Tech Support Guy banner

Explain to me Israeli support

9282 Views 297 Replies 30 Participants Last post by  linskyjack
Have read many articles over the past couple of years concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and understand the basics of the conflict, I think, but I do not understand why the US Government seems to want to back Israel no matter what they do.
1) If terrorist lives in this home then terrorist is killed and family home destroyed even if home is filled with other family members not involved.
2) Arbitrarily annex territory at whim taking over others lands Palestinians have homesteaded for years and use as Israel pleases.
3) The killing of a wheelchair bound, blind and deaf leader.

I assume there is some history to this backing and wish to know.

1 - 20 of 298 Posts
Davey - I highly recommend that you read the book "The Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky.

Will answer all your questions.


P.S. For other questions about Israel, see my post here:
RSM123: Rather than state an opinion, I will list a URL to a website????? What is found at the website if not another opinion?

If I took MY opinion and put it on a website, then listed the link to that website here, would that make you happy?

Davey: I think your original thought was correct. It IS basically about the oil. The are many historical government documents that discuss the importance of the region and the "stupendous prize" that the oil is.

While the US gets most of its oil from Venezuela, they still want to control the oil because it represents a vast source of wealth and power. The US wants to be in a position to deny it to others if push comes to shove.

For that purpose they have Israel. Described as the "cop on the beat" (police headquarters remains in the US of course) by government officials. Also described as the largest "aircraft carrier" the US has!

Basically, it IS about the oil.

GB: About that bit that "God doesn't like people who oppose Israel" - - the US didn't seem too troubled about God when Eisenhower opposed Israel during the 1956 Suez Crisis.

P.S. But, I do not believe that post that said Israel itself is sitting on oil. It just happens to be a handy base in the area and an available thug for hire.

See less See more
Plscwartz wrote:
"...but lost to a more modern army and was forced to cede large areas of territory. From that vantage the arabs fair and square lost all the lands taken by Isreal."

Hate to tell you this, but in the civilized world, the conquest of land by military force is not recognized.

Also, the notion that there were no Arabs living on the original territory given to Israel is pure B.S. There were, of course Arabs living there.

Ben-Gurion himself when testifying before the Royal Commission in 1937 said:

“If Palestine were uninhabited we might have asked for a Jewish state, for then it would not harm anyone else. But there are other residents in Palestine, and just as we do not wish to be at the mercy of others, they too have the right not to be at the mercy of the Jews.”

Also, the Deir Yassin massacre caused about 300,000 Arabs to flee the area.

See less See more
Paq wrote:
“The UN vote in 1948 being one example of Russian political manouvering: after all, if they really felt for the Jewsih cause, why did the Soviets make it so hard for Jewish Soviet citizens to leave Russia?”

By the same token, if the US really felt for the Jewish cause, why did they make it so hard for Jews to ENTER the US?

Many, if not most, of the displaced European Jews would have preferred to come to the US rather than go to Palestine. The US wouldn’t have them.

I say this not to defend Russia, but simply to point out that the US too should be included on the "hypocrite" list.


In considering the question of whether or not Israel’s capture of land by military conquest is legitimate, we need not employ such circuitous methods as some tortured analogy to the Mexican-American war. We have the consensus of the world community on the very subject of Israel itself in explicit U.N. votes, both in the General Assembly and the Security council (i.e. A/Res 47/63, A/Res 48/59, A/Res 49/87, A/Res 50/22, S/Res 242, etc.).

The U.S. has used its veto power to block many of these resolutions, yet many have made their way through this blockade. The opinion of the world community is clear: the Israeli occupation has no legitimacy and is illegal.

The consensus of world opinion is that Israel should return to the 1967 borders. I haven't seen many UN votes calling for the US to give Manhattan back to the Indians, or to give Texas back to the Mexicans.

Some wrongs cannot be undone. But, some can.

Linskyjack wrote, "Xico, you certainly aren't inferring that a Hasdim rabbi represents the majority of Jews when it comes to his stance on Zionism?"

I can't speak for Xico, but it is distressing to me to see the number of extemist viewpoints among prominent Israelis, including rabbis.

For example, this article:

Israeli army urged to kill civilians
By Khalid Amayreh in Hebron

Tuesday 07 September 2004, 16:07 Makka Time, 13:07 GMT

Israeli rabbis say killing enemy civilians during war is 'normal'

A group of prominent Jewish rabbis have asked the Israeli army not to flinch from killing Palestinian civilians in the context of the ongoing military campaign against armed groups resisting the occupation.

