[redcarpet]

Obviously it's done mainly because Israel is seen as a 'strategic asset' in the Middle-East for US foreign policy.

Like Britain, a permanent aircraft carrier.

[pugsville]

I disagree. Israel has never been a great foreign policy asset for the US, there is pretty much no prospect of Israeli forces working with US forces or using Israeli bases, intelligence cooperation happens, (through generally Israelis only report what suits there purposes). The US has history of military cooperation with almost every other state in the region but not Israel.

It' done because of the very effective Jewish Lobby in the US. There is a great deal of support for Israel among some other groups.

[redcarpet]

Obviously that is only partly true, otherwise the relationship would have been the same pre-1967. But it wasn't.

Israel was left wing, in the Third World movement and seen as possibly joining the Soviet orbit & Jews in the USA expressing support for Israel were denounced & so on.

[wat0n]

And in any event, the intelligence the Israelis provided to the US was in fact pretty useful. For instance, Israel provided the MIG-21 to the Americans in 1968 back when it was the most modern Soviet plane in service.

[Tailz]

You're a damned straight I am a defender of 'state terror' - Israel's enemies should feel and encounter terror wherever they set foot. These heroes you laud are nothing but antisemitic scum and self-proclaimed fascists who want to see Israel destroyed and deserve nothing less themselves.

I don't understand how you can view these people as 'freedom fighters' and wave an anarchist banner at the same time. It's a complete oxymoron.

So you support terrorism when you can profit from it? So what then makes you, or Israel, or Hamas, etc, any different?

Would it not be better, to reject terrorism universally?

[danholo]

Of course but notice my wording. How I see it, any type of violence, even if from self-defense, will inflict terror and fear towards the attacked populace. I don't support 'state terror' as anarchist23 envisions it, however.

[Tailz]

Of course but notice my wording. How I see it, any type of violence, even if from self-defense, will inflict terror and fear towards the attacked populace. I don't support 'state terror' as anarchist23 envisions it, however.

Oh come now Danholo, your just weaselling your way around excusing your own profiteering of violence - which is what gets Israel and the Palestinians into the cycle of violence in the first place. The problem is Danholo, is that terrorism is evoked when you go beyond self defence - especially in the case of a state. Israel can act, in self defence, without causing terror. Just as the Palestinians can act in self defence without using terror.

[Buzz62]

Of course but notice my wording. How I see it, any type of violence, even if from self-defense, will inflict terror and fear towards the attacked populace. I don't support 'state terror' as anarchist23 envisions it, however.

Oh come now Danholo, your just weaselling your way around excusing your own profiteering of violence - which is what gets Israel and the Palestinians into the cycle of violence in the first place. The problem is Danholo, is that terrorism is evoked when you go beyond self defence - especially in the case of a state. Israel can act, in self defence, without causing terror. Just as the Palestinians can act in self defence without using terror.

"Terror"

Quite often I see the work bandied about like it means something tangible.
Except...since Good Ol' George got his addled persona on the word, it means about sweet fuck all anymore.
Used to be that "Terrorists" were absolute anarchists and had an agenda that always included money. A ransom of some sort.
Post GW, anybody who does anything anti-social, or indeed "anti-American", can be labeled a "terrorist".
And how very convenient that "anti-American" can also include people who might not wanna do BUSINESS with the USA...all that badly...
"American Interests".

Israel likes to promote itself as America's great Middle Eastern ally...
And they do seem to co-operate when its convenient for them. Sort of...and the business happens...
So they're NOT "Terrorists".
The Palestinians? Not so much...
However it should be pointed out that peace efforts are generally not possible because of Israel's requirements.
And I suspect that's because the Israelis know that once Palestine actually exists, the flood of Arab Muslim people would drastically increase the population of Palestine.
They generally are referred to as "Terrorists".
They want their home back, and don't do allot o' business with the USA.

Yet...Obamy and Bibi don't seem to like each other much.
I suspect Obamy's finding out the same thing Carter did...
The allies don't want peace, the "Terrorists" do.

