$3 billion a year of your tax money is not enough!

[Moonlight Graham]

1/5 of this goes to the supposedly thriving country of israel. that's quite a big percentage of the money. furthermore, there is no interest or benefit to the US to give $3billion + a year to israel. this has already been researched and documented extensively by the self-hating jews, mearsheimer and walt.

total aid -

US aid to israel: $114 billion

US aid to egypt: $50 billion

US aid to jordan: $4 billion

US aid to palestinians: insignificant

Coincidently, i also read recently that Israel is the #1 recipient of total foreign aid by all countries, according to the World Bank in 2002. Israel's aid was 3 times more than the Congo, and 5 times as much as Haiti.

Just shows ya where the priorities lie.

[theliberator9999]

we do not acknowledge your sham political system

[bloodyminded]

............

Edited October 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Yes you hate j00s....we get it

I don't like Israel, but I like jews, but that is enough of a difference for people like you to label someone like me anti-semetic. You are not very genuine at times.

[bloodyminded]

I don't like Israel, but I like jews, but that is enough of a difference for people like you to label someone like me anti-semetic. You are not very genuine at times.

He's just part of a minority of screeching cowards, terrified of honest debate, who indict every criticism of the geopolitical entity--Israel--as "anti-semitic."

And everyone who feels that way is a knuckledragging moron.

By definition, and without exception.

[M.Dancer]

Coincidently, i also read recently that Israel is the #1 recipient of total foreign aid by all countries, according to the World Bank in 2002. Israel's aid was 3 times more than the Congo, and 5 times as much as Haiti.

Just shows ya where the priorities lie.

I suspect you misread what you read

http://static.globalissues.org/i/aid/2010/aid-2007-2008-world.gif

[GostHacked]

He's just part of a minority of screeching cowards, terrified of honest debate, who indict every criticism of the geopolitical entity--Israel--as "anti-semitic."

And everyone who feels that way is a knuckledragging moron.

By definition, and without exception.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case. I do not recognize Israel as a state, so I am labeled anti-semetic. Regardless of my, what I think are legitimate reasons, for not recognizing them. I am just ignored and called anti-semetic. There can be no dialogue with this kind of mentality. I am called a jew hater, or a nazi (damn hear that often in my life because my grandparents immigrated to Canada from Germany) or whatever they can throw at me. But that is the thing, they throw the insults because they have nothing else to ham on you with. One they have run out of items that support their view, and when a good deal of the items have been debunked, they resort to the insults because they can't tell us why their view is right.

However it happens on both sides. And we can blame the MSM for much of our mentalities when it comes to this crap. The MSM easily polarizes us into two groups on any subject. It makes for good TV ratings but does not get to the heart of the matter, which leaves any kind of reasonable solution in the dust.

[M.Dancer]

Unfortunately that seems to be the case. I do not recognize Israel as a state, so I am labeled anti-semetic.

I'm pretty sure you could just as easily be labelled a racist. Something about the inherent rights of self government. I'm pretty sure you and the other moron you're talking to would be the first to jump down some one's throat if Lictor or whoever said that the Nigerians do not deserve a nation...or that the Indians etc etc...but because it is fashionable to shit on jews...they don't deserve a state, let alone the means to ensure their own survival.

[GostHacked]

I'm pretty sure you could just as easily be labelled a racist. Something about the inherent rights of self government. I'm pretty sure you and the other moron you're talking to would be the first to jump down some one's throat if Lictor or whoever said that the Nigerians do not deserve a nation...or that the Indians etc etc...but because it is fashionable to shit on jews...they don't deserve a state, let alone the means to ensure their own survival.

Israel is a country. Jews are people. I don't shit on Jews, I am shitting on Israel. Being an Israeli or a Jew does not constitute that being a race. Therefore I cannot be racist against Jews. Like I said, I like Jews, I have some Jewish friends, but I don't like Israel. But this is just another one of those attempts to label me as anti-jewish in some way simply because I don't agree with the actions of Israel.

[M.Dancer]

Being an Israeli or a Jew does not constitute that being a race. Therefore I cannot be racist against Jews.

The semantical defense for anti-semitism..

For example, Jews are not a race and anti-Semitism was not expressed in the language of racism until the 19th century, but the religious and political expressions of anti-Semitism that roll through Western Civilization like a mighty and polluted river are racist.

Racism is chameleon-like, and takes on the appearance of ethnocentrism, social discrimination, liberalism, conservatism, or Marxism. But this is because prejudice and discrimination look almost identical whether the object is a race or ethnic group.

http://www.umass.edu/judaic/anniversaryvolume/articles/08-B1-Lester.pdf

You might want to commit that to memory.

[GostHacked]

The semantical defense for anti-semitism..

See, no winning with that mentality. No dialogue with that mentality. I don't think you are being very honest with yourself, let alone being honest with what you say about others.

That seems to be a major problem M. Dancer. You and other like you can't or don't want to see there is a difference because it allows you to label someone anti-semetic or racist in some fashion.

