Who is Afraid of a Real Inquiry?

[naomiglover]

Israel has gone against what is required, which is an independent investigation into the raid on the ships.

Below is an article written by Uri Avnery, one of the most popular of many Israeli peace activists:

"If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:

1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?

2. If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?

3. Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?

4. What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers – when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?

5. Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?

6. Since this has not happened, but – on the contrary – Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?

7. Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?

8. If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?

9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?

10. Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?

11. Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement - to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port - in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?

12. Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel’s own territorial waters, and that ships entering them “infringe on Israeli sovereignty”, contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had “separated” itself from it?

13. Why has the Attorney General’s office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had “tried to enter Israel illegally”, and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns “illegal entry into Israel”?

14. Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has “separated itself from the Gaza Strip” and that the “occupation there has come to an end” – and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip?

Question concerning the decision to attack the flotilla:

15. When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)

16. When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)

17. What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)

18. What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)

19. When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?

20. Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?

21. Were there others who also advised doing so?

22. Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?

23. If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?

24. In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law – did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?

25. Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?

26. Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?

27. Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?

28. Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?

29. Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult?

Question concerning the planning of the action:

30. What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)

31. Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?

32. Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?

33. Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?

34. If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?

35. Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation – the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?

36. If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?

37. How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?

38. Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?

39. Why was it executed in darkness?

40. Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship “Mavi Marmara”?

41. During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship “Exodus 1947”, which ended in a political disaster for the British?

Questions concerning the action itself:

42. Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?

43. Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?

44. Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?

45. When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?

46. Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?

47. Was the shooting – all or part of it – justified?

48 Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?

49. Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?

50. Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?

51. Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?

52. Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?

53. Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?

54. Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?

55. Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?

56. Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?

57. Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?

58.. Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to “piss in his pants”, that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?

59. Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?

60. Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship “Karin A”?

Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman:

61. IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?

62. Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?

63. What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be “lynched”, when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?

64. What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?

65. On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a “terrorist organization”, though no evidence for this claim was offered?

66. Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?

67. If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?

68. Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?

69. Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a “shahid”, translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted “to kill and be killed” (“shahid” means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?

70. What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out “Go back to Auschwitz”?

71. Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?

72. Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?

73. Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons – when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?

74. Do all these items – coupled with the endless repetition of the word “terrorists” and the blocking of any contrary information – not constitute brainwashing?

Questions concerning the inquiry:

75. Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?

76. Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify - but not to answer questions?

77. Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify – when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?

78. Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?

79. Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?

80. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad?

And, finally, the question of questions:

81. What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?"

Link

[Shady]

First I'd like an independent investigation into the groups and individuals who organized the flotilla.

[Bob]

I read about half of that "questionnaire", then had to stop because my head began to hurt from all the lies and stupidity. Virtually every question is loaded with a false supposition. In the same manner that I can only tolerate small amounts of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann at any given time, I cannot tolerate this bullshit. It's just too out-to-lunch. Every question, along with every underlying false supposition, is easily refuted.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bob

[naomiglover]

I read about half of that "questionnaire", then had to stop because my head began to hurt from all the lies and stupidity. Virtually every question is loaded with a false supposition. In the same manner that I can only tolerate small amounts of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann at any given time, I cannot tolerate this bullshit. It's just too out-to-lunch. Every question, along with every underlying false supposition, is easily refuted.

Like which questions?

[Bob]

Like which questions?

All of them. Seriously, naomiglover, you are tiring to talk to. I initially thought about replying to this post, but what's the point? You're not an honest or balanced participant in these discussions. Reading your positions and rhetoric gets really old, really fast. All I'm going to get from you is dishonest stonewalling and more of your anti-Israel diatribes. I actually care about what happens in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and I know that a big part of the problem is people like you who become cheerleaders for one side. As soon as you choose a side in this conflict, you've given up all hope of ever working towards a manageable solution that takes into account the needs of both sides. I know Israel has its share of responsibility for this conflict, as does the Palestinian and Arab side, but lies about Gazans being starved doesn't enhance the dialogue.

