Israel: An issue many in the liberty movement get wrong

[bunklocoempire]

I don't like Israel because their excuse to exist there is that they are descendants of German concentration camp survivors and yet they themselves also run a couple concentration camps.

Ron Paul refers to Gaza Strip as a concentration camp:

Ron who? Oh yeah, the website forums guy...

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/paul-pelosi-AIPAC/2008/06/18/id/324168/

Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.

...

“She [Pelosi] removed it deliberately,” Paul says. “And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."

The government of Israel and all their baggage (AIPAC) is a bad influence. Check out AIPAC and spying for Israel. Ally my eye.

 

[MichaelDavis]

You're right, and this is why we are so disappointed and outraged. We have been enablers. The Jewish settlers made up 8% of the total population and inherited 55% of the land under the 1947 UN plan, yet they continue to seize and occupy more and more, and we have emboldened it....

Stop spreading lies.

 

[Number19]

It's been a while since I posted here - nothing's changed. But I chose this thread to interject a thought which I haven't seen discussed.

It's a given that, as policy, the U.S. should follow a foreign policy of non-interventionism. But it's also commonly commented upon that our interference in the middle-east is the reason behind the anti-Americanism and the hostility held by Muslim extremists toward the U.S.; and if we would only stop intervening, then this anomosity would gradually dissipate.

But is this an accurate assessment?

If you are truly libertarian, then you believe in free trade. And American arms manufacturers would have the freedom to deal with Israel. Or would you use the force of government to prohibit this commerce?

And if Americans, as individuals, continued to support Israel, would the terrorism, or the potential for terrorism, against Americans slacken? And what would be your response if we were attacked on American soil? Of course, we could continue to tighten our border security to insure that such an attack didn't occur, but at what cost to our nation?

Would a policy of non-interventionism by our government actually improve our relations with middle-eastern culture?

I support Israel because I see them as a party that would accept a peace. I do not believe Muslim extremists would ever do so. And I do not see any movement in the general population to resist or reform this extremist political position.

I do not support our government allying our nation with Israel, but as an individual I support Israel for the reasons stated.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If that is the case, why no Israeli troops stood with American troops on frontlines in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom?

How many terror attacks against America took place before and after America started funding Israeli occupation of Palestinians?

Do you believe arabs and jews are equal as races or one is more chosen than the other... in other words, do you support or oppose zionism?

Just to understand where you are coming from.

I'm mostly indifferent to Israel as such, but why in the world should any ally of ours have gone into an aggressive war with us? I don't believe in entangling alliances, but still.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I was once an Israel supporter, but I can no longer say that I am. I cannot support a government that denies basic rights to it's inhabitants. It's just like South Africa pre-1994.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It's been a while since I posted here - nothing's changed. But I chose this thread to interject a thought which I haven't seen discussed.

It's a given that, as policy, the U.S. should follow a foreign policy of non-interventionism. But it's also commonly commented upon that our interference in the middle-east is the reason behind the anti-Americanism and the hostility held by Muslim extremists toward the U.S.; and if we would only stop intervening, then this anomosity would gradually dissipate.

But is this an accurate assessment?

If you are truly libertarian, then you believe in free trade. And American arms manufacturers would have the freedom to deal with Israel. Or would you use the force of government to prohibit this commerce?

And if Americans, as individuals, continued to support Israel, would the terrorism, or the potential for terrorism, against Americans slacken? And what would be your response if we were attacked on American soil? Of course, we could continue to tighten our border security to insure that such an attack didn't occur, but at what cost to our nation?

Would a policy of non-interventionism by our government actually improve our relations with middle-eastern culture?

I support Israel because I see them as a party that would accept a peace. I do not believe Muslim extremists would ever do so. And I do not see any movement in the general population to resist or reform this extremist political position.

I do not support our government allying our nation with Israel, but as an individual I support Israel for the reasons stated.

Most people wouldn't simply call a truce if their family were murdered. Our support of Israel, as well as many other foolish policies in the Middle East and the North/East of Africa incites many and actually plays into the hands of Jihadist recruiters.

The CIA meddling, their training of the Mujahideen, their training "Afghans" (these people traveled from everywhere and eventually, largely, dispersed) in the art of bomb making, counter intelligence, etc. the radicalized text books and propaganda afforded through US tax dollars. These issues aren't going to go away. Regardless of whether or not the United States comes home today. You kick hornet's nest all year long, what outcome was ever expected?

And I'm rather short in this response but could reply more in depth if you wanted. The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson comes to mind. William Blum has had a few on the matter.

 

[69360]

It's been a while since I posted here - nothing's changed. But I chose this thread to interject a thought which I haven't seen discussed.

