Israel is doing the right thing by killing Hamas leaders

When did I say that Israel deserved a handout because they lost tourism money? I said that the money is necessary to defend themselves. Whether you think that is right or not, the gov't has decided to lend aid. If you have a problem with that, do something about it or you freaking leave the country. It's called voting by foot.

As far as me having more loyalty to Israel. This is rediculous. My grandfather(on my dad's side) was born here in Houston, my dad was born here, I was born here... I have been to Israel once in my life, pre-intifada. Just because I empathize to the Israelis more than you ever could doesn't mean I am more loyal to Israel. If I am not mistaken, the US is slowly cutting off funds to Israel over time. I read this a while back.

If it supports preventing Holocaust 2, then I don't care if the US loses financial viability. Hamas supports throwing the jews into the meditteranean. I support anything against this group of maniacs.

 

In my opinion, if Israel has won land in a defensive war, then it can chose what land is right to give back and what land is necessary for proper defense. Franchise blade giving an explanation why Israel rejected the Artab Peace Plan that recognized pre 1967 Israel.

The whole world has rejected this rationale as being illegal under international law.

So you are saying you want to fight for years over a few square miles of 'occupied territory". The "defense purposes" rationale is ancient 1940's thinking. Israel's defense depends on its airforce, nukes and US support-- not a few more hills or a kilometer or two more of width. Even occupation of the Golan Heights means squat when you can bomb the crap out of whoever occupies it.

 

I see what I read here, and it was telling.

The point is not that you state that Osama is America's enemy. The point is that you seem to show understanding for him. You say his actions were provoked. Even IF I did not agree with America's foreign policy, what you said is similar to the following case: Someone insults me - I go and blow up a bomb that kills his whole family. Would you say..."yeah, but it was provoked. they had it coming" (these were your exact words).

That is not objective.

You say that Osama's acts are understandable to a certain extent. Say that to the families of the victims of 9/11.

I will say it again, someone who says something like that has forever lost all credibility on this board, unless he apologizes for it and corrects the statement.

 

You don't annihilate a whole society over a few radical group members. Also, it is because that Israel is not allowing Palestinians to form their own state that is causing such disorder in the region. Thus, the only official control over the region is Israel's military. And thus, that's where all the destruction is coming from.

 

I don't know Jackie. You're saying that we need to be indifferent to be patriotic to this country? I simply cannot agree with that. I believe that a true patriot would accept the facts given and love his/her country regardless.

The fact is, OBL's action were provoked undoubtedly. However, he took actions that really pissed America and me off. I want him impaled and hung out somewhere in the Middle East as a warning to anyone that wants to cross America again.

 

You don't annihilate a whole society over a few radical group members.

Again, who's talking about annihalating a whole society? We are talking about assassinating the leader(s) of said radical group. That's it - nothing more.

 

I really hate the term "handout." What America is doing is paying them a salary? Even without the hostile borders, Israel simply could not support their country in their current state. I mean, what are their main money makers are what? Oranges? Kosher Food? Tourism? Unfortunately, their lack of industry will not sustain their nuclear power status without foreign intervention. I don't think America will ever be able to stop with the "handouts."

 

What about the razing of houses and the persecution of innocent people? I think that fits in the definiton of "annihilate."

 

What about the razing of houses and the persecution of innocent people? I think that fits in the definiton of "annihilate."

Sure, but we're not talking about that. This conversation started with:

DaDakota:

<I>I do not understand how Hamas can be whining about their leaders being assasinated when it is them who are killing innocent civilians.

Assasinations of Hamas leaders is completely justified. If the PLO is not going to stand up to Hamas, then Israel should.
</I>

Legendary:

<I>
Do you really think assasination is the way??????????
How can you say that it is right for a state (Israel) to assasinate anyone. That´s like capital punishment without a trial. It is a human right to get a trial.
I think what Israel is doing is murder. If you murder a murderer it´s still murder.
</I>

Me:

<I>Except that they are in middle of a war. Firing a missile into a Hamas leader's car is no different than us bombing a palace we think Saddam Hussein might be in or a cave that OBL might be in.

Israel's problem, in my opinion, has always been its recklessness - shooting a missile into a car by itself is one thing ... doing it in middle of a crowded street and blowing up civilians as collateral damage just makes the cycle-of-violence problem that much worse.</I>

The conversation you joined is not discussing whether razing houses or persecuting people is or isn't OK. This is completely about assassinating Hamas leaders, and only assassinating Hamas leaders.

 

My bad Major. Btw, I completely agree with your take.

Hamas leaders are definitely targets. The assasinated man should've done wise and hid with his colleagues. However, I still don't agree with the razing of houses and wrongly persecuting Palestinians just to find radical members.

 

Why does everyone of your posts have to talk about the holocaust?? The holocaust was deplorable but more Russians died in World War II, and you don't hear them talking about it every day. And it doesn't give Israel the right to any of its actions.

Then again. I really don't care what Israel does anymore, as long as we're not paying for their Apache's, Nuclear Arsenal and acts of aggression.

You stated that they could not support their economy because their violence had created a loss in tourism income. You stated this to justify the handouts (which have not faltered one bit btw)
to Israel. I simply stated I don't care about their financial situation just like I don't care about the financial situation of Guatemala, Egypt, Somalia and New Zealand. If they wish to sustain their incredible defense budget, they will collapse without US support. I think that the support needs to be cut for them to realize the inexplicable harm they are doing to themselves. Then there will be a peace solution when they realize they cannot financially support and "occupied" territory.

I support the US and the IMF helping education globally, product development and franchising of US goods and services, disease control and human aid; but this does not include funding one of the best militaries in the world to the dismay of most of the world.

Lets see.....do I have to outline this again???

