&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

And, someone earlier said this..
Re-read the article though, at first blush, I do agree the virtual blockade of Gaza was tantamount to an act of war.
Who was that strange fellow? Why, it was bobbo! Bobbo, you have opinions. They may be wrong, they may be right, but, like you’re asshole, they’re not going anywhere. I figured you out. You are HIGHLY opinionated and HIGHLY frustrated. Knowledge is not something you seek, because you figured it ALL out a long time ago and now YOU are fighting against the “ignorant” plebs… the tainted historians…

As I said previously… I quoted someone who was a PART of founding and expanding Israel. He WROTE for Irgun until he realized that terrorism was not right. He himself said “You can’t talk to me about terrorism, I was a terrorist.” Think about that. For his country, he was a terrorist.

And you support that country.

Anyhoo… carry on. I suggest you start with a character assassination followed by a repudiation of the facts with hyperbole and “that’s the way the world is.” I suppose, if you are an American, you view the Constitution as the singular threat to government order and should be opposed at all costs.

# 52 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

51…

your, not you’re…

GOD DAMN ENGLISH!

# 53 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

#51–named==you make affirmative statements and then think it is a burden to provide them? Well, you’ll learn. Maybe you can learn to stop being so anal and reposting to correct typo errors. Can’t you notice you are the only one doing that?

So–the snipe hunt continues by your authoritative reference to any combination of 522,000 posts? Dope.

Well, I’ll just take the first one that appears and quote the first paragraph:

http://irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1230/1230581467173.html?via=mr

“OPINION: IN JUNE, Israel agreed a six-month ceasefire with Hamas. Until December 27th, no Israeli, civilian or military, was killed as a result of rocket or mortar fire from Gaza.”

Now I know the Irish speak a form of English. I would think that they know that “ceasefire” does not mean “no one was killed as a result of rocket or mortar fire” is a flat out admission that Hamas had been actively violating the cease fire (Definition: no firing) for months.

I guess the Irish Times writes for good folks like you. If I thought you cared about facts, I’d track down the item I think I saw that 4 or 6 Israelis had been killed earlier==but thats not the point. Likewise, I’d like to get into the details of the blockade issues and what I think are independent issues arising therefrom. But if you think 3-4 rocket and mortar attacks per day for 18 months is honoring a cease fire–what good does reasoned discourse do? Same with your earlier request for confirmation of said attacks.

Whats sad is that you and I are interacting in a comparatively rational way compared to the real idiots, and we aren’t actually interacting much at all.

# 54 Greg Allen said, on January 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Am I the last person on earth who has not taken sides in this conflict?

I see victims and victimizers on both sides.

What I DON’T see so clearly, is why this conflict is America’s business.

# 55 amodedoma said, on January 5th, 2009 at 9:40 pm

Friggin’ limeys giving away Palestine as if it were there’s to give. Damage is done, Isreal exsist’s and won’t go away. They cannot be ignored. Still it’s about time the US picks it’s allies more carefully, all of our biggest mistakes in foreign policy come from thinking that the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

# 56 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

53,

QUOTE: #51–named==you make affirmative statements and then think it is a burden to provide them? Well, you’ll learn. Maybe you can learn to stop being so anal and reposting to correct typo errors. Can’t you notice you are the only one doing that?

Holy crap! I give you PAGES of links, which you like (2–named==you are an interesting guy. Unique point of view in posting. I like the fact you use links.) and then you complain that I’m “burdened” by providing them? You asked a question… You wanted proof of the first punch. I gave you pages of them. You complain that I’m complaining? Again… Holy crap!

And, please forgive me for trying to provide clear and concise statements. If I catch my English flubs, and I correct them, is that a negative statement on my character? I would think people would appreciate that yes, I made the typical English mistake (your, you’re, yore?) understand it, and corrected it in humourous way. And I didn’t blame the Queen for it, did I? Maybe I speak Irish…

You may THINK the Irish speak English, but I’m sure they might fight you on that point. In fact, I believe there is a form of Gallic that the Irish speak. But, I guess that’s just pedantism…

If you want English, go down a couple of links to the Guardian…. Or not. I’ll quote it here for you AND provide the link (since I know you like links). I guess, what I was thinking was that bobbo is an untainted historian, and he’ll pick, oh, say three links and synthesize the information instead of one that supports his own opinion. I was so wrong. Would you also like a link from some Israeli newspapers? Ask, and I’ll provide without the sigh.

