Meetings, Meetings

Some posit a positive out of Annapolis has to do with Olmert calling the Arab's bluff:

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state," Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed.

And ass hat Ahmadinejad is having a meeting of his own.

I don't assume any of the main players here can be taken at their word.

Comments

[dumbblonde]

"Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state," Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed."

Awesome. It's nice to see Olmert exhibiting evidence of a backbone, for a change.

[seekeronos]

What would be nice to hear Olmert (or any other Israeli leader for that matter) say might sound like this:

"Illegal Palestinians occupying Israeli territory in Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights have one week to evacuate. Those lands belong to Israel, and after the deadline, they will be resettled with Jews forthwith. Resistance from illegal Palestinian aliens shall be dealt with utmost severity, certainty, and swiftness."

100% of Israel from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea and from Lebanon to the Negev belongs to the Children of Israel as their inheritance from God.

[Fred Beloit]

Sorry, Dan, but I feel forced to disagree with you this time. Ahmadinejad is NOT an "ass hat". Kos is an ass hat. Ahmadinejad is more like a scrotum head.

[rwilymz]

"...belongs to the Children of Israel as their inheritance from God."

Then god [more specifically, his Executor or Trustee] needs to have his estate run through a probate court with jurisdiction, ...which would include having the decedant's signature notarized.

But this presumes that god -- as Nietzsche once said -- is in fact dead, which in turn presumes that god did actually once exist. For which there is no direct evidence.

Much more prosaically, Israel controls the territory from the Negev to the Golan Heights, from the western banks of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean coast, to include Gaza and all territories not ceded to other sovereign states, as the *spoils of war*, fully supportible by recognized International Law.

Those who claim otherwise are attempting to assert that huge chunks of Poland belong, now, to Germany under the name of "Prussia". Not to mention that they are calling null and void the body of International Law which supports claims of sovereignty in the first place, and to which they [mostly] assert "Palestine" rightfully aspires.

It ain't a Chinese dinner menu; you don't get to pick and choose which parts of internatinal convention you wish to adhere to.

[seekeronos]

If one must remove God from the picture, then I'll be satisfied to agree that Israel possess the land by pure force of military dint, as is backed by International Law.

Much the same as old "Prussia" is occupied by present-day Poland (although technically, West Prussia exists as a part of the German States (Bundesländer) of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg. Of course, this chunk of land along with its now Polish-occupied portions (Schlesien, Posten-Westpreußen, had been occupied by other powers (Sweden, various Polish dukedoms, Lithuanian principalities, Napoleonic (Bonaparte) France, and various other powers throughout the ages.

Though my more reactionary side might relish seeing the return of the current Hohenzollern Pretender (Georg Friedrich von Preußen) to a restored Prussian throne (if not over the entirety of Germany as Kaiser) as a constitutional Monarch in the modern sense...

...it was (Prussia, that is) as much subject to God's will for its existence as is America or even Israel, all of whom over which the Lord Jesus sits as Eternal Judge, as the Living God and Creator.

Just as Prussia was judged and found to be negligent in her thanksgiving and worship of God, as it turned to nihilism and atheism and all sorts of strange and foolish thinking (such as Neitzche's claims that "God is dead")... so also did the Living and True God deliver up that nation to be judged in the fires of World Wars I and II; indeed, as you (Ross) have observed, no longer a nation, and perhaps not even an extant state, as the German states that exist in place of the former Prussia do not even bear its name.

Concerning Israel, I do not see where the Abrahamic Covenant has lapsed or has been revoked (for only the Most High God, the Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could do such a thing) in the Bible. Arguments concerning the admixture of Israelite blood into Japethic lines (Ashenazi Jewry) do not necessarily void the covenant either, as long as they can trace their lineage to Jewish (semantically referring to all Israelites here, not specifically the descendants of Judah and Benjamin).

Therefore, Israel has both a secular claim to that land (dating from AD 1948) and a theological claim to it (approx. 3400 BC) long predating the claims of fictional and contrived "nationalities" such as "Palestinians".

Cases for "right of return" for descendants of the Caphtorim/Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, and other pre-Israelite groups are mooted by (a) lack of covenant relationship to the Living God and (b) absorption and/or extinction of these pre-Israel peoples into either the Hellenic or Roman empires.

The so-called "Palestinians" on the other hand, are a much more modern political fabrication, the leftovers of Arab settlers who occupied the land during the Ottoman regime who failed to gain citizenship under any of the Arab powers that rose in the aftermath of the Ottoman breakup, and at best, a failed state with no more value than to exist as a drain on the economies of the Middle East, and at worst, a malignant tumour on the flank of a democratic society such as exists in Eretz Israel.