Israel : Net Loss to USA:
Over 3 Billion Annually in direct financial support
Over a billion dollars of military equipment and support annually
IMF and US loans that have never been paid back
The loss of revenue because of the boycott of our products in many nations around the world because of this support.

Israel: Net Gains to USA:

Uhhhhhh........Ally In the middle east?? Thats laughable because without our Israeli aid, the whole region would be our ally.

Now i'm not a math teacher. But those numbers don't look good.
But as long as it doesn't make Franchise2001 upset or he'll say we supported the holocaust and we want another to happen.

You want peace in the Middle East? Cut off aid, and watch how fast they settle to keep from the financial burden of occupying the territories.

 

I generally agree to your post. However, cutting off aid could prove to be a detriment I fear. Without Western support, I'm afraid that Israel will be forced to make use of their nuclear weapons.

 

hear hear!

 

I've totally agreed with you up to here.

But on this issue, we may differ.

If you believe that "without Western support Israel will be forced to make use of their nuclear weapons", does that mean we should provide aid to North Korea too? Using nuclear blackmail to support an otherwise unsustainable domestic and foreign policy is precisely what we are trying to stop in North Korea, but should we give in to it in Israel's case?

On a side note, I don't think you need to worry. If America cuts off all aid, it is likely that Israel's economic collapse will force its withdraw from occupied territories, force a permanent peace settlement with both the Palestinians and Israel's Arab neighbors, and so render redundant Israel's massive military outlay, which is causing its economic instability to begin with.

Israel would still have her 200 nukes to defend her. And no Arab nation would be foolish enough to march against a nuclear-armed Israel.

Sure there still would be losses to diehard fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups, but this would then become something on the scale of the Moro Movement in Philippines, rather than a region-wide intifada as it is now.

Of course this is all speculation. But it is still better than what we have right now, which is a roadmap to Hell.

 

In addition to the economic gains F.D. Khan pointed out above, I wanted to add the following argument:

We are the ONLY country in the world which has continuously supported Israel despite her persecution of Palestinians.

Therefore, most Arabs in the Middle East see America as the enemy.

Therefore, if true democracy ever takes hold there, the Arab people will probably elect pro-Islam, anti-American governments.

However, the Middle East with its oil is far too important to America to let overtly hostile regimes come to power.

Therefore, we currently support (financially, politically and militarily), out of necessity, feudal dictatorships in the Middle East 1) to stymy to influence of fundamentalism, and 2) to deny the hostile Arab populace a chance to use democracy to pursue anti-American policies.

Thus before America can ever permit democratic reforms in the Middle East, America must first win the hearts of the Arab people. And to do that, we must discontinue our support of Israel.

-------------------------
The logic is straight-forward. The goal is region-wide democracy and goodwill towards America. It's in our best interest.

 

I fear that if America totally withdraw their financial aid to Israel, then the Arab nations will smell blood and become overtly belligerent to Israel. However, I believe that Israel is smart enough to realize that, and make threats with their nuclear arsenal. Without American intervention, I don't think Israel can withstand a prolonged attack from other Arab nations unless they make use of their nukes. While you might believe that Arab nations won't march against Israel, but I bet that the Arab nations would dare Israel to use its weapons. If they were to do so, then America would HAVE to deem them as hostile.

I think your analogy with North Korea is quite correct. However, the difference lie in the fact that America don't like the Communist North Korea, and that Jews have a stronghold on the American government, and thus America will never ever act against Israel's interest. Thus, I'm sure America will be able to put some spin if Israel were to make threats with their nuclear arsenal. If this was a case, America should most definitely give in. Given the fact that there will be no public support for the army march into Israel to disarm them, there is no other option (unless you favor Nuclear Holocaust).

Israel is the one nation in the world that really shouldn't have nukes. It seems that every other nuclear power nations have someone to balance with them. America had USSR, India has Pakistan, but Middle East has no balance with Israel. If Israel were to be let off the leash, the Middle East would be the whipping boy of Israel if they decide to use their nuclear weapons.

This my friend, is the roadmap to hell. Let's hope this never happens.

 

Why must America install democracies in the Middle East? I don't care what kind of government America installs, as long as living conditions in those wretched place improve, and the populace is generally happy, the people will like America for what they have done. Therefore the question, is not what type of government to install, but how to make the government efficient so that the changes that need to be enacted can do so in a quick and efficient manner. I mean, they can pick a kid on the street named Mahmoud and tell the people that he'll be king. As long as positive changes are made, people will love Mahmoud and America.

 

OldManBernie,

You need to stop talking off the top of your head and do a little reading-up. Again, you present some misconceptions.

Oranges and Kosher Food are not Israel's main exports, diamonds and hi-tech are. I'm in software development and I see the impact from Israel...whether it be individual programmers or new software apps from Israeli companies.

I also believe that there was a target date provided by the US when it would like to see Israeli self-sufficient, and the Isaelis had moved-up the date themselves. (I don't know whether that definition of self-sufficiency includes no military support, I would find that hard to imagine myself.)

 

I disagree.

W/o nukes, one could argue that a regional war (at best) could have ensued by now. The 'balance' is overwhelming Arab populations and armies versus a small country. The Israeli nukes provided some stability, for now.

Rogue nations are far up the list for me, personally. Apparently Israel has had nukes for 35 years and has never used them. Are you so confident that rogue or unstable nations could do the same?

My concern is that the nukes could create a false sense of invincibility and thus possibly intractability(i.e. the settlements) in Israel. If that is the effect, then they will be useless in the long-term because some terrorists or an unstable nation will ultimately use WMD on Israel, IMO, if she doesn't resolve her conflicts. Then her nukes would only have delayed the inevitable.

 

Has any other type of government in the modern era been able to create as positive an environment for it's people? Isn't democracy a fundamental right that we should stand for?