You might be able to label me anti-semetic in the way I am against all organized religion. But if you want to idiotically focus on the fact that it includes Judaism in with all other world religions and believe I am specifically then you have a point.

http://www.umass.edu/judaic/anniversaryvolume/articles/08-B1-Lester.pdf

You might want to commit that to memory.

For example, Jews are not a race and anti-Semitism was not expressed in the language of racism until the 19th century, but the religious and political expressions of anti-Semitism that roll through Western Civilization like a mighty and polluted river are racist.

So it is racist but not racist? And your article shows that quite a few things got termed as racist during the 19th century. Blacks were allowed to become citizens and given the right to vote, some happened in the 19th century, most happened in the 20th century. Women were allowed to vote in the 20th century.

Quite the summary too.

The logic of racism is such, however, that once its evil is unleashed, it will not care or even notice if one day the people being exterminated happen not to be black or Jewish. It will not notice if, indeed, the people happen to be white. Racism may appear to be opposition to black life or Jewish life. The reality is that racism stands in opposition to life itself. In the final analysis, racism is white self-hatred and the ultimate act of self-hatred is self-destruction.

If you want to classify me as racist, then you are racist as well. Maybe we all are.

[M.Dancer]

See, no winning with that mentality. No dialogue with that mentality. I don't think you are being very honest with yourself, let alone being honest with what you say about others.

If you want to deny a people their right to nationhood, and still claim to be their friends..go ahead...the only ones you fool are yourself and other fools....

[bush_cheney2004]

Israel is a country. Jews are people. I don't shit on Jews, I am shitting on Israel....

Why are you "shitting" on Israel?

[M.Dancer]

Why are you "shitting" on Israel?

Too many jews...

[GostHacked]

If you want to deny a people their right to nationhood, and still claim to be their friends..go ahead...the only ones you fool are yourself and other fools....

The Jewish nationhood is existing at the expense of another peoples, which in the end is going to deny the Palestinians a nationhood of their own.

Edited October 7, 2010 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Too many jews...

You are not being very honest with yourself.

[M.Dancer]

You are not being very honest with yourself.

Now here's your chance, what other ethnic groups don't deserve a nation of their own?

[M.Dancer]

The Jewish nationhood is existing at the expense of another peoples, which in the end is going to deny the Palestinians a nationhood of their own.

That is false.

You realize when Israel was created a plestinian state was also created. They the arabs threw that away in 1948. Form 1948 to 1967 the west bank and gaza were occuoied by Jordan and Egypt. There was plenty of time for them to establish a state of their own. Why they didn't is not my concern only that the state of israel is not the reason why the Arabs do not have yet another nation in their midst.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Jewish nationhood is existing at the expense of another peoples, which in the end is going to deny the Palestinians a nationhood of their own.

But you said it's not about Jews...just Israel. Do First Nations in Canada enjoy "nationhood" to your righteous satisfaction vis-a-vis Palestine? How do you reconcile this?

[GostHacked]

But you said it's not about Jews...just Israel.

For those who think I am anti-semite, it does not matter if I use the term Jew or Israeli. I am simply labeled as anti-semetic. So I am wasting my time trying to get people to understand the difference.

Do First Nations in Canada enjoy "nationhood" to your righteous satisfaction vis-a-vis Palestine? How do you reconcile this?

I still fail to see how this is relevant. Different times, different situation. Not to mention there is something called First Nations in Canada, which allows them to govern themselves in the areas that are labeled as 'reserves'.

Why was the land not given back to the Ottomans?

That is false.

You realize when Israel was created a plestinian state was also created. They the arabs threw that away in 1948. Form 1948 to 1967 the west bank and gaza were occuoied by Jordan and Egypt. There was plenty of time for them to establish a state of their own. Why they didn't is not my concern only that the state of israel is not the reason why the Arabs do not have yet another nation in their midst.

Palestine was the name of the whole area before the UN came and drew the demarcation lines in the sand creating the modern idea and concept of nation states. This is how many of these countries came to be including Israel. Someone else far away decided what belonged to who. The reason for the war is that the Arabs on the whole never agreed to the partition. Regardless of this asshat Mufti people keep trotting out.

Everything I read seems to point back to how the Brits handled the whole ordeal. The not-so-official Balfour Declaration which the Jews supported, but in the end even Britain rejected the proposal and was never an official policy of the British government. The UN tried to take on the role and create a treaty or mandate for the area after the Brits ditched the plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181

With no plan for a smooth transition of authority to a new administration, the United Kingdom announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine by 15 May 1948. During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor. On the day before the United Kingdom was to complete its withdrawal, (i.e. 14 May 1948) the Jewish community in Palestine published a Declaration of Independence as the State of Israel, and five Arab armies crossed into the former Mandate as the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

But another problem is that both Jews and Arabs were promised a lot from the powers that be at the time. Each people thought they were going to get the whole pie.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[8]

However, the contradictions of the two (or three) objectives contained in the preamble to the Mandate, as well as in the Balfour Declaration, was soon evident.