[seekeronos]

Edit: Ashenazi is supposed to read "Ashkenazi" (Northern/Central European Jews who lived in Germany, Poland, and various parts of Austria and Hungary).

[Draegn]

Cut all aid to Israel and see how long it stands before being taken back by Arab forces.

[dumbblonde]

Draegn,

Israel kicked Arab butt in '67 without any aid - financial or otherwise - from the U.S. or anyone else. It is not an insignificant fact that Israel was NOT the aggressor in that war. It was only after this butt-kicking that the U.S. realized the benefit of Israel as an ally in the Middle East.

I'm curious as to why you seem to want to see Israel fall.

[seekeronos]

Although the Living and True God, the Creator, our Lord Jesus Christ, is more than capable of protecting His people Israel, here is reason why we should support Israel:

"-------
Genesis 12

1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
-------"

(Genesis 12:1-3, KJV)

[rwilymz]

"Cut all aid to Israel and see how long it stands before being taken back by Arab forces."

I think you're asking the wrong question.

Cut aid to Israel, we've just lost any controlling influence over them altogether. Instead of "how long will it be before they're swamped by the Larrys, Moes and Curlys of the various stooge Arab >ahem< "armies", the **real** question is:

How long would it be before Israel glassed over Damascus and Teheran?

[seekeronos]

"--- How long would it be before Israel glassed over Damascus and Teheran? ---"

On the surface, this might not seem like such a bad idea... but somehow, I don't see Mother Russia or Red China standing by idly on that account, especially if the radioactive smoke clouds start a-wafting over their airspace.

[draegn]

Israel kicked Arab butt in '67 without any aid - financial or otherwise - from the U.S. or anyone else. It is not an insignificant fact that Israel was NOT the aggressor in that war. It was only after this butt-kicking that the U.S. realized the benefit of Israel as an ally in the Middle East.

I'm curious as to why you seem to want to see Israel fall.

Posted by: dumbblonde | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 06:15 PM

Yes isreal pulled a sneak attack in 67, then when it was pay back time in 73, guess who bailed them out. It was uncle sam and your tax dollars of course.

http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/yomkippur.asp

In an effort to force Israel to unilaterally surrender captured lands, Egypt and Syria jointly attacked Israel on October 6, 1973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Other Arab states contributed troops and financial support. Caught by surprise, Israel suffered severe losses in human life and equipment. Following an Egyptian refusal to accept a cease-fire and a Soviet airlift to the Arab states, the U.S. sent an airlift to Israel enabling her to recover from earlier setbacks. Saudi Arabia then led the Arab world in an oil embargo imposed on the United States and other western nations.

If our wonderful government had kept to itself rather than trying to be policeman of the world, israel would not be here today, and we would not have a thousandth of the problems we have in the Middle East today.

[dumbblonde]

Draegon,

Again, I am curious as to why you want Israel to fall.

Your problem isn't American aid to Israel, per se. We're providing plenty of aid to other countries in the Middle East, but you haven't voiced any objection to that. Your objection is to the *existence* of Israel. Plain and simple.

You say that if it weren't for the existence of Israel "we would not have a thousandth of the problems we have in the Middle East today."

Why?

It is difficult for me to understand. The Middle East is huge. It is populated by 100s of millions of people. How can a mere 5-6 million Jews living on a teeny tiny little sliver of land be the cause of all of the problems in the Middle East?

Enlighten me. Please.

[dumbblonde]

Draegon,

And also: The '67 action by Israel was NOT a sneak attack. It was a pre-emptive attack. There is a huge difference between the two.

Egypt had put more than 1,000 tanks and more than 100,000 troops along the Israeli border and had called for a unified Arab action against Israel. Israel chose not to wait to be invaded, and took pre-emptive action against Egypt. Egypt asked for it.

Let's keep our history straight, shall we?

[rwilymz]

"Yes isreal pulled a sneak attack in 67"

Whoa! Did this actually come out of someone's keyboard?

It's like saying that Germany pulled a sneak attack on France in 1914. Or 1940.

Two nations, both posturing for war, one of them always draws first. Always. Drawing first does not constitute "sneak attack". "Sneak attack" was Poland '39, Russia '41, Pearl Harbor.

Not Israel '67. Not even Arab League '48, for that matter. Honestly, "sneak attack" and "Middle East" do not belong in the same paragraph, let alone sentence.

"In an effort to force Israel to unilaterally surrender captured lands..."

