Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here, you totally absolve Israel for any part in decreasing American support? When a nation sets itself against the United Nations and various international statutes with respect to the Palestinian policy is it not unreasonable to expect there will be some sort of pushback?
There are at least three good reasons to oppose the current Israeli Palestinian policies: (1) continued inflammation of world conflict (2) humanism (negative impact on Palestinians) (3) long-term negative impact on Israel itself.
Just to give some context on this: Palestinians also have the highest standard of living compared to other Arabs in the region (discounting the oil-rich Saudis of course). And they are certainly granted the most freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom to publish and read books, freedom to criticize the government, etc. that none of the other Arabs get.
Quote:
Make no mistake. These "policies" are more than easily reversed legislation. They are impacting how Israel is viewed worldwide. I really had not kept up with the settlement status until these threads started. So I read up. Any hope of a two-state solution appears to now be dead. No Israeli politician will try to pull back the now-extensive settlements. I'm not sure they could if they wanted to.
So, what next?
I think the long term strategy of people such as Netanyahu changed after the events of the '73 war:
They recognized that they can't give up control over the West Bank or Golan Heights for security reasons - the natural defensive line is indeed the Sea of Galilee-Jordan river- Dead Sea and the artificial Purple line got cracked fairly easily in the war by the Syrians, and cannot be realistically maintained even with minefields, and the heights themselves are too good a position for enemy artillery as it is in range of not only civilian Israeli cities, but also Israeli military logistics centers. The whole thing was much too closely run, and Israelis almost lost the war. IF Jordanians were actually serious about attacking from the West Bank, Israelis would be forced to use nukes in the last ditch effort, which they didn't want to do for obvious reasons. Jordanians of course informed Israelis that they were just sending a token force to appease other Arabs and are not actually serious about the invasion. Those days in the beginning of October were extremely volatile, with the US practically forced to commit to operation Nickel Grass, knowing full well about the oil embargo.
As a result, they decided that the best course of action is, instead of the original two state solution, they can't give up the full territory of the West Bank, but Gaza represents no strategic value. So they ceded Gaza to Palestinians and gave them full control over that territory. The long term strategy in the West Bank is full annexation once the Arab Palestinians represent less than 30% of the total Israeli population.
I didn't give Any reasons why I see less support for Israel in the future in the U.S.. Nor did I express support or opposition to any specific Israel policy. I certainly didn't absolve Israel policy for decreasing American support.
Let me take a look: "Today. Imo. the trend for a number of reasons will be for less support for Israel in the U.S., rising ant-Semitism here, and increased international influence of anti-Israel Islam. imo, Jews who want to spend time living in Israel shouldn't wait too long and other supporters of Israel as a Jewish nation are on the losing side of the future."
Okay ... each phrase stands alone, and you did not mean the second and third to modify or explain "why" there would be less US support for Israel. The less support is not just due to rising US anti-Semitism and the increased international influence of Islam. There are other reasons (a "number" of them). That's a fair assessment. And it's how the sentence punctuation works.
Just to give some context on this: Palestinians also have the highest standard of living compared to other Arabs in the region (discounting the oil-rich Saudis of course). And they are certainly granted the most freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom to publish and read books, freedom to criticize the government, etc. that none of the other Arabs get.
True, from my impression. It's also my impression that the above may have led to a fair amount of within-region (West Bank) stability. Many if not most Palestinians no doubt had some awareness they would have had a higher standard of living in the West Bank. Some freedoms depending on the final political arrangement may have been lost, but others gained. Religious-identification does not always dictate action. If anything, it wouldn't surprise me that most would prefer Israeli citizenship (unobtainable for most) to other arrangements.
There would always be some discontent, of course, with some degree of a security threat whatever the final defense agreements. That would have been unavoidable most probably, yet another of the many prices to be paid. Here, I'm deliberately writing in the past tense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz
I think the long term strategy of people such as Netanyahu changed after the events of the '73 war:
They recognized that they can't give up control over the West Bank or Golan Heights for security reasons - the natural defensive line is indeed the Sea of Galilee-Jordan river- Dead Sea and the artificial Purple line got cracked fairly easily in the war by the Syrians, and cannot be realistically maintained even with minefields, and the heights themselves are too good a position for enemy artillery as it is in range of not only civilian Israeli cities, but also Israeli military logistics centers. The whole thing was much too closely run, and Israelis almost lost the war. IF Jordanians were actually serious about attacking from the West Bank, Israelis would be forced to use nukes in the last ditch effort, which they didn't want to do for obvious reasons. Jordanians of course informed Israelis that they were just sending a token force to appease other Arabs and are not actually serious about the invasion.