In a letter to the Israeli defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, published on Tuesday, the rabbis said killing enemy civilians is "normal" during the time of war and that the Israeli occupation army should never hesitate to kill non-Jewish civilians in order to save Jewish lives.

"There is no war in the world in which it is possible to delineate entirely between the population and the enemy army, neither in the US war in Iraq, the Russian war in Chechnya, nor in Israel's war with its enemies," the rabbis said.

The rabbis quoted a Talmudic edict, or religious ruling, stating that "our lives come first".

"The Christian preaching of 'turning the other cheek' doesn't concern us, and we will not be impressed by those who prefer the lives of our enemies to our lives," they said.

Opposing branches

The letter was signed by a number of Israeli rabbis including Haim Druckman, a former Knesset member who heads a large religious youth movement known as the Bnei Akiva Society; Eliezer Melamed, head of a West Bank religious college; and Youval Sharlo, the head of another Talmudic college in Petah Tikva which combines Talmudic studies with active military service.

It is worth noting that many rabbis, especially within Conservative and Reform Judaism, don't share the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox view of non-Jews.

But the Conservative and Reform branches of Judaism, despite their numerical superiority, have very little influence in Israel and are generally mistreated by the powerful Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox branches, which view Conservative and Reform Jews as somehow less than real Jews.

Incidentally, a few months ago a prominent rabbi in the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arbaa near Hebron issued an edict stating that non-Jewish civilians may be killed to save Jewish lives, soldiers and civilians alike.

The rabbi, Dov Lior, argued that non-Jewish lives had no sanctity, especially during the time of war.

Lior has publicly praised and eulogised Baruch Goldstein, an American Jewish settler who in 1994 mowed down 29 Arab worshippers who were praying at Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque.

Calling Goldstein a "great saint", he said a "thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail".

Talmudic maxim

Earlier this year, Lior enthusiastically supported the killing of Palestinian civilians in Rafah in southern Gaza, saying that "it is very clear in light of the Torah that Jewish lives are more important than non-Jewish lives".

In formulating their theological positions, Lior and other like-minded rabbis rely on an old Talmudic maxim which states that it is a mitzvah (imperative religious duty) to kill enemy civilians in war time.

The same rabbis also often quote Torah verses in which God is shown instructing the ancient Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites in ancient Palestine.

Since the outbreak of al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000, the Israeli army and paramilitary Jewish groups have killed as many as 3500 Palestinians, the bulk of them civilians, including more than 600 children and minors.

During the same period, Palestinian fighters have killed nearly a thousand Israeli soldiers, settlers and civilians.
See less See more
Linskyjack wrote,

"Yup, you should read some of the pronouncements of the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership--even scarier. The radicals on both sides of the issue are now in command."

But the difference is that Hamas doesn't get military and economic aid from the U.S. government, paid for with my tax dollars. Israel does.

Also, look at the ratio of the actual killing: about 3 Palestinian deaths for each Israeli death.
I can't control what North Korea, Syria, etc. do.

But, I like to think I have some control/responsibility over what the U.S. does.
Israel is not the 51st state and not my responsibility. It is not a democratic country but a religious based country.

I don't see why my tax dollars should go to Israel. I don't see why my tax dollars should go to people with openly racist viewpoints ("not worth a Jew's fingernail") who advocate killing civilians in defiance of international law.

Indeed, it is ILLEGAL under U.S. law to provide military aid to a country that has an on-going nuclear program - - as Israel does.

The only conditions under which Israel should get support from the U.S. is after complying with international law and all relevant U.N. Resolutions.
Lan wrote, "How dare they celebrate the killing of innocents."

You mean, like the Republican convention celebrated killing innocent Iraqis, saying they had no regrets about that war, and that it was right?
By Orwellian definition, EVERY civilian death caused by an Israeli or an American was "unavoidable" - - no matter how many thousands of deaths occur, no matter how predictable and routine they are.

How many innocent civilians will be "unavoidably" killed tomorrow in Gaza and Iraq?
linskyjack said:
I do honestly believe that the US Military does everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties. .
Isn't this a coincidence? ==>

TV reporter killed by US fire during live Baghdad broadcast

By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad / (Filed: 13/09/2004)

A television journalist was shot dead as he made a live broadcast from Baghdad yesterday when United States helicopters fired on a crowd that had gathered round the burning wreckage of an American armoured vehicle.

Mazen al-Tumeizi, a Palestinian working for Al-Arabiya, one of the main Arab satellite television channels, was among 12 people - all believed to be civilians - killed in the incident on Haifa Street.