Right. But guess what, skippy? those lands belong to Israel by dint of "spoils of war". You invade another nation and lose, and have a portion of your territory occupied by the nation you just attacked, that land is gone. So sad so sorry. You can invade again and try to recapture it, but if you fail then at some point it turns into an exercise of bashing your own brains out against a brick wall.

Eqypt has learned that, as has Jordan.

Syria...? they're not so smart.

And the "Palestinians" are outright cretins.

"If our wonderful government had kept to itself rather than trying to be policeman of the world..."

Ahhhh, a Buchananist isolationist coming up for air. Wutsamatter? can't breathe with our beaches pulled up around your ears?

The US is doing no more "world policing" than other pre-eminent world powers have done in the past, to their ability to do so. For several reasons, the two main of which are:
1] super-powers tend to be busybodies, and we are no different; and
2] the rest of the world expects superpowers to lend their weight and muscle to their particular cause.

Even today, the majority of the world wants "something" done about Darfur. What do that want done? They want the UN to "fix" the "problem". Well, the UN is powerless; they are an international deliberative body -- diplomats -- whose job it is to bicker and squawk. If they need muscle to actually accomplish something, they call for volunteers ... and then look straight into the eyes of the US.

Now, let's just forget that the "problem" in Darfur is entirely internal Sudanese, and that it is a gross violation of IntLaw for foreign countries to interpose -- for any reason. Let's just forget that the "problem" is that the Fur tribes [the people who live in Darfur -- literally: "Land of the Fur"] started a revolution and the government is simply fighting back. ...apparently, governments defending their sovereignty from revolutionaries is a bad thing this century -- Serbia/Kosov, Sudan/Fur.

Let's assume that it is appropriate for other nations to busybody themselves in Sudan on behalf of the slave-trading Fur revolutionaries. How does that get accomplished?

Last we knew, the UN, hat in hand, was looking beseechingly into the eyes of the US, for the UN is impotent without superpower muscle. Also known as: "Please, please, pretty please! America, will you **please** be the world's cop ... AGAIN?"

While you're keeping your history straight, you'd do yourself real well to divest yourself of a great deal of your naivete and self-loathing.

[Draegn]

I am against all foreign aid period. IMO America does not have the moral right or obligation to police the world. Especially not when so many of our adult population is considered to be functionally illiterate. So many children go to bed underfed. So many people are homeless sleeping on the streets. One needs to solve the problems in their own backyard first. To do anything else is hypocrisy.

Why does israel garnish the lion's share of foreign aid? Why do 5-6 million jews deserve more than the 100s of millions of other people? Why must America defend poor little isreal? Why didn't America defend poor little Tibet when China invaded?

I agree that the UN is a powerless POS. It will never amount to anything so long as there are five permanent members with veto powers. It will be nothing more than an endless debate and bickering club.

[dumbblonde]

Well, Draegn, we agree on the UN.

However, you still haven't stated why you want Israel to fall. You merely shifted the focus of your argument. I would still like to hear your reasoning.

On the subject of US aid: The US currently provides aid to approx 150 countries around the world, including in the Middle East: Egypt (second only to Israel in US aid received), Jordan, Lebanon, and also the Palestinians. You do not want US aid sent to these countries either? To clarify: You are against ALL U.S. foreign aid, regardless of the recipient?

[Draegn]

http://www.peacenowar.net/Palestine/News/US%20aids.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/issues/issuearea/ForeignAid.cfm

"Handouts of U.S. taxpayers’ money to Third World countries in the form of traditional foreign aid have failed because they remove essential incentives for the governments of developing countries to open markets, promote a stable economic environment, and thereby let their people build wealth and prosper. Since the end of World War II, the United States has provided more foreign aid to the world than any other country, yet recipients are just as poor now as they were then. Even worse, foreign aid has fostered corruption and irresponsible policymaking."

You can equate foreign aid with international welfare. The above statement shows that foreign aid does not work, just as welfare in America does not work. I am against all foreign aid period. It does not matter who receives it. I cannot justify feeding Africa when American children are hungry. I cannot justify sending medications whereever when Americans have no health care. The government needs to solve the problems within our borders first.

Israel is a temporary state. If we did not save it in 73 and provide for it since it's inception, it would not be here today. If israel cannot stand on it's own, it does not deserve to stand at all. If you consider all the Middle Eastern countries to be children on a playground with israel the only one holding a bag of cookies, israel is going to have to fight for itself or give up it's cookies. Why should America be forced to play referee and pull everyone apart?

The israelis and Palestians want the same land and the same resources that come with that land. Apparently they're not willing to share. So let them fight it out without any support, and to the winner goes the spoils. I'm cheering for the Palestians; frankly they seem like the nicer people.