“A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

Notice how Hamas RESPONDED? And you never mentioned your own tacit admission that the total blockade of the Palestinians is an act of war…

Anyhoo… rinse and repeat… Character assassination followed by repudiation via hyperbole. You haven’t disappointed me yet! I’m beginning to think you’re having a larf and / or are a 17 year old boy.

“Whats sad is that you and I are interacting in a comparatively rational way compared to the real idiots, and we aren’t actually interacting much at all.”

Idiots need more help than we do. Don’t become an idiot.

# 57 Named said, on January 5th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

53…

I’m not leaving anything to chance!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038431.html
“. The shattering of the cease-fire – there is no more point in semantic squirming – is attributed to Israel’s blowing up a tunnel that probably was intended for Hamas to kidnap Israeli soldiers.”

# 58 OvenMaster said, on January 5th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

#38:
Bobbo, it’s been back and forth since the days of Moses, has it not?

Scott in #15 summed it all up nicely, I think. I will need to go back and re-read history, starting with the British Mandate after World War I, the UN partitioning of Palestine, and Israeli independence in 1948, to determine who really threw the first punch.

# 59 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

#57–named==to a small degree that probably doesn’t change the outcome, but does sour the exchange, I think we slightly miscommunicate with one another. Our individual thoughts honestly misunderstood by the other. Conversation rather than writing helps get thru that faster if tempers don’t rise.

In your last LINK (LINK–a specific web page containing the fact or idea being advanced==as opposed to search terms virtually mandating a failure to communicate) the cease fire was violated by the
“Israel’s blowing up a tunnel that probably was intended for Hamas to kidnap Israeli soldiers.” So–Hamas can launch rockets but Israel cannot blow up tunnels? Is that “bilateral?” By what understanding is building a kidnap tunnel not an act of war? and so forth.

I guess some problems are beyond diplomatic resolution and just require some killing until people get tired of that.

# 60 bobbo said, on January 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

#58–Oven==I did that a few years ago. Lots of websites on it. Its still kinda hard to figure out just what did happen. One of my “what if’s:” What if the Palestinians in the Partitioned areas did not get up and leave at the notions of “the Jews are coming?” Them that left became prisoners of the world. Them that stayed are doing relatively much better. What if they had all stayed?

History provides few “do-overs.”

# 61 harold said, on January 5th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

Yes, the US should always take the side of racist fascist governments and Israel being one should not be excluded.

# 62 harold said, on January 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Yes, the US should always take the side of racist fascist governments and Israel should not be excluded.

# 63 pedro said, on January 6th, 2009 at 2:46 am

#61 I’m with you there. America should never take the side of a terrorist organization.

# 64 Daniel said, on January 6th, 2009 at 3:14 am

Generally speaking, I say no. I don’t support Israel but on this case, I don’t blame them a bit for doing what they have done. They have a right to strike back against someone who’s been firing rockets at their citizens indiscriminately.

That being said, due to the nature of both sides this will never end as long as they remain religiously governed nations.

# 65 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 3:49 am

59,

Please… PLEASE stay focused. From the top… you asked who delivered the first punch. Israel. I gave you links to document it. Now we know that Israel delivered the first punch. Now you claim that Israel “”Israel’s blowing up a tunnel that probably was intended for Hamas to kidnap Israeli soldiers.” So–Hamas can launch rockets but Israel cannot blow up tunnels?” Hamas did NOT launch rockets until Israel started their tunnel blowing. Yes, you will say they are dismantling their “kidnap” tunnels. Israel could say anything they like about them, but it doesn’t allow an incursion into a foreign land. Unless, of course, you believe that the US was justified to invade Iraq on the pretext that Saddam was going to rain missiles on the US. That would imply that unilateral movements against accepted standards of conflict resolution are null and void. And in that case, you have no argument against anyone who starts any conflict over any reason… So, to close that one off… Israel attacked first and THEN there were Hamas rockets.

And, finally…
“By what understanding is building a kidnap tunnel not an act of war?” I don’t know what the hell you are implying there, since there is no PROOF that they are building kidnap tunnels. And if they ARE kidnap tunnels wouldn’t it be easier to just put, say, a huge gate on the Israeli side of the tunnel, grab a chair and some kebabs and relax? If I’m not mistaken a tunnel has an entrance and an exit. So, if the exit is in Israel, why go to Gaza to close it? Does that even make sense? Biut I guess I’ll just close it off by saying collective punishment and blockades ARE an act of war. Full stop.