[sharkman]

Good morning Naomi, how are you today? I hope you had a good weekend and are refreshed and ready to face another week! And what better time to start another 2 threads on Israel.

Listen, there's something need to ask of you, but if you can't answer openly it's okay. I know sometimes it's tough to face what may come sometimes. Okay, so Naomi, have you ever noticed that you spend an awful lot of time on Israel? Is it something that your mind just seems to gravitate to and you find yourself wondering what's going on over there at any given moment?

The reason I bring this up is, there comes a time when a person needs to, refocus let's say. Kind of let go of things for a while and realize it's okay to not chase every little thought that comes into your head. Let your mind relax and maybe find a better equilibrium, if you know what I mean.

Let me tell you why I ask. It's kind of like you are having a love affair with Israel. Your every thought throughout the day goes to your new lover and you can't keep your mind off of him, if you know what I mean. You look forward to the moment when you are together and can express your love openly.

Except with Israel it's more of an obsession. Kind of the same thing you see! Your thoughts are ever on the situation over there and before you know it you are unbalanced, kind of like starting two threads at once on Israel at the same time when the more healthy activity would be to start maybe one every couple of months.

So there you have it. And these things can start so innocently, you never meant for it to get out of control but before you knew what happened you were drinking out of a brown paper bag at 9 in the morning. You've got to let it go, sister. It will stunt your growth as a person. You don't want to be one of those G20 protesters that think Israel can control them if they don't have their tinfoil hats on. You have to make a decision, and it might hurt, but going forward it will make you happier.

Good luck.

Edited June 14, 2010 by sharkman

[dre]

You're not an honest or balanced participant in these discussions.

Neither are you by any stretch of the imagination. Youve picked a side and put on your bright pink pom-poms and your striped miniskirt.

In any case Im not sure I see the point of any inquiry into these events. Its pretty obvious what happened here. The group organizing the flotilla wanted to make a political statement. Israel had no choice but to stop the ships if it wants to keep up its blockade... things got ugly... then both sides went info full swing trying to spin things in a way conducive to their message, doctoring, suppressing, and fabricating evidence etc.

I wouldnt trust either side as far as I can piss, and NOBODY with even a shred of objectivity believes a word that any of them say anyways. And no matter what any "inquiry" found it wouldnt result in any meaningful change to the dynamic over there.

[Bob]

Neither are you by any stretch of the imagination. Youve picked a side and put on your bright pink pom-poms and your striped miniskirt.

In any case Im not sure I see the point of any inquiry into these events. Its pretty obvious what happened here. The group organizing the flotilla wanted to make a political statement. Israel had no choice but to stop the ships if it wants to keep up its blockade... things got ugly... then both sides went info full swing trying to spin things in a way conducive to their message, doctoring, suppressing, and fabricating evidence etc.

I wouldnt trust either side as far as I can piss, and NOBODY with even a shred of objectivity believes a word that any of them say anyways. And no matter what any "inquiry" found it wouldnt result in any meaningful change to the dynamic over there.

I do not give Israel blanket praise, nor do I give Palestinians blanket condemnation. I acknowledge needs and shortcomings on both sides. I may not be perfectly objective, but I am always trying. I certainly cannot be put in the same category as someone like naomiglover.

With respect to you, I didn't need to read many of your posts to realize that you're a newcomer to this issue, and you don't seem to have a genuine curiosity to learn about this conflict. That is of course your own personal choice, what you choose to learn about, but don't come in here and pretend to know what you're talking about regarding these issues when you haven't spent the time learning the relevant history. As far as I've seen, you're not in any position to be speaking with confidence on these matters. For instance, I recall you stating that Iran hasn't been a "troublemaker" in the Middle East. It takes quite a large amount of ignorance to make such a statement. I'm sure in time I'll have more opportunities to read more of your amateur-hour political analysis.

[bloodyminded]

I read about half of that "questionnaire", then had to stop because my head began to hurt from all the lies and stupidity. Virtually every question is loaded with a false supposition. In the same manner that I can only tolerate small amounts of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann at any given time, I cannot tolerate this bullshit. It's just too out-to-lunch. Every question, along with every underlying false supposition, is easily refuted.