It's a given that, as policy, the U.S. should follow a foreign policy of non-interventionism. But it's also commonly commented upon that our interference in the middle-east is the reason behind the anti-Americanism and the hostility held by Muslim extremists toward the U.S.; and if we would only stop intervening, then this anomosity would gradually dissipate.

But is this an accurate assessment?

If you are truly libertarian, then you believe in free trade. And American arms manufacturers would have the freedom to deal with Israel. Or would you use the force of government to prohibit this commerce?

And if Americans, as individuals, continued to support Israel, would the terrorism, or the potential for terrorism, against Americans slacken? And what would be your response if we were attacked on American soil? Of course, we could continue to tighten our border security to insure that such an attack didn't occur, but at what cost to our nation?

Would a policy of non-interventionism by our government actually improve our relations with middle-eastern culture?

I support Israel because I see them as a party that would accept a peace. I do not believe Muslim extremists would ever do so. And I do not see any movement in the general population to resist or reform this extremist political position.

I do not support our government allying our nation with Israel, but as an individual I support Israel for the reasons stated.

That's crap. Did Americans want to go after Boeing because their planes hit the towers? Does anyone want to go after Russians because they make AK47's? It's also crap because the percentage of Americans who would donate their own money to Israel is miniscule. Maybe .00000001%

 

[kcchiefs6465]

That's crap. Did Americans want to go after Boeing because their planes hit the towers? Does anyone want to go after Russians because they make AK47's? It's also crap because the percentage of Americans who would donate their own money to Israel is miniscule. Maybe .00000001%

There is a greater percentage that donate now.

Stands to reason that if foreign aid were cut, more people would wish to donate.

 

[pcosmar]

Stands to reason that if foreign aid were cut, more people would wish to donate.

"There's a sucker born every minute"

Some would..

 

[Number19]

Most people wouldn't simply call a truce if their family were murdered. Our support of Israel, as well as many other foolish policies in the Middle East and the North/East of Africa incites many and actually plays into the hands of Jihadist recruiters.

The CIA meddling, their training of the Mujahideen, their training "Afghans" (these people traveled from everywhere and eventually, largely, dispersed) in the art of bomb making, counter intelligence, etc. the radicalized text books and propaganda afforded through US tax dollars. These issues aren't going to go away. Regardless of whether or not the United States comes home today. You kick hornet's nest all year long, what outcome was ever expected?

And I'm rather short in this response but could reply more in depth if you wanted. The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson comes to mind. William Blum has had a few on the matter.

Basically you're saying blood feuds never end, or at best, resolution takes a very, very long time. At 66 years of age, I've learned that what's important are practical solutions to bring an end to the conflict. I see none of that discussed on this forum.

On thread topic, I see attempts by Israel, but no effort on the part of Muslim extremists. I do see some success for the West Bank, but this is being undermined by extremists; and of course, by the history, and the lessons learned, of Gaza.

For my part, I'd take a political position of neutrality and respond with force when called for. This could get dicey, if the Israelis were ever forced into a position where they would have to use their nukes. And it may come to that.

 

[pcosmar]

I oppose socialism,, and do not care to support it in any way..

I also am disgusted by nationalism..

National Socialism is the worst political system/philosophy that has ever inflicted the planet.

Why this country continues to support Nazis puzzles me.

I do not support and adamantly oppose Zionism. It is National Socialism (NAZI)..
We are supporting a Nazi Regime in Ukraine too.

I don't understand it.
I do not support it.

 

[TheTexan]

Israel is our strongest ally in the part of the world where folks are the most hostile toward the United States.

Israel is an apartheid state with unbounded racism and hate towards the Palestinians. Israel was formed by aggressively forcing the Palestinians out of their land and murdering anybody who got in their way. Our continued support of them and their behavior is a large part of why that region hates us. (That, and we drop bombs on them, which also doesn't help)

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Basically you're saying blood feuds never end, or at best, resolution takes a very, very long time. At 66 years of age, I've learned that what's important are practical solutions to bring an end to the conflict. I see none of that discussed on this forum.

On thread topic, I see attempts by Israel, but no effort on the part of Muslim extremists. I do see some success for the West Bank, but this is being undermined by extremists; and of course, by the history, and the lessons learned, of Gaza.

For my part, I'd take a political position of neutrality and respond with force when called for. This could get dicey, if the Israelis were ever forced into a position where they would have to use their nukes. And it may come to that.

Send the war criminals over as peace offerings after tried in competent courts. Reestablish a committal to non-interventionism, apologize for the atrocities that have occurred.

No sure thing, mind you. It's been going on quite a while. Our [hopeful] sincerity would probably be mocked and laughed at.