Thanks and goodnight! Stay for the veal… Its delicious. Or, perhaps, the pork.

As a PS… I do appreciate your correction of my LINK. It was a link, but it was a link to an aggregate site. So, technically, it wasn’t a specific link. But, I was going for breadth AND depth.

# 66 Buzz said, on January 6th, 2009 at 4:52 am

In direct answer to the headline question: No, but this is not one of the times we should disagree.

Think of the hypothetical US response to an incessant stream of rockets launched into San Diego from Tijuana if the Federales did nothing to stop them.

The larger question might be, Should Israel adopt Hamas’ cynicism and just bomb the Gaza Strip indiscriminately?

# 67 qsabe said, on January 6th, 2009 at 6:12 am

Short answer….. Yes…

# 68 gmknobl said, on January 6th, 2009 at 7:10 am

Just the question alone makes me laugh! It amuses me that a population that suffered the horrors of countless persecutions and murders now willingly commits atrocities. Well, amuse is incorrect. It’s a rueful laugh at best. Well, if you believe in an eye for an eye, the violence will never end.

# 69 GFPLUX said, on January 6th, 2009 at 8:35 am

The simple and correct answer is NO.
America is perfectly placed to “solve” the problems only if they are seen to be even handed. The USA must, can and should broker peace in the Middle East. This will mean both sides giving up a great deal but that is the only road to peace.
America should also decide if they should continue to be influenced by powerful lobby’s within it’s own borders that are not in the best long term interests of America.

# 70 MikeN said, on January 6th, 2009 at 8:43 am

The calls for proportionality are humorous. If a gang throws some rocks at you and one grazes your shoulder, it would be disproportionate for you to take a gun and shoot many of them.

However, if they are throwing these rocks with intent to kill, and are doing so day after day, what would be the proper response?

# 71 Paddy-O said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:02 am

# 69 MikeN said, “However, if they are throwing these rocks with intent to kill, and are doing so day after day, what would be the proper response?”

If a bunch of people lived next door to me and on a daily basis shot into my home I’d blow up their house (with everyone in it).

# 72 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am

70,

And what if a bunch of people kicked you out of your home and said that they own it because God gave it to them. Would you walk away and bless them for being God’s people?

# 73 Paddy-O said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:32 am

#71 Nope. I’d wage a war against that nations military forces.

# 74 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:36 am

72,

So, from your two statements both Israel and Palestine are wrong. I agree with you.

# 75 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:37 am

72,

I forgot to add, but you wouldn’t try and get your home back? You’d just let them go?

# 76 Paddy-O said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:47 am

# 73 Named said, “So, from your two statements both Israel and Palestine are wrong. I agree with you.”

Yes.

What should have happened is that Germany should have been carved up for a Jewish homeland after WW2.

# 77 MikeN said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am

Named, learn the history of the region. The Jews were there thousands of years ago.

Even to this day I can hear lefties who think that there were no Jews in Jerusalem until 1948.

# 78 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:50 am

75,

Why Germany? Most western countries wouldn’t let any Jews in either.

# 79 Mister Mustard said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am

#54 – Greg Allen

>>What I DON’T see so clearly, is why this
>>conflict is America’s business.

Hebe lobbyists. {wink} The Palestinians don’t have much of a presence on K Street.

# 80 Paddy-O said, on January 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am

# 77 Named said, “Why Germany?”

Are you serious? You don’t know why Germany?

# 81 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am

79,

Well, I know WHY Germany, but most Western countries couldn’t give a rats ass for the Jews. In fact, that’s why Western countries were the cause of the problem. And, being the cynic that I am, I am sure ALL the western countries are happy to keep the jews somewhere off their pur lain land.

But, if you mean to carve up Germany as part of reparations, I don’t think that would have worked out as well as it might sounds. Afterall, what would you do with the Sephardic jews? Move them to Germany too?

And in fact, Germany has the fastest growing Jewish population in the West now.

# 82 bobbo said, on January 6th, 2009 at 10:58 am

#56–named. Hah! You site the Israeli’s blowing up the kidnap tunnel as the first punch in the current dipute but then say there was NO TUNNEL to blow up so building it was not an act of war. I would like to copyright this incongruity as “Thinking Like a Palestinian” or (T-Lap).

But returning to the “first question” of who threw the first punch. We covered that already at post #53. To recap: Hamas launched missiles, rockets, and mortars into Israel but no one was killed so this is supposed to be viewed as not a violation of the cease fire. BUT Israel blows up a tunnel, no one is killed, and that is the first punch? More T-Lap. Well Done.