Oh, come on, Bob. "Every question....is easily refuted"?

I'm afraid you aren't wishing to have a serious discussion about this. There are lots and lots of perfeclty valid questions here--anyone but the most sycophantic statist will instantly recognize this.

[bloodyminded]

All of them. Seriously, naomiglover, you are tiring to talk to. I initially thought about replying to this post, but what's the point? You're not an honest or balanced participant in these discussions. Reading your positions and rhetoric gets really old, really fast. All I'm going to get from you is dishonest stonewalling and more of your anti-Israel diatribes. I actually care about what happens in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and I know that a big part of the problem is people like you who become cheerleaders for one side. As soon as you choose a side in this conflict, you've given up all hope of ever working towards a manageable solution that takes into account the needs of both sides. I know Israel has its share of responsibility for this conflict, as does the Palestinian and Arab side, but lies about Gazans being starved doesn't enhance the dialogue.

You're kidding. Your previous response to all the questions (ALL of them!) being "easily refuted" suggests you're not looking into the mirror as you admonish Naomiglover.

[dre]

I do not give Israel blanket praise, nor do I give Palestinians blanket condemnation. I acknowledge needs and shortcomings on both sides. I may not be perfectly objective, but I am always trying. I certainly cannot be put in the same category as someone like naomiglover.

With respect to you, I didn't need to read many of your posts to realize that you're a newcomer to this issue, and you don't seem to have a genuine curiosity to learn about this conflict. That is of course your own personal choice, what you choose to learn about, but don't come in here and pretend to know what you're talking about regarding these issues when you haven't spent the time learning the relevant history. As far as I've seen, you're not in any position to be speaking with confidence on these matters. For instance, I recall you stating that Iran hasn't been a "troublemaker" in the Middle East. It takes quite a large amount of ignorance to make such a statement. I'm sure in time I'll have more opportunities to read more of your amateur-hour political analysis.

Yawn. Iv read more about that stupid conflict then you could learn if you spent the next ten years. Not to mention my family immigrated here from there, and about half my family still lives there (I hope they get the fuck out soon). Thats just yet another post from you that avoids any discussion about the topic, and instead focuses on the poster themselves. This is whats known as "argumentum ad vericundiam" and its a common form of logical fallacy. Instead of attempting to make any kind of argument you attempt to position yourself as an "authority" on the matter by denigrating the knowledge of other posters.

And Iv seen absolutely nothing in any of your posts that would indicate youre any less bias than you claim Naomi is. Not a single concession that Israel has any fault in or bears any blame for the current mess. In fact youre a poster-child for why this subject is so famous for generating the lowest quality threads in the history of internet forums. The internet is chaulked full of people that dole out their own selective version of history, and take one side, all the while claiming objectivity and attacking the objectivity of those on the other side of the argument.

[sharkman]

Yawn. Iv read more about that stupid conflict then you could learn if you spent the next ten years. Not to mention my family immigrated here from there, and about half my family still lives there (I hope they get the fuck out soon). Thats just yet another post from you that avoids any discussion about the topic, and instead focuses on the poster themselves. This is whats known as "argumentum ad vericundiam" and its a common form of logical fallacy. Instead of attempting to make any kind of argument you attempt to position yourself as an "authority" on the matter by denigrating the knowledge of other posters.

Uh-oh, red flag in sentence one! Ten years of reading wouldn't outdo what dre already read about it, eh? That's called empty bluster since someone who actually knew that much would simply prove it. Nice to see dre spent some time on the debate team though.

Yeah, I read that yarn about Iran never being a trouble maker in the Middle East too, Bob. Dre obviously is a hot air balloon.

[dre]

Uh-oh, red flag in sentence one! Ten years of reading wouldn't outdo what dre already read about it, eh? That's called empty bluster since someone who actually knew that much would simply prove it. Nice to see dre spent some time on the debate team though.