Gee...do ya think that's one of the reasons public support for Israel is dieing a slow and evident death?

[abu_rashid]

What's wrong with a two state solution?

What's right with it? Would you accept me coming into your land, taking 75% of it, and graciously offering you a two state solution?

[redcarpet]

What's wrong with a two state solution?

What's right with it? Would you accept me coming into your land, taking 75% of it, and graciously offering you a two state solution?

Since Mandatory Palestine wasn't a nation-state it wasn't 'their' land. It was international property.

Trying to defy the 1947 UN Partition Plan was both squatting and conspiracy with other criminals, trying to take by force more than was allocated to them.

Not that the hard Right Zionists like Irgun & so on weren't any different.

[abu_rashid]

So we'll make a partition plan for your home first. That makes it ok does it?

What kind of mentality honestly thinks it's ok to take someone's home, as long as you make a partition plan and so long as that specific parcel of land was not a discrete nation-state at the time (nevermind the fact that there were no nation-states in the region at the time, leave that for the thinking people to ponder).

Again I ask the question, do you accept a foreign people to enter your land, nation-state or not, partition plan or not, and take 75% of it, and offer you a 2 state "solution"?

There's a lot of supporters of Zionism, who really don't like the idea of Zionism, if they happened to be the ones on the receiving end of it.

[redcarpet]

They're not taking it, since they're promised it as well as Arab residents.

And bringing up foreign citizenship just sounds like bigotry.

Doesn't matter whether or not individual Arabs accept it, any way. The matter was decided by legitimate authority. What next, you do accept rape is illegal? DO you accept murder is illegal? Do you accept property laws?

You can't engage in a anti-Jewish riot, squat in a house and then claim you're the victim once the IDF arrives to drag you out. You crossed the border into the new state of Israel and are trying to steal someone's house.

[abu_rashid]

When the Zionist parasites began saturating the population of Palestine, it was over 95% Arab.

If you can show me any 95% majority population, who'd accept to be saturated and overrun by a minority, and gladly welcome it, then we'll discuss.

Until then, we can consider this a case closed, there'll be no solution until the parasites go back to whence they came.

The only two state solution acceptable is this one:

[Decky]

The Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference?

When was it last like that? Pre Israel the British and the French occupied it, before that the Turks occupied it before the Turks were there the Greeks owned a lot of it. Seriously what a bizarre picture, and I say that as someone would would be perfectly happy to see every square inch of Palestine liberated tomorrow.

[layman]

The Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference?

Foreign is non-muslim in this context.

The turks were fine. Both the ottomans and the seljuks. In the case of the later they converted after the conquest I beleive. This is why Islamic history doesnt view them as invaders.

The british and Jews are not muslims and so are/were imperialists.

[Decky]

Ah right, makes sense.

[abu_rashid]

The Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference? :?:

That's the plan.

When was it last like that? Pre Israel the British and the French occupied it, before that the Turks occupied it before the Turks were there the Greeks owned a lot of it.

That's a pretty ethno-centric way of looking at it, and not a very accurate one.

For the vast bulk of the 1200 years preceding the British invasion, the Middle East was fairly peaceful under constant Islamic rule, except for the Crusades (another European intervention) and the Mongols.

Seriously what a bizarre picture, and I say that as someone would would be perfectly happy to see every square inch of Palestine liberated tomorrow.

I suggest you learn a little more about its history then. There was no concept of a "Turkish occupation", the Ottoman state was a state that didn't even recognise ethnicities.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

So you're saying bringing back the institution of slavery and killing people of the wrong sect of your religion is going to bring peace to the Middle East?

[Decky]

For the vast bulk of the 1200 years preceding the British invasion, the Middle East was fairly peaceful under constant Islamic rule,

So? Britain and Sweden are both Protestant, if Sweden occupied the UK tomorrow people wouldn't be too happy about it. You don't think everyone who is a fan of big Mo is magically part of one nation?

[wat0n]

That's not even true, anyway, Islamic powers fought against non-Europeans and against each other plenty of times.