For much of the day, Baghdad echoed to explosions as it came under its most intense barrage of mortars and other bombs in five weeks.

On Haifa Street, a main road in central Baghdad that has long been under the effective control of Saddam loyalists, there were several hours of gunfire during a United States mission to capture 21 men the Iraqi government described as terrorists.

A Bradley fighting vehicle was damaged by an apparent car bomb. A total of five American soldiers were wounded in the explosion and during the operation to evacuate the crew.

Later, a crowd of Iraqis gathered round the burning vehicle and some began dancing in celebration.

Tumeizi was describing the incident on camera when two helicopter gunships were seen flying down the street and opening fire. Tumeizi was hit by a bullet and doubled over, shouting: I'm dying, I'm dying." About 50 people were wounded, the health ministry said, among them a Reuters cameraman and an Iraqi reporter for the Guardian.

Through the day, United States officers offered contradictory accounts of the incident and ordered an investigation.

"As the helicopters flew over the burning Bradley they received small arms fire from the insurgents in the vicinity of the vehicle," said Major Philip Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division. "Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley."

However, witnesses said there were no Iraqi fighters in the area at the time.
See less See more
Contrary to Linskyjack’s post #199, there is no “verdict of arms” principle recognized as a justification to seize territory. To the contrary, the United Nations specifically prohibits seizure of territory by force, and condemns the current Israeli occupation as illegal.

If Linskyjack quotes the “League of Nations” mandate as a legitimate source, he should also accept the legitimacy of the League’s successor -- the United Nations-- and the relevant decision made by the UN with regard to Israel (Res. 242 and 338, among others).

The Middle East does indeed have a checked past as to who dominated the area during different periods of history. But the current viewpoint overwhelmingly held by civilized nations, history not withstanding, is for a two-state solution, based upon the 1967 borders.

So, if you wish to discuss “legality” and “legitimacy”, then the United Nations is the appropriate body to turn to, not some twisted concept of "verdict of arms".
Also ridiculous is the claim in the article that “Prior to 1964 there was no ‘Palestinian’ people…”
Once again, the Palestinians are themselves a Semitic people.

Personally, as an American, I feel more responsible for American actions, and the actions of American proxies (Israel).

There are indeed racist and violent actions done by other peoples. But I focus my attention on actions of my own people and of their puppets.

It is easy to decry someone else's faults. It is a more difficult thing to acknowledge the faults of your own country.
Quote: "What sort of desperate animals, we demanded, seek to advance their political agendas by slaughtering children?"

Since the ratio of Palesinian children killed to Israeli children killed is about three to one, why not ask the IDF what sort of desperate animals they are?
Israeli children don't have to strap bombs on their backs - - because the good ol' USA provides their poppas with shiny new F-15s to do their killing with.

As was said in the movie "Battle for Algiers": "give us your tanks and planes and you can have our basket bombs."

And, by the way, Israelis DID use such tactics back when the area was under British control and they didn't have anything better to fight with.
On the subject of slaughtering children, allow me to present the following article. I am one day late for the anniversary, but it is still relevant.

September 16, 1982: The Sabra and Chatila Massacres
by Robert Fisk

Robert Fisk is still probably the most outstanding journalist working in the Middle East. He was one of the first journalists to be present at the scene of the horrific murders in Lebanon, 1982. He has published a number of different books and writes columns for The Independant newspaper. He has received a number of prestigious awards for reporting and has produced a number of documentaries including the excellent "Beirut to Bosnia"

What we found inside the Palestinian camp at ten o’clock on the morning of September 1982 did not quite beggar description, although it would have been easier to re-tell in in the cold prose of a medical examination.

There had been medical examinations before in Lebanon, but rarely on this scale and never overlooked by a regular, supposedly disciplined army. In the panic and hatred of battle, tens of thousands had been killed in this country. But these people, hundreds of them had been shot down unarmed. This was a mass killing, an incident - how easily we used the word "incident" in Lebanon - that was also an atrocity. It went beyond even what the Israelis would have in other circumstances called a terrorist activity. It was a war crime.

Jenkins and Tveit were so overwhelmed by what we found in Chatila that at first we were unable to register our own shock. Bill Foley of AP had come with us. All he could say as he walked round was "Jesus Christ" over and over again. We might have accepted evidence of a few murders; even dozens of bodies, killed in the heat of combat. Bur there were women lying in houses with their skirts torn torn up to their waists and their legs wide apart, children with their throats cut, rows of young men shot in the back after being lined up at an execution wall. There were babies - blackened babies babies because they had been slaughtered more than 24-hours earlier and their small bodies were already in a state of decomposition - tossed into rubbish heaps alongside discarded US army ration tins, Israeli army equipment and empty bottles of whiskey.