Yeah, I read that yarn about Iran never being a trouble maker in the Middle East too, Bob. Dre obviously is a hot air balloon.

Actually youre both lying. I never said they had never been a trouble maker.

And yet another "post about the posters" that completely avoids the topic at hand. This one even complete with elementary school level ad-hom. Your mom must be very proud.

[sharkman]

Hey, you leave my mother out of this!

[naomiglover]

Good morning Naomi, how are you today? I hope you had a good weekend and are refreshed and ready to face another week! And what better time to start another 2 threads on Israel.

Listen, there's something need to ask of you, but if you can't answer openly it's okay. I know sometimes it's tough to face what may come sometimes. Okay, so Naomi, have you ever noticed that you spend an awful lot of time on Israel? Is it something that your mind just seems to gravitate to and you find yourself wondering what's going on over there at any given moment?

The reason I bring this up is, there comes a time when a person needs to, refocus let's say. Kind of let go of things for a while and realize it's okay to not chase every little thought that comes into your head. Let your mind relax and maybe find a better equilibrium, if you know what I mean.

Let me tell you why I ask. It's kind of like you are having a love affair with Israel. Your every thought throughout the day goes to your new lover and you can't keep your mind off of him, if you know what I mean. You look forward to the moment when you are together and can express your love openly.

Except with Israel it's more of an obsession. Kind of the same thing you see! Your thoughts are ever on the situation over there and before you know it you are unbalanced, kind of like starting two threads at once on Israel at the same time when the more healthy activity would be to start maybe one every couple of months.

So there you have it. And these things can start so innocently, you never meant for it to get out of control but before you knew what happened you were drinking out of a brown paper bag at 9 in the morning. You've got to let it go, sister. It will stunt your growth as a person. You don't want to be one of those G20 protesters that think Israel can control them if they don't have their tinfoil hats on. You have to make a decision, and it might hurt, but going forward it will make you happier.

Good luck.

An odd message with a terrible tone.

I will dismiss your condescending tone as your inability to properly communicate.

I'm not obsessed with Israel, but I am, you could say, extremely concerned with the situation in that region. My reasons are the following:

- I grew up in Israel and grew up being fed the same old, us vs the Arabs. This constant pressure to view the situation this way came from the media, in the schools and relatives. So naturally, part of my concern about the situation is personal.

- I started getting to know the situation once I entered university. By that time our family had moved to Canada. I studied political science so I began to understand the situation better from the legal perspective.

- A major concern of mine is the West's governments' blind blanket support of the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. Policies which violate numerous humanitarian laws. There are many atrocities around the world, but none receive the type of support Israel receives.

- Lastly, there is a selfish reason behind this. The Zionist ideology continues to ruin the Jewish name. Many people are guilty of generalizing and this generalizing prevents them from knowing that there are millions of Jews who do not support majority of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians.

I'm not the only one who sees the well-oiled Israeli propaganda machine, aka Hasbara. There needs to be a voice opposing the propaganda, half-truths and straight up lies.

Every one of my posts receive responses with the same type of propaganda. It's your choice to want to engage in the same habits of other nationalists, who, for the sake of devotion and nationalism, will fight against truth and justice.

Thanks.

[Bob]

The West gives "blanket support" of Israel's policies? Another falsehood. There are countless examples of diplomatic and political disputes between the West and Israel. You're also conflating the falsehood of America supporting Israeli policies down the board with "blanket support" from The West. Is America the entirety of the West? No. Please try to be more accurate with your suggestions, even when you're wrong.

If you really are interested in learning about this issue, especially with respect to America's (which you confuse as "the West") role in Israeli-Arab diplomacy, why not read the memoirs of the parties involved in the negotiations? Kissinger, Baker, Aaron Miller, Dennis Ross, Brzezinski, Carter, and many others have written books and given interviews about this matter. Clearly you haven't read any of them. If you're interested I can hook you up with some of the audiobooks. The USA (and certainly not the West as a whole) has not given Israel "blanket support" over the years, contrary to your assertion. Much of the money the anti-Israel team hates that Israel receives from America was given towards supporting humanitarian work and rescuing diaspora Jews from persecution (although certainly some of this went to Israeli expansionism, which America has always opposed).