 

[acptulsa]

Basically you're saying blood feuds never end, or at best, resolution takes a very, very long time. At 66 years of age, I've learned that what's important are practical solutions to bring an end to the conflict. I see none of that discussed on this forum.

1947 was a long time ago.

The first step neither you nor a significant portion of the American population would be happy about. The second step would be to let time heal the wounds. And considering how actively we have been wounding the entire Middle East since WWII, I doubt that healing would take place overnight. Again, assuming the American populace would even allow the nation to take the first step after over sixty years of propaganda and butchered Bible verses indicating that the wrong thing to do is the right thing to do...

 

[Number19]

Send the war criminals over as peace offerings after tried in competent courts. Reestablish a committal to non-interventionism, apologize for the atrocities that have occurred.

No sure thing, mind you. It's been going on quite a while. Our [hopeful] sincerity would probably be mocked and laughed at.

All obvious actions which would be reasonable. What about U.N. votes? Or do we pull out of the U.N.? If we pull out of the U.N., Russia may take our place - Putin has already said that Israel has the right of all nations to defend itself from attack.

If we go the route of political neutrality, do we still participate in the dialog to resolve the conflict in the middle-east? Or do we take a hardline politically, isolationist stance? Someone must arbitrate between the factions. Are we to take part in this?

What options are feasible that advances peace?

 

[Number19]

1947 was a long time ago.

The first step neither you nor a significant portion of the American population would be happy about. The second step would be to let time heal the wounds. And considering how actively we have been wounding the entire Middle East since WWII, I doubt that healing would take place overnight. Again, assuming the American populace would even allow the nation to take the first step after over sixty years of propaganda and butchered Bible verses indicating that the wrong thing to do is the right thing to do...

But you don't say what that first step would be that you are so certain I would not be happy with.

 

[TheTexan]

Stop spreading lies.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Picture #1: The Brits were occupiers but the land wasn't British. Unless of course you would consider Iraqis to be American during the US occupation of Iraq.
Picture #2: Of course they rejected the plan. This was their home, their land. Just because foreigners had "a plan" for their homes doesn't mean they should give it up.
Picture #3: This is about half true, but none of it really helps your case. For example Egypt before 1959 was largely aiding the All-Palestine Government in fighting back Israeli incursions.
Picture #4: This is just pure ignorance. Palestinians live under constant oppression, military incursions, severely restricted movement, and blockades. Any concept you have of Palestinian self-governance here is a farce. The only thing coming close to self-governance is Hamas in Gaza, which is obviously not Israel-approved.

 

[twomp]

Basically you're saying blood feuds never end, or at best, resolution takes a very, very long time. At 66 years of age, I've learned that what's important are practical solutions to bring an end to the conflict. I see none of that discussed on this forum.

On thread topic, I see attempts by Israel, but no effort on the part of Muslim extremists. I do see some success for the West Bank, but this is being undermined by extremists; and of course, by the history, and the lessons learned, of Gaza.

For my part, I'd take a political position of neutrality and respond with force when called for. This could get dicey, if the Israelis were ever forced into a position where they would have to use their nukes. And it may come to that.

This is what happens after 66 years of Israeli/AIPAC indoctrination. There are two sides to every story and you have gotten all your facts from one side only. You sound like Dianne Sawyer and the rest of MSM news anchors crying about the pain and devastation that the Israeli have to go through while totally neglecting the Palestinian civilians who are going through FAR worse than the Israeli citizens.

There is a bully and a victim. You are siding with the bully.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

All obvious actions which would be reasonable. What about U.N. votes? Or do we pull out of the U.N.? If we pull out of the U.N., Russia may take our place - Putin has already said that Israel has the right of all nations to defend itself from attack.

If we go the route of political neutrality, do we still participate in the dialog to resolve the conflict in the middle-east? Or do we take a hardline politically, isolationist stance? Someone must arbitrate between the factions. Are we to take part in this?

What options are feasible that advances peace?

Yes. We are to pull out of the UN.

No, I am not concerned about Russia. The 1000% or so yearly spent more than the Russians ought provide legitimate self-defense needs.

"Isolationist" in the manner you've used it is derogatory. The people dropping bombs, promoting protectionist policies, sanctioning countries, meddling: They promote isolationist stances. Not I.

The founders were quite clear on this matter.

 

[AuH20]

Am I the only one who doesn't feel bad for the Palestinians in Gaza after they stirred up a hornet's nest with the rockets? You have to be borderline retarded to pick a fight with Israel considering the shape of their fighting force. And the most repulsive aspect is that Hamas is not letting some Palestinians leave the more dangerous areas because they want a high death toll. Both sides are a mess.