Where were the murderers? Or to use the Israelis’ vocabulary, where were the "terrorists"? When we drove down to Chatila, we had seen the Israelis on the top of the apartments in the Avenue Camille Chamoun but they made no attempt to stop us. In fact, we had first been driven to the Bourj al-Barajneh camp because someone told us that there was a massacre there. All we saw was a Lebanese soldier chasing a car theif down a street. It was only when we were driving back past the entrance to Chatila that Jenkins decided to stop the car. "I don’t like this", he said. "Where is everyone? What the f**k is that smell?"

Just inside the the southern entrance to the camp, there used to be a number of single-story, concrete walled houses. I had conducted many interviews in these hovels in the late 1970’s. When we walked across the muddy entrance to Chatila, we found that these buildings had been dynamited to the ground. There were cartridge cases across the main road. I saw several Israeli flare canisters, still attached to their tiny parachutes. Clouds of flies moved across the rubble, raiding parties with a nose for victory.

Down a laneway to our right, no more than 50 yards from the entrance, there lay a pile of corpses. There were more than a dozen of them, young men whose arms and legs had been wrapped around each other in the agony of death. All had been shot point-blank range through the cheek, the bullet tearing away a line of flesh up to the ear and entering the brain. Some had vivid crimson or black scars down the left side of their throats. One had been castrated, his trousers torn open and a settlement of flies throbbing over his torn intestines.

The eyes of these young men were all open. The youngest was only 12 or 13 years old. They were dressed in jeans and coloured shirts, the material absurdly tight over their flesh now that their bodies had begun to bloat in the heat. They had not been robbed. On one blackened wrist a Swiss watch recorded the correct time, the second hand still ticking round uselessly, expending the last energies of its dead owner.

On the other side of the main road, up a track through the debris, we found the bodies of five women and several children. The women were middle-aged and their corpses lay draped over a pile of rubble. One lay on her back, her dress torn open and the head of a little giirl emerging from behind her. The girl had short dark curly hair, her eyes were staring at us and there was a frown on her face. She was dead.

Another child lay on the roadway like a discarded doll, her white dress stained with mud and dust. She could have been no more than three years old. The back of her head had been blown away by a bullet fired into her brain. One of the women also held a tiny baby to her body. The bullet that had passed into her breast had killed the baby too. Someone had slit open the woman’s stomach, cutting sideways and then upwards, perhaps trying to kill ker unborn child. Her eyes were wide open, her dark face frozen in horror.

"...As we stood there, we heard a shout in Arabic from across the ruins. "They are coming back," a man was screaming, So we ran in fear towards the road. I think, in retrospect, that it was probably anger that stopped us from leaving, for we now waited near the entrance to the camp to glimpse the faces of the men who were responsible for all of this. They must have been sent in here with Israeli permission. They must have been armed by the Israelis. Their handiwork had clearly been watched - closely observed - by the Israelis who were still watching us through their field-glasses.

When does a killing become an outrage? When does an atrocity become a massacre? Or, put another way, how many killings make a massacre? Thirty? A hundred? Three hundred? When is a massacre not a massacre? When the figures are too low? Or when the massacre is carried out by Israels friends rather than Israel’s enemies?

That, I suspected, was what this argument was about. If Syrian troops had crossed into Israel, surrounded a Kibbutz and allowed their Palestnian allies to slaughter the Jewish inhabitants, no Western news agency would waste its time afterwards arguing about whether or not it should be called a massacre.

But in Beirut, the victims were Palestinians. The guilty were certainly Christian militiamen - from which particular unit we were still unsure - but the Israelis were also guilty. If the Israelis had not taken part in the killings, they had certainly sent militia into the camp. They had trained them, given them uniforms, handed them US army rations and Israeli medical equipment. Then they had watched the murderers in the camps, they had given them military assistance - the Israeli airforce had dropped all those flares to help the men who were murdering the inhabitants of Sabra and Chatila - and they had established military liason with the murderers in the camps. This article has been extracted from the book "Pity The Nation" by Robert Fisk.
See less See more
The Palestinians have always called for Israel to evacuate ALL of the occupied territories.

Of course, there are many more incidents than Sabra and Chatila in which children died. For example, the bombing of Lebanon.
1 - 20 of 298 Posts