Anyways, you have a lot to learn. Instead of listening to what I imagine are left-leaning professors in school (I took some poli-sci electives in university, also), learn from those who are much more involved and knowledgeable - you'll learn facts much more than skewed opinions.

[Oleg Bach]

The relationship between Israel and America is a very unhealthy one..it is based in economics and by that very nature is prone to institutional corruption. I knew of a couple of brothers who were Jewish and they committed a scam - a fraud in Canada - they took the 3 million bucks and went off to Israel..They deposited the money and the only question asked was "place of origin?"...one brother took off to south america - he arranged to have 50 thousand sent at a time from the Israel..they sent him a couple of payments --then the amount got smaller then it stopped - The Israeli officials kept the balance...

THEN years latter the two culprits came back to Canada - broke...no one was charged and now one of them collects welfare and bugs dentists for the filings of gold that might be in their old carpets...Now this is on a small scale - the arrangement that America and the military industrial complex have is a huge enterprise - Israel should as a young nation..not be dependent on any sort of criminal activity to survive - legal or illegal..they as Jews have an obligation under GOD to behave and be civil..apparently God is not popular these days in what was once the holy land.

[Topaz]

Bob, the US has supported Israel as if it was one of its own. Every President has supported them until now. Obama and the President/Pm of Israel don't see eye to eye as the past Presidents. The US has given millions to this country and I can't think of another country which has given Israel more support in every way than the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

[Bob]

Bob, the US has supported Israel as if it was one of its own. Every President has supported them until now. Obama and the President/Pm of Israel don't see eye to eye as the past Presidents. The US has given millions to this country and I can't think of another country which has given Israel more support in every way than the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

There's a difference between "supporting Israel" in the a broad sense and supporting every single policy from every single administration. The history of American-Israeli relations is long and complex. There have been worse relations in the part between the American President and the Israeli PM, (Bush Sr. and Shamir, Nixon and Meir, as examples). This is to mention nothing of the relationships between other relevant executives such a the American SoS and Israeli FMs. I've said it before, there's a lot of great memoirs out there from involved parties, and they document this complex relationship.

Yes, the USA has contributed billions of dollars to Israel over the decades, but that doesn't nearly scratch the surface of American-Israeli relations throughout history. It's simply untrue to suggest that the USA has given Israel "blanket support". It also ignores the broader context of billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Arabs (from countries including the USA). The intent that people have when bringing up the Israeli-American relationship is to portray this conflict as unfair, with the USA only advocating for Israel - which simply isn't true and ignores a lot of relevant diplomatic context.

[bloodyminded]

Anyways, you have a lot to learn. Instead of listening to what I imagine are left-leaning professors in school (I took some poli-sci electives in university, also), learn from those who are much more involved and knowledgeable - you'll learn facts much more than skewed opinions.

Sure, "left-leaning professors" like Raul Hilberg--the social conservative professor deemed "the Dean of Holocaust Studies," since he invented the discipline, beginning with The Destruction of the European Jews. (He was told not to bother with something so trivial by his colleagues...and no less of a figure than Hannah Arendt have been shown to have plagiarized his insights into the Holocaust and the Nazi Regime.)

Hilberg knew anti-Semitism firsthand, and was a favourite polemical target of European and American neo-Nazi groups.

Hilberg, the right-wing Jew who adored Israel, said the country was "committing crimes of epic proportions, very little of which can be morally or legally justified." He also said, of controversial scholar-polemicist Norman Finkelstein, "In sum and substance I agree with what Finkelstein says."

So no, it's not just "leftist professors." It's also some universally-acclaimed conservative scholars, like the man who is personally responsible for us being able to even have this discussion.

[Oleg Bach]

Israel and her supporters have granted themselves an over load of entitlement - time for them to back off and create a fair playing field for all_ Being a Jew does not and should not grant special treatment.