I did read one article that talked about a total of around 1200 rockets being launched into Israel since Gaza was unilaterally vacated by Israel. Came out to bout 2-3 rockets per day. Yes, not all fired by Hamas but rather by “other terrorists.”

I can’t find that article now, even searching my History file, but here is less authoritative article saying Hamas launched rockets ((not that it is needed as YOUR LINK at #53 admits they launched rockets)): http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/9483/

In the end, your argument is a distraction. There is every moral authority needed to attack any government that has proclaimed it wants to “wipe you from the face of the map.” That includes Hamas, Iran, Al Quada and anyone else.

The notion that you want peace in the context of wanting to kill the other side is – - – - – - T-Lap.

Its so dysfunctional, calling it “thinking” is really misleading. I revoke my copyright, and denote this type of argument as “NOT THINKING-Just Like a Palestinian” or “NT-Jlap” (Copyright, Bobbo)

# 83 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 11:27 am

81,

One of the most important points that you miss, being 17 and all, is that it wasn’t a GOVERNMENT OPERATION that was launching the missiles. The government, Hamas, agreed to the ceasefire. Israel moved into Gaza as a government operation. See, this is a very important distinction. VERY important. When a government authorizes an action, it goes on record and becomes de facto policy. And this is from your own link…
“Hamas had promised to stop firing at Israeli civilian targets and to ensure that other groups would not fire either, while Israel promised to cease military operations in the Gaza Strip and to enable safe passage of goods between Gaza and Israel.

During the six months missiles were still fired at Israeli civilian targets, sent from terrorist organizations. The number was significantly less than before, however. Israel responded with military operations against the missile launching squads, and closed passages between Gaza and Israel. Friday Dec. 19 was the end of the six month cease fire, and intensive firing started again.”

Notice that Hamas was NOT responsible for the attacks. Other radicals were. Let me make an analogy for you;
Since Bill Clinton and the democrats were in power when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma building, Bill Clinton and the democrats were responsible.

When Israel disengaged from Gaza, they blockaded the country… Everything was restricted… aid, food, water, electricity; from land, sea and air. That is a de facto act of war, as you yourself agree to.

So, go ahead and trademark your little quips. They’re as nonsensicle as you’re becoming. You know, I can actual see you furiously trying to put something, anything, together that could remotely challenge logic.

# 84 Paddy-O said, on January 6th, 2009 at 11:30 am

# 82 Named said, “One of the most important points that you miss, being 17 and all, is that it wasn’t a GOVERNMENT OPERATION that was launching the missiles.”

Bzzzt. Wrong answer McFly.

With that many rockets, in that small of an area, over that length of time, requires tacit approval of the local gov’t.

# 85 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am

83,
The article clearly indicates “significantly less”. Sure, one is too much. But, indicative of the whole conflict is the lack of co-operation between the two sides. Both groups are waiting for an excuse, any pretext at all, to continue operations. But, when you look in context, that of an occupation by a vastly superior force and the total blockade by the occupying force, it would take a herculean effort to hold every pissed off person at bay. How many Gazans have suffered at the hands of the Israeli military through the years grew a little older and madder in time for 2008?

Can you imagine if Israel and Palestine worked together to solve these issues instead of each side on eggshells just waiting for the sound of a broken twig to start up again.

# 86 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am

to my 85, I was of course referring to Paddy-O in 84. Bobbo, don’t get upset that I’m correcting myself.

# 87 bobbo said, on January 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am

#82–NT-Jlap==for about the third time you argue in opposition to the sources you use as your authority:

“Hamas had promised to stop firing at Israeli civilian targets AND TO ENDURE THAT OTHER GROUPS WOULD NOT FIRE EITHER”

Did you miss that, not understand that, or open up another can of NT-Jlap?

Why don’t you address the key point of relevance? Hamas from day one and right now has declared itself set on the goal of wiping Israel off the face of the map. If Hamas laid down its arms, there would be no firing. If Israel laid down its arms, there would be another Holocaust.

heh, heh, heh. I wonder if the Palestinians/Hamas/et al bring this same intellectual rigor to their tactical military planning? Hey FT-Jlap==just how high up in Hamas are you?

