Re: Should the US Government Stop Supporting Israel?

**Kerostasis** · 03-17-2010, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by mp40x

You don't think we should get a better return on our investment and more cooperation from the Israeli government concerning the peace process ... Should the US government continue to support such a country that willingly scoffs at our hopes for peace?

The problem is, no one actually knows how to reach peace. We all have theories, yes, but after centuries of testing these theories we still haven't found one that actually works. Israel wants peace too, they just have a dramatically different view of how best to obtain it.

**mp40x** · 03-17-2010, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

The problem is, no one actually knows how to reach peace. We all have theories, yes, but after centuries of testing these theories we still haven't found one that actually works. Israel wants peace too, they just have a dramatically different view of how best to obtain it.

I figured you for a better explaination than that, but thats ok. Like I said before, watch the 60 minutes video, and you tell me who is more radical, Israeli settlers or Hamas?

Originally Posted by mp40x

60 Minutes did a story about the Israeli occupation last year that didn't go over so well with pro-Israel supporters. It's worth watching and it gives a different perspective on the conflict.

Take a look at the maps and decide who the aggressor is.

It seems the Palestinians have lost most of their territory with no end in sight as the settlements continue. The US government should no longer be a party to this madness, I rest my case.

**Kerostasis** · 03-17-2010, 12:58 PM

You may consider your case rested. You have failed to convince me.

**mp40x** · 03-17-2010, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

You may consider your case rested. You have failed to convince me.

Oh dear. Well, there will always be those unfortunates that would rather blame the other party for failing to convice them otherwise, instead of making a credible argument themselves. I have not failed at all, you merely disagree, and you offer no suggestions to counter my opinion except to blame me.

**Kerostasis** · 03-17-2010, 02:01 PM

Damn, here I was hoping you were serious when you said your case was rested. If I haven't been offering counter-arguments, then you haven't been reading the last 4 pages of the thread. They're full of counterarguments.

**snooggums** · 03-17-2010, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Damn, here I was hoping you were serious when you said your case was rested. If I haven't been offering counter-arguments, then you haven't been reading the last 4 pages of the thread. They're full of counterarguments.

Of course, two people who can't figure out what your counter arguments are just not reading, it has nothing to do with your incoherent presentation.

**KoopaTroopa** · 03-17-2010, 02:21 PM

"Cutting our ties" with Israel would be a major act that would destabilize the entire region. How long after Daddy America is gone would Syria, Iran, Egypt and perhaps even Jordan take America's withdrawal as carte blanche to again start the events that led to the Six-Day War in '67? I'm willing to wager that Israel would strike first, perfectly willing to utilize its nuclear arsenal now that it would see itself with its back against the wall.

So, no. We shouldn't stop our support. A free pass to do whatever they wish? Of course not, and the current administration agrees. But cut ties with the country entirely? Not unless we want to see a major war break out in the region.

**Kerostasis** · 03-17-2010, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Of course, two people who can't figure out what your counter arguments are just not reading, it has nothing to do with your incoherent presentation.

I've been following the Sandbox long enough to know that coherency of presentation very often takes a backseat to synchronization of thought patterns. Two people who have very different a priori thoughts on a subject can talk past each other for pages in perfectly legible English and at the end of it neither will have a clue what the other said. It happens on an almost daily basis here.

So no, it has nothing to do with my "incoherent" presentation. It's just another attack.

**snooggums** · 03-17-2010, 03:09 PM

Pointing out that a point is unclear, missing or incoherent is not an attack. It took three pages for you to actually state your opinion on the topic, while saying that you had 'explained it earlier' and that people who asked you to clarify were simply ignoring your posts. I even quoted your entire posting history in the thread and you would or could not point out where it said what your point was.

As far as I can tell your point is we should support Israel because not doing so would escalate the violence, and we shouldn't expect Israel to not attack the Palestinians because the US has some moral code to military action that you state without examples, nor do you counter the examples I gave of the US not following that pattern. You also just dismiss anyone's opposing viewpoint without countering it with any examples, supporting details or explanations other than 'no one knows' and 'I don't think so'. You haven't given an actual reason for why you think dropping our support would increase violence, while ignoring the fact that the creation if Israel started a focus for violence.

Most cases of two people having a discussion where neither one understands the other is because one of them is either using a different level of terminology (professional vs lay) or is using a particular word in an incorrect or uncommon way and refuses to accept that there are multiple meanings to that word and they are using the irrelevant one. I know you italicized priori to insinuate that people argue without experience in a subject, although the majority of topics discussed are conceptual or abstracted to a degree.

In this case we are discussing the right and wrong of supporting a nation that violently attacks the people they are trying to displace, we don't need first hand knowledge to base an opinion on whether our tax dollars should support a country that does those things when there are examples readily available through the news media and the internet as a whole.

**SharinganTH1422** · 03-17-2010, 09:37 PM

Just skimmed the thread.

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

Doesn't Hamas use civilians as Human Shields?

I have an anagram I think you may enjoy Randy - Pto clals ktetle baclk.

Link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8149464.stm

The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said Palestinians were sometimes used as human shields.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

The Original poster urged us to reconsider our support for Israel based significantly on the fact that Israel's stance on fighting war was different than our own. My contention is that while they are in fact different, Israel's stance is much more normal than ours and should not be a reason to discontinue support.

"Different" is a word you carefully selected. Why? Because you didn't say better or worse. Better or worse in the case of morality, war crimes or human rights laws for civilians. Clever.

