Explain to me Israeli support

Anywhere I look I do not see anything written on it. It is like a silent question.

Click to expand...

Often that's because anyone who asks the question (regardless of the legitimate points they might raise) is immediately accused of being anti-semetic.

My short answer would be:

1) Very influential/powerful U.S.-based pro-Israeli lobby groups (i.e. - JINSA), that are often highly-connected within the U.S. government.

2) An "allied" nation which serves as (essentially) an extension of the American military. The U.S. taxpayer provides several billion dollars in aid (earmarked for miltary purposes) which Israel uses to purchase weapons and defense systems through American manufacturers and contractors (I tried to talk about this in detail with LANMaster a couple of months ago, but I can't remember which thread it was).

Israel also tends to reverse-engineer much of this American military technology, which they then turn around and sell (helping them to develop their own defense industry). I believe that China and India are two of their biggest clients (although this landed them in some hot water with the U.S. a couple of years ago).

3) Tied in with #2, of course, the relationship is very much one of necessity. Israel's strategic proximity to some of the largest oil reserves in the world make it that much more valuable to the U.S.
In terms of policy, Israel is fairly malleable. Israel is technically a sovereign nation, but only a fool would think that the U.S. doesn't possess a large degree of control over the country.

I think it really comes down to business/money and the security of overseas interests (which is also about business/money).

For all of our talk about human-rights and democracy, the truth is that the almighty dollar was/is/will always be our primary concern.

Where money is concerned, innocent men, women and children stop becoming people, and are instead relegated to the status of "collateral damage".

Sad but true.

In reference to Linskyjack's post #199:

Lawrence Auster is a very thinly-veiled racist, with an extremely biased view of history, religion and politics.

In reading his previous writings, one can almost hear the venom dripping from his mouth as he goes onto his vile, racist diatribes against multiculturalism, open immigration poilicies, homosexuals, human-rights and Islam and it's adherents in particular.

He is nothing more than another whining, "White America is being victimized", hate-filled racist.

His article, while containing a few interesting items pertaining to history in the region, fails to address the one key issue that makes his entire argument ridiculous and futile:

That is: Whatever label or name you try to assign to them (or deny them of), "they" were, and are still, there.

And all the talk of their "illegitimacy" will never change that fact.

That ruling-powers have written history and shaped policies in a fashion that suits their own ends, and attempts to make the Palestinians "non-entities", will never change that fact.

Auster speaks with the arrogance of those who believe that "might makes right", and nothing more. He launches his venom from a safe-perch, and doesn't have to reap the consequences that the perpetuation of such hate-mongering brings.

My hat goes off to the true peacemakers, in the Middle East and around the world. They may not be working at mis-leading people with the presentation of distorted and selective historical tidbits, but they are the ones worthy of respect.

One member of Gush Shalom is worth 10,000 Lawrence Austers.

Okay---now that you have attacked Auster, lets see you attack his historical time line? I think you are confusing Lawrence Austers with Lawrence Auster. Gosh Shalom is comparable to the Urban League in America---totally disregarded by most rational people who don't have a political agenda.

Click to expand...

No, the author of the article that you posted (without crediting him) was Lawrence Auster, author of "Racial Differences in Intelligence: The Evolution of One Person's Views" (which is a not-so-subtle argument against affirmative action because the author believes that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites), as well as presenter of such speeches as "Multiculturalism and the War Against White America".

I just found it somewhat hypocritical that you would chastise Xico for posting works by an author that you felt was extremely biased and hateful, and then do the exact same thing. (?)

As I said in my first response, I have no disagreement with Auster's historical timeline. My problem is with the political, historical and social conclusions that he draws from this timeline; Namely, that Palestinians (or whatever you want to call "them") have no right to any of the land, due to the fact that they've been under a constant state of occupation, or because the land that they've been living on has been "given away" by foreign powers.

Besides, none of the Palestinian's that I know consider themselves to be "Arabs" (as Auster himself points out, Arabs come from Arabia [duh]).

So Auster's entire argument about "Arabs" (by his inferrences, "Palestinians" and "Arabs" are the same thing) not having any claim to the land is ridiculous.