|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 7, 2011 14:31:05 GMT -5
I That aside, I think it's a bit of overstatement to say that Israel's support in the U.S. depends entirely on American Jews and Christian fundamentalists. ... I hope that didn't come from me. When I said "those raised within the Judeo-Christian Matrix", I meant to include a far larger chunk of the country than just American Jews and fundamentalists. I do not belong to either of those two groups, yet I was raised within, and shaped by, the Judeo-Christian Matrix (add some Hellenism to make it complete). It is the same deal with virtually every other white person of European heritage over the age of 50 in this country. We all saw Exodus. We all saw Charleton Heston do the river walk. We all cheered the Seven Days Shootup and the exploding Russian tanks. But there are folks here from China and India for whom this whole Israel thing is a puzzlement. Israel doesn't poll the same in the Hispanic community as in the white. If you are an American with roots from somewhere other than Europe and with a faith or non-faith that is other than traditional Christianity, there will be no emotional, childhood-implanted, support for Israel. With a growing demographic of this country, support for Israel, support of the type Israel has come to depend upon, will be lacking. More and more, support for Israel will need to be supported by a reason-based assessment of best interest. The dollar cost of propping Israel will be scrutinized and the billfold will grow tighter. Or so I predict (and a prediction is not a hope, it is a prediction). . |
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 7, 2011 14:43:26 GMT -5
"Charlton Heston do the river walk ... "
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jan 7, 2011 14:57:54 GMT -5
It's hard to think, off-hand, of any public figure in the US who is allowed to utter anything more than the most tepid criticism of Israel. Pat Buchanan is probably the most critical. Bob Novak has been critical in the past. Tom Friedman has caught some heat for not being sufficiently strident in his defense of Israel. Other than that, there's almost no one.
The remark that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel is just propaganda that the Israelis and their supporters in the US like to repeat endlessly, until everyone believes it with no support. In fact, there are a couple of peace plans on the table, including the Saudi plan that offers Israel immediate recognition with nearly every country in the region, normalization of relations, and security guarantees. It requires Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, which Israel absolutely will not do. Syria has made its own offer, in return for the Golan Heights, they will normalize relations with Israel, cut off support for Hamas and Hezbollah and distance themselves from Iran. Israel refused. Hamas has said they are not opposed to the existence of Israel, and have said that if Abbas reaches an agreement with Israel that is approved by the Palestinian people in a referendum , they will go along with it.
As long as Israel continues to drag this out, it simply steals more land that it will not give back. As Abbas has said, negotiating with the Israelis over the Occupied Territories while they continue to build settlements is like negotiating with someone over how to divide a pizza, while the other guy is eating it.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 7, 2011 15:19:15 GMT -5
Furthermore, as believed by most conservative fundamentalist's, God's plan included not just the "re-establishment" of Israel, it also contains the "end days" destruction of Israel and all its inhabitants who do not shuck their Jewish faith into the nearest trash can and accept Jesus as God. . And I'm telling you that you are wrong. The fundamental Christianity with which I am intimately familiar -- they are my family and many of my friends -- they are the churches I have attended in the past and even the schools I went to from elementary to college and I could hardly twist their beliefs to arrive at yours or Franken's interpretation of their eschatology. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2011 16:26:23 GMT -5
Culturally, there are enough similarities between the US and Israel that some identification among many in the US is inevitable. That's why trying to frame support for israel as something motivated purely by religion or political affiliation is not very productive.
I have no trouble sitting on the fence on it. Like most americans, I certainly identify more with israel. Like us, they tend to be a stable, somewhat representative government. And, like the US, they can go apeshit over "defense" issues to the point where they squash a lot of innocent non-combatants on the belief that doing so makes them "safe". And, like us, it's easy for them to forget that their country was kind of arbitrarily created on the homeland of some indigenous people who are now viewed as a pain in the ass. I doubt it is a coincidence that many israelis are from the US, or at least view us as an indulgant sponsor.
If israel is truly in peril of destruction, most of us would be entirely sympathetic. But, that does NOT mean we can't criticize or bitch about what we consider excessive or punitive action against palestinians. But, let's be fair: Israel is MUCH more indulgant and patient to their own indigenous tribes than our own government was. Any US citizen who feels so sympathetic with the palestinians that (s)he feels they have no right to exist better never read a US history book.
Reducing one's view of israel to a black and white situation is kind of unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 7, 2011 17:21:02 GMT -5
Furthermore, as believed by most conservative fundamentalist's, God's plan included not just the "re-establishment" of Israel, it also contains the "end days" destruction of Israel and all its inhabitants who do not shuck their Jewish faith into the nearest trash can and accept Jesus as God. . And I'm telling you that you are wrong. The fundamental Christianity with which I am intimately familiar -- they are my family and many of my friends -- they are the churches I have attended in the past and even the schools I went to from elementary to college and I could hardly twist their beliefs to arrive at yours or Franken's interpretation of their eschatology. Perhaps I am wrong. Say, is there a fundamental Christianity with which you are not intimately familiar? If so, that's the fundamental Christianity I was referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 7, 2011 17:24:09 GMT -5
Israel was created by The United Nations, wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jan 7, 2011 17:51:47 GMT -5
Palestine was divided into two states, one Israel and one Palestinian.
The Israelis were given 55% of the land, though Jews were a minority in the region.
After the '67 war, Israel controlled more like 78% of the land.
Now they're "discussing" how much more they're going to take.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 7, 2011 18:06:41 GMT -5
And I'm telling you that you are wrong. The fundamental Christianity with which I am intimately familiar -- they are my family and many of my friends -- they are the churches I have attended in the past and even the schools I went to from elementary to college and I could hardly twist their beliefs to arrive at yours or Franken's interpretation of their eschatology. Perhaps I am wrong. Say, is there a fundamental Christianity with which you are not intimately familiar? If so, that's the fundamental Christianity I was referring to. Oh. Well then, you're right! |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 7, 2011 18:16:17 GMT -5
Palestine was divided into two states, one Israel and one Palestinian. The Israelis were given 55% of the land, though Jews were a minority in the region. After the '67 war, Israel controlled more like 78% of the land. Now they're "discussing" how much more they're going to take. Where does Gaza figure into that? |
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 7, 2011 21:06:47 GMT -5
After the '67 war, Israel controlled more like 78% of the land.... Maybe the Arab states shouldn't have attacked them. ...The remark that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel is just propaganda that the Israelis and their supporters in the US like to repeat endlessly, until everyone believes it with no support. .... I guess each side listens to its own propaganda. The historical fact is that the last time a comprehensive deal was actually offered - at the 2000 Camp David summit - the Palestinian president walked away from it. That, despite the fact that the Israelis had offered 95% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, along with sovereignty over East Jerusalem. In return, Israel was to have kept about 70 settlements in West Bank territory, plus temporary control over 10% of the West Bank. The Palestinian street had some issues with this, but so did many Israelis. It was the Palestinians who Clinton blamed for the failure of the summit, and with it, prospects for peace for the foreseeable future. My own analysis of these talks at the time, and that of many others, was that despite the generous terms, Arafat concluded that if he went along with it he would have been assassinated. There were, and still are, too many Palestinians who would rather fall on their swords than compromise. For them, the only satisfactory resolution would be the destruction of Israel. Propaganda? I don't think so. |
|