# 88 bobbo said, on January 6th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Heres a nice little Hitchens video on the evils of moral relativism of the sort named wishes could never be understood:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C-B87fhzCiw&feature=related

# 89 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

“Hamas had promised to stop firing at Israeli civilian targets AND TO ENDURE THAT OTHER GROUPS WOULD NOT FIRE EITHER”

What that means is that Hamas would not fire (they stopped) and that they would try to make other groups stop. That last point is debatable. But, you of course, can see a 1 and a 0. There is nothing in-between which betrays your youthful ignorance. You don’t live there, so you cannot claim that they did not “endure” to stop other groups. Have you seen footage of Israel settlers attacking Palestinians on their own land? Denounced by their own Israeli government? And there are countless reports of the Israeli military standing by watching while the Palestinians are attacked and beaten by the settlers. No, I imagine you’ve never read such reports. Fox News doesn’t generally report on such truths. You’ll get it from Israeli newspapers if you knew how to use the Internet to try and understand a conflict from more than the side that your mommy tells you.
And aggregate link for you…
http://www.google.ca/search?q=settlers+attack+palestinians&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
and one more.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/938238.html

But, since that’s against your beliefs in right and wrong in the conflict, you’ll look for a semantic reason why they might be justified…

A country can exist or it cannot. But the people do not change. I know you don’t understand history, but it was the Western white people that put the Jews in ovens. Not the Arabs. Sephardic jews have been a part of the Middle East since… well… Moses. As Ben Gurion said, which you fail to comprehend “We stole their land.”

Now, as for your moral relatavisim which you claim I wish to deny the existence of… First off, you know what a sword is. It has two sharp sides. Each one cuts. George Orwell has a quote which I think will relate to this perfectly.
“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.
A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side … The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them” — George Orwell

So, your moral relativism can cut on both sides of the fray. And, as another point about old Chris…. he was a huge proponent of Water boarding. He talked shit about it up and down the circuit about how great it was and it wasn’t that bad. Until he volunteered to get waterboarded himself. He cracked within two seconds. He quickly refuted his earlier stance. So, you see bobbo… when you’re wrong its sometimes hard to see. With the right understanding, you might be able to change your view. And that’s actually a very good thing.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

And again, finally, you pump up Israel like their are infallible. I like to take the point of objectivity. You can’t look at the crucible of the conflict and say, “they threw rockets at them.” and cut it there. Its easily refuted, as I have done many times already. But, you like the intellectualism and wisdom to view a conflict dispassionately. And this is why you keep looking for your “I’m right!” argument, which you will never find. I never said I supported Israel. I never said I supported Hamas either. What I have been trying to explain to you is that this conflict is bigger than you can imagine, the roots of it are dug down from 1917, and a snippet of “they attacked us” is not an answer to a problem. As an American, a very typical one at that, you fail to understand the breadth of history.

Bobbo… you can’t win this argument. If neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can solve the debate, what makes you think that a teenage like you can even begin to answer it?

Truth, morality and ethics are very flexible. They are not absolutes.

# 90 pedro said, on January 6th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

#84 You’re quite correct. That’s the way extremist-supporting muslim governments are behaving for quite some time. They create this non-government groups to perform the attacks for them. This groups work intranationally and supranationally, which is the case in Gaza now (the Palestinian government does not support Hamas’ actions)

These governments order this radical groups to do their deed and be free of any wrongdoing and of any attacks that may come from those actions. Even act as goodwill parts on the conflict by volunteering as mediators.

Those same tactics are being used in Latin America as well. In venezuela, there are many non-governemnt storm groups that are directed by the government against anybody that is not “in love” with it. Obviously, come time for reprievals, the government says one of two stories: Yes, they support us but we cannot control them OR condemn those actions, promise to bring the culprits to justice but do absolutely nothing.

And Venezuela is not the only one were this things happen.

I wonder how those extreme muslim tactics came into latin america…not!

# 91 Named said, on January 6th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Yes, they support us but we cannot control them OR condemn those actions, promise to bring the culprits to justice but do absolutely nothing.

Sounds like the Israeli settlers too!

# 92 pedro said, on January 6th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

#91 Man, what a mind for comparisons you have. It’s exactly the same…NOT!

# 93 bobbo said, on January 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

#91–NT-Jlap===so, both sides to the debate agree that HAMAS uses proxy terrorists to violate the “peace treaty.” Further, you want to negate the clear simple meaning of “ensure” as if it actually meant “try to.”

All thats left is that your stupidity about the settlers is contested.

A full FAIL on your part==but given your position, about the best you could do.

BTW–what is your “solution” for the Israel/Palestine question? I’d love to hear it.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!