We cannot change history, yet I have to wonder. If we had let israel fall, would the Shah's family still be in power in Iran? Would the Taliban have arisen? Would bin Laden, still be our newest boggy man? I blame all of those problems on America's support of israel. If israel goes away, maybe those problems will too.

Who would you rather have as your friend? 5.8 million israelis, or 500 million muslims?

[dumbblonde]

Draegn,

So you are against US foreign aid, period. OK. I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that we're too loose with the handouts, and for too little benefit.

(the primer on foreign aid really wasn't necessary, though - I'm aware of the stats, etc.)

I'm not sure I agree that Israel wouldn't still be around without the support of the U.S. Along with our aid comes strings, i.e. the U.S. gets to tell Israel what to do - and also what it can't do. In effect, the U.S. has Israel in handcuffs, and because of U.S. influence Israel is often forced into decisions against its own best interests. Current events in Annapolis illustrate this perfectly.

You ask: "If we had let israel fall, would the Shah's family still be in power in Iran?" A better question would be: if the U.S. had not meddled on behalf of the Shah's opposition during Iran's revolution, would the Shah's family still be in power in Iran?

You ask: "Would the Taliban have arisen?" Quite simply, Yes. To ask this question is to reveal a lack of understanding of the subject. If you are interested, I would recommend the following book: "The Rise of The Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region" by Neamatollah Nojumi. It reads like a textbook, but it is an unbiased, factual, thorough, historically accurate account.

You ask: "Would bin Laden?" I would say, Probably. Bin Laden is pretty bent about the existence of Israel and U.S. support for Israel and he won't shut up about it, but he also hates the U.S. for just about everything the U.S. stands for - independent of any support for Israel. You can read bin Laden's "Letter to America" and decide for yourself
:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4552895-110490,00.html

You say: "If israel goes away, maybe those problems will too." Oh, if only it were that simple. That's like saying: "Oh, the wolf only wants that other sheep over there. If we just sacrifice that sheep and let the wolf have it, the rest of us sheep will be safe." It doesn't end with Israel. You, my friend, are next - unless you are either a Muslim, intend to become a Muslim, or are willing to live as a second-class citizen subjugated by Muslims.

You ask: "Who would you rather have as your friend? 5.8 million israelis, or 500 million muslims?" Well, that's not really a fair question. The Muslims are making it pretty darn clear that they don't want to be my "friend." I'm taking them at their word.

[Draegn]

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11987

The guy sums it up nicely, yet, it's never too late to change so that we do not go down.

[rwilymz]

"IMO America does not have the moral right or obligation to police the world."

That's fine. But "morals" plays zero role in the way the world works. particularly when those who direct world events claim "morality" as their excuse for action. Ref: bin Laden, and even Bush in response.

"Especially not when so many of our adult population is considered to be functionally illiterate [et cetera]"

Naive in the extreme. This presupposes that individuals have no responsibility for their own conditions [1], and that [2] there is some inate governmental responsibility ["moral imperative" as it were] for the government to dictate the conditions each of its citizens exists under.

"One needs to solve the problems in their own backyard first. To do anything else is hypocrisy."

Is it hypocrisy for you to lecture on national priorities when your checkbook isn't balanced? when you have laundry to put away?

Of course not.

It may be a luxury, but it doesn't rise to the level of hypocrisy.

"Why does israel garnish the lion's share of foreign aid?"

It'd be "garner", and they don't.

They aren't even in the top 10 of current US foreign aid. [http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs]

You are citing 45 year cumulative history. Which is important to the discussion, but misleading with your verb-tense. Israel *does* not receive the lion's share. They may have at one [or several] points; they might have been the cumulative leader; but they are not now.

"Why must America defend poor little isreal?"

Strategic interests. US foreign aid, just like US foreign policy, is notNotNOT altruism. If we don't get anything from the transaction, then it's useless to us. And "anything" is nearly always tangible, not the self-satisfaction of helping Tibetans avoid totalitarian Chinese oppression. We aren't god; we're selfish, self-interested world leaders.

One of the criticisms of foreign aid is that it exists for the benefit of the donor [in quid pro quo] than for the recipient. Well ... duh!

Just think of all the benefits we get from having a Jewish State in the Middle East.

Among others, we have an ally proven in its ability to kick ass; we have a lighting rod for the multi-generationally growing level of panislamist activism; they [Israel] divert panislamist outrage from a more-directly western target... Israel is our beta-test site in the Middle East.

What would rushing to the aid of Tibet do for us?

"It will be nothing more than an endless debate and bickering club."

That's all the UN was designed to be. In the post-coital glow of defeating world-wide fascism, those five "superpowers" believed [20-20 hindsight] that they could cooperate to collectively "police" a prosperous and progressive world.

"the United States has provided more foreign aid to the world than any other country, yet recipients are just as poor now as they were then"

Indeed. And pay attention to the lead in your follow-on paragraph: You can equate foreign aid with international welfare."

And the same realities constrain both. Social give-away progams exist, in cynical realism, to create a dependence of the recipient upon the donor. A dependent population is less likely to revolt, or so the theory goes. It's for the benefit of the donor. Democrats have the votes of the poor and socially oppressed cached away in all the elections.

But the thing is: the recipient must be basically amenable to the donor in the first place. We could give money away to Iraq [and we are, by the boatload], but what will it buy us? Probably not much. Why? because Iraqis don't like us much to begin with. They'll take our money and shoot us later.

"Israel is a temporary state. If we did not save it in 73 and provide for it since it's inception..."

But we didn't.

Grab a history book. Israel was "incepted" in 1948. We only officially recognized it at that point. We palled around after '67 when they kicked the asses of two Soviet beta-test sites. We didn't put it on the payroll until '73.

You're already operating at a factual deficit to prop up your theory.

"If israel cannot stand on it's own, it does not deserve to stand at all."

The same can be said for virtually every nation in Central and South Americ, Africa and huge swaths of Asia.

"let them fight it out without any support, and to the winner goes the spoils."

Great. Just get everyone else to go along with that. The "palestinians" have several dozen fairly well-heeled donors that you need to keep away from the dogfight. ...or does the same non-assistance not apply to other nations, just the US?

"I'm cheering for the Palestians; frankly they seem like the nicer people."

You like backstabbers and ingrates? The "palestinians" were accepted by Jordan in '67 [Egypt refused them entry; they knew their 3,000 year neigbors a bit better], and the "palestinians" promptly started a revolt against their benefactor. Jordan had to put it down, with mucho force, and ran them out into southern Lebanon.

"Who would you rather have as your friend? 5.8 million israelis, or 500 million muslims?"

5.8 million of anybody or 500 BILLion, with a "B", tribalists?

I'd take the 5.8 million anybody over tribalists. Tribalists owe allegiance, first, to tribe. Doesn't matter what you do for them, you will always be second, or third, or fourth, or further down on their list. It's like sending flowers and candy and rings and necklaces to the head cheerleader who's dating the captain of the football team. She'll take your gifts, pat you on the head, and stab you in the back every chance she gets.

Because no matter what you do, you cannot be **their** "friend". They have a completely different worldview than we do. We considers friends those who will cooperate with us and treat us kindly. They consider as friends those who belong to the same tribe/clan/religion as they are.

We cannot belong to their club. They are, in fact, culturally behind us. We are nationalists. Nationalism transcends tribalism. They are tribalists. They need to grow up culturally first.

"The guy sums it up nicely, yet, it's never too late to change so that we do not go down."

The guy doesn't "sum" anything. He expounds in a baseless gripe. But your hope for us "not going down" is pointless. For even in his baseless gripe, he's got a few realities:

"A common fallacy of human beings is to imagine that what is will always be. The opposite is true. Change is a constant. Nothing ever remains the same. Every single day, the world shifts."

And the US will one day not be the pre-eminent world leader it is. And when it does eventually fall into historical irrelevance, it will almost surely be because of laziness and fatness.

World powers that are successful are those which actively expand, and part of expansion is promoting their friends and allies to the degree which they *are* friends and allies. This would include Israel.

At the point we start to rest on our laurels, claim "oh, we're the most powerful but we must not do anything to assert that power because it is **immoral**" is the date which we begin the long, [probably] slow entropic slide into irrelevance. At one stage of that slide, we decide that we are too lazy to do our own defence against the swarm of mosquitos [otherwise known as "those who cannot stand on their own"], and we subcontract to, oh, I dunno, Blackwater maybe, or South Korea, and we will ultimately die a "death of a thousand cuts" as the Chinese would call it.

We won't be conquered; no one is powerful enough. We'll be infiltrated and balkanize. These small groups of "terrorists" are inconsequential; not worth getting our dander up about, and certainly it becomes "immoral" to take them as if they mattered.

Don't take them on, they multiply.

Crack a history book. The barbarian tribes on the Roman border were always there. Always attacking Rome, too. It was only after Rome decided they couldn't/wouldn't keep kicking their asses that the barbarians actually succeeded.