And you say that Israel's stance is more "normal" than our own, and you also point to historical methods of war in your previous posts. Well the problem with this is that times are changing, and if you believe that we should go about things in this day and age they way people went about them a long time ago then I suggest you also make your house out of cow dung and light it with candles. Things change, and having no regard for civilian life is unacceptable. In fact, isn't that what all those who attempt to justify the Iraq War because of evil Saddam say, when talking about his treatment of the Kurds, etc? Hmm, maybe we should now go to war with Israel...at least we'd be more likely to find WMD's this time

.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

The establishment of "normal" in this context required looking at other nations who claim to share our stance on war, which would make ours more common. My contention was that as long as such other nations have not exercised such stance in real combat, their actual commitment to it is uncertain and therefore cannot establish normalcy.

This is a really weird argument. So you're saying that we can't say for sure that it's normal to settle conflicts by not targeting civilians, because the countries that do this have not been in wars themselves? Well, what is "normal" is not necessarily what is correct. based on this argument the legal drinking and consensual sex age should be lowered and drugs should be legalised, as most people have probably done all of these, and they are therefore considered "normal".

Also your argument about Britain is invalid since we've been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq too.

I'm also confused about which armed conflicts (which the USA have approved of) have targeted civilians, since according to you, it's the norm.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I had not yet gotten around to this last point, but I'll add it now. The stance of avoiding civilan casualties at all costs (or at some arbitrary level of cost, take your pick) is a self-handicap that is typically adopted only by a force that begins the game with a substantial pre-existing advantage, and can therefore overcome such handicap. The US, in its capacity as the only existing world superpower, enjoys such a profound pre-existing military advantage over most foes that we can afford to self-handicap and still emerge victorious most of the time (although that's not guaranteed for all potential enemies). Israel's military advantage over its enemies depends on a much narrower margin, mostly provided by foreign-sourced technology (ie, US-sourced), and therefore they have decided they cannot afford a similar self-handicap.

The Israeli military is one of the most technologically advanced in the world. They have tanks, aircraft and cutting-edge weapons systems, as well as the fact that they have the entire Gaza stripped boxed in from all sides, and those inside Gaza (who were actually fighting) were using homemade weapons and any outdated guns they could get their hands on. That seems like pretty fat friggin' margin.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Cutting off support for Israel at this time, in addition to being done for reasons I find questionable, would probably be counterproductive anyway. Israel's margin of military superiority over its enemies would further decline, which would encourage them to leverage more vicious tactics to make up the difference, rather than less.

So we stand up for the aggressors, in order to protect those that are on the end of that aggression?

**sordavie** · 03-17-2010, 09:51 PM

I am for the war of all against all. I say we annex the whole region or make it a colony.

**KoopaTroopa** · 03-17-2010, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by SharinganTH1422

The Israeli military is one of the most technologically advanced in the world. They have tanks, aircraft and cutting-edge weapons systems, as well as the fact that they have the entire Gaza stripped boxed in from all sides, and those inside Gaza (who were actually fighting) were using homemade weapons and any outdated guns they could get their hands on. That seems like pretty fat friggin' margin.

Yes, they have a technological advantage, but even more importantly the Israelis are perfectly willing to exercise that advantage in the most direct application possible... avoiding total genocide, of course. They enjoy the situation of Israelis not really giving a crap about collateral Arab casualties and thus avoid any public outcry from their citizenry should a bomb happen to fall on some target that may or may not have civilian casualties.

So we stand up for the aggressors, in order to protect those that are on the end of that aggression?

In short, yes. We back the Israelis and provide a presence that dissuades any overt military action from the Arab states in the region that would GLADLY kick every Israeli out of the "Holy Land". It's my belief that the region is a possibly flashpoint for a conflict that could (COULD) evolve into something much larger.

**Morganan** · 03-17-2010, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by SharinganTH1422

"Different" is a word you carefully selected. Why? Because you didn't say better or worse. Better or worse in the case of morality, war crimes or human rights laws for civilians. Clever.

And you say that Israel's stance is more "normal" than our own, and you also point to historical methods of war in your previous posts. Well the problem with this is that times are changing, and if you believe that we should go about things in this day and age they way people went about them a long time ago then I suggest you also make your house out of cow dung and light it with candles. Things change, and having no regard for civilian life is unacceptable. In fact, isn't that what all those who attempt to justify the Iraq War because of evil Saddam say, when talking about his treatment of the Kurds, etc? Hmm, maybe we should now go to war with Israel...at least we'd be more likely to find WMD's this time

.

I'll believe the times are really changing when I see governments sending in troops to stop acts of genocide, until then I firmly believe the only time people really care about civilians being killed is when it's their fellow countrymen and women and not some other countries civilians.

**ScratchMonkey** · 03-18-2010, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Gill

"Cutting our ties" with Israel would be a major act that would destabilize the entire region. How long after Daddy America is gone would Syria, Iran, Egypt and perhaps even Jordan take America's withdrawal as carte blanche to again start the events that led to the Six-Day War in '67?

But what exactly is Daddy America providing? Is it a promise to wade in and throw nukes alongside Israel should someone try to invade them? (I'm not opposed to that.) Or is it some ongoing economic support (perhaps in the form of loan guarantees)? It's this vagueness that I find problematic.

**ScratchMonkey** · 03-18-2010, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by sordavie

I am for the war of all against all. I say we annex the whole region or make it a colony.

I'm for that. If we're gonna be footing the bill, might as well charge them taxes and regulations, too, and then give them all the civil rights and inter-state traveling freedom that we enjoy here.