Promises were made and promises were broken by the same group of people who were governing the area at the time. The brits could not handle it so they shuffled it over and made it a UN problem and wiped their hands clean of it.

In 1937, members of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations had privately informed the leadership of the Jewish Agency that the Palestine Mandate could not be implemented according to the Agency's wishes. Faced with the prospect of remaining a minority in greater Palestine, the Jewish Agency Executive decided that partition was the only way out of the impasse.[9] The principle of partition was placed on the agenda of the Twentieth Zionist Congress. During the Congress, Ben Gurion supported the proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.[10] At the same time, he delivered speeches in which he said that no Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land.[11]

In the White Paper of 1939, the British Government had determined that it was under no legal obligation to facilitate the further development of the Jewish National Home, by immigration, without respecting the wishes of the Arab population. The 1939 Zionist Congress denied the moral and legal validity of the White Paper. The opinion of the Permanent Mandates Commission, which had the duty "to advise" the Council of the League of Nations "on all matters relating to the observance of the Mandates" was divided. Four members felt the White Paper violated the terms of the mandate, while three members did not.[12]

The Zionist Congress continued to publicly propose that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth according to the Biltmore proposals, while they were willing to accept a partition plan in principle.[13]

When the Jewish and Arab leadership could not agree on a course of administration that would lead to a unified independent state, the government of the United Kingdom requested that the Question of Palestine[14] be placed on the Agenda of the United Nations General Assembly. They asked that the Assembly make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter,[15] concerning the future government of Palestine.[16] The British proposal recommended that a special committee be established to perform a preliminary study designed to assist the General Assembly in developing recommendations. The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was an advisory committee to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question. Membership on the Ad Hoc Committee was open to all the members of the United Nations. The General Assembly resolution called for the establishment of a United Nations Palestine Commission with a mandate to implement the plan of partition. The United Kingdom recognized the United Nations Palestine Commission as the successor government of Palestine.[17] But the United Nations had not agreed to automatically fall heir to all of the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect to the Palestine Mandate. It had merely agreed to facilitate the transfer of sovereignty from the Mandatory to the provisional governments and to administer and govern a small trusteeship.[18]

During the debate on partition in November 1947, Mr Husseini (of the Arab Higher Committee) referred to Ben Gurion's previous contention that no Zionist could forego the smallest portion of the land of Israel, and suggested that the Revisionists were being more honest about their territorial aspirations than the representatives of the Jewish Agency.[19]

The more I look into this the more confusing it gets.

[bush_cheney2004]

For those who think I am anti-semite, it does not matter if I use the term Jew or Israeli. I am simply labeled as anti-semetic. So I am wasting my time trying to get people to understand the difference.

Perhaps it has something to do with referring to "Jews" instead of "Israelis". "Jews" reside in and are citizens of many countries.

I still fail to see how this is relevant. Different times, different situation. Not to mention there is something called First Nations in Canada, which allows them to govern themselves in the areas that are labeled as 'reserves'.

"Allows them" ?....that's mighty white of you and The Crown. Israel has more international legitimacy than Canada or the USA if the UN be your game. You cannot logically accept present day Canada's/USA's reserve system for conquered and subjugated native people while castigating Israel. How about settling some land claims first, eh?

Why was the land not given back to the Ottomans?

Because they lost.

Edited October 7, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

I don't like Israel, but I like jews, but that is enough of a difference for people like you to label someone like me anti-semetic. You are not very genuine at times.

It does come down to that. Prior to the existence of the State of Israel, Jews depended for their existence on the not so tender mercy of strangers. We did OK in the Americas; not so well in Europe where we mostly wound up dead. We need Israel to exist.

The Arabs have plenty of countries to choose from; we don't.

[M.Dancer]

Palestine was the name of the whole area before the UN came and drew the demarcation lines in the sand creating the modern idea and concept of nation states. This is how many of these countries came to be including Israel.

False yet again. Only two nations were created, Israel and Palestine and the arabs blew their load and lost it.

Jordan and Syria became independant in 1946..the borders were not drawn by the UN but by the League of Nations

Lebanon in 1943

Egypt in 1922

Israel and Palestine....1948

[GostHacked]

It does come down to that. Prior to the existence of the State of Israel, Jews depended for their existence on the not so tender mercy of strangers. We did OK in the Americas; not so well in Europe where we mostly wound up dead. We need Israel to exist.

The Arabs have plenty of countries to choose from; we don't.

JBG, I got some questions to bounce off you. And yes they are hypothetical.

Do you think the Jews would have accepted another piece of land somewhere else in the world if it was offered at that time?

Would it have been rejected because it was not the ancient homeland of the Jews?

Is the ancient tie the only real reason they have for creating Israel where it is today?

M. Dancer I was wrong about how other countries were created in the area. I'll give you that much.

[Shady]

Why is it that the billions of dollars America gives Egypt and Jordan and Pakistan, etc, etc, never get much attention? It only seems to be money directed towards Israel. The lone progressive and democratic country in the Middle East.