Should America continue support of Israel?

[Hippostania]

When did I say Israeli's should be deported?

So you're okay with the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank..?

[Cosmopoles]

America's support for Israel should be used as leverage to work towards a peace deal with Palestine.

That has been working really well with the current Israeli government.

"Yo Bebe, stop building settlements, this makes you look like a cunt etc. and the Palestinians just will not chill"
"Yeah or maybe I could not do as you say, because what are you going to do?"
"We're going to put frowny faces after Israel, like "Israel :/" when we continue to block every single thing in the UNSC which condemns you but not the Palestinians and so on"
"Fuck well we'd best change our entire policy outlook, then"
":/"

Its not working because the US isn't trying to make it work.

[Chinese Regions]

When did I say Israeli's should be deported?

So you're okay with the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank..?

If those settlements were legal and negotiated then yes, but that's not the case they are destroying Palestinian homes and slowly expanding their territory.

[Paulmania]

This question should be, "Should America continue its costly, constant support of nations who never seem to return the favor?"

[Murray land]

How do I make a poll?

[EnragedMaldivians]

Turkey?

Has a long history of military coup d'etats and personality cults

Iraq? Egypt? Lebanon? Jordan?

None of those countries are democratic according to Democracy Index or Freedom House.

Furthermore, Ba'ath dictatorships are not Islamist, they are secular.

True, they were officially secular. Neverthess, most of them use at least some kind of sharia law.

Even at the cost of the West's interests? And the interests of the people of the Middle East?

The interests of the Israeli people are our interests; the West should stand together.

I don't agree with all of CM's examples (or at least have a wait and see attitude towards them) but I don't really see the issue with Turkey. The militaries' abilities to execute coup de'tats have been severely curtailed (and, which, despite what Edroganphobes might say, is a good thing). Furthermore I don't see what's