As a result, they decided that the best course of action is, instead of the original two state solution, they can't give up the full territory of the West Bank, but Gaza represents no strategic value. So they ceded Gaza to Palestinians and gave them full control over that territory. The long term strategy in the West Bank is full annexation once the Arab Palestinians represent less than 30% of the total Israeli population.
There's no way that I could - or would - form an opinion on optimal Israeli-security (beyond what was contested or questioned by well-informed participants). No one - even those who "oppose" Israel, for its actions past, present, or future - would want to see a destabilized Israeli state.
Since there's no point in reading a thread or spouting an opinion without spending a minimum amount of time to figure out the current status ... I did plow thru several articles. The move does now appear to be towards annexation. We've (or rather Israel) probably has left behind the two-state solution. Lord knows what the "Trump plan" will be.
And I have seen the arguments over the demographic data with those Israelis who want to maintain the democracy hoping for a lower but sustainable future percentage of Arab Palestinians who will be citizens. While that's probably the new-best-hope, the numbers now appear to be about 50-50 (tho those figures almost certainly include Gaza, which numerically has to be excluded). Parties who want to only annex a portion of the West Bank appear, however, to be gaining power.
It's quite a gamble, with Netanyahu all over the place.
I dont think that this is analogous. Orthodox Jews, like the Irish Catholics of the past, have a lot of kids, and I dont think people would be upset if The Simpsons had a joke about that.
It’s a lot different than a parade float with caricatures fomenting a stereotype that has a history of hate on a mass scale.
Or just the group 4. Anyone who says anything critical about anything Israel or any Jew has ever done is an anti-Semite.
There's lots of variations on that but it's particularly strong in that case. Generally it's treated as a fairly ridiculous opinion to hold. I'm not Anti-American simply because I disagree with the internment of the Japanese in WW2.
Thanks - another person who self declares for group 3.
For the thread record, pknopp invariably comments on threads about Syria. His/her positions are consistent when it comes to foreign interventions. As for the bold,
That the US puts ourselves into conflicts that could arguably involve Israel is, in the end, an American determination. We may well criticize US policy. We may well pay more attention to Israeli policies than we would otherwise, with little interest in Country D.
That Israel may be supported by statistically more American Jews than non-Jews is largely irrelevant. US corporate interests advocate for US involvement in various parts of the world. We send jobs overseas. New immigrants may support, say, the continuation of chain migration. Seniors advocate for one set of economic policies; those in economic distress another.
In the larger sense, most advocate for policies that are to their benefit. What we can demand is that individuals follow the law. And then hope for greater tolerance and mutual understanding that admittedly are in short supply these days.
If we do not want to live in some plain vanilla homogenized nation - and I for one, do not - then we have to accept that other Americans may well have needs or interests or even, yes, "loyalties" that are not our own. These factors may well impact their votes, and that's part of being in a Democracy.
In return, when a group DOES largely advocate for or is associated with a cause as many American Jews are with Israel then it is almost inevitable that some of the pushback against Israel may be heard - or even expressed, especially if badly said - as against "Jews" for certainly it is against the policy/country that's become associated with them. We see this all the time with various groupings.
American Jews cannot directly control what Israel does. Many no doubt may be as uncomfortable with some Israeli policies as that "average American." That some may be reluctant to vocalize their thoughts on a forum like this is not a surprise.
If someone wants to vote for a politician that promises more aid to Israel (or any country as far as that goes) that is their right. I was simply trying to help explain why some point out that some people's loyalties lie elsewhere. You are correct that in a country such as ours, you are permitted to do that.
Based on the 69 pages of comments, we can only conclude that there are 3 types of posters in this thread:
1. Those that do not hate Jews, and support Israel.
2. Those that admit hating Jews
3. Those that deny hating Jews, but condemn everything Israel and Jews do, thereby exposing their hatred.
I dont think that this is analogous. Orthodox Jews, like the Irish Catholics of the past, have a lot of kids, and I dont think people would be upset if The Simpsons had a joke about that.
It’s a lot different than a parade float with caricatures fomenting a stereotype that has a history of hate on a mass scale.
The hate for the money changers is growing all around. Jews are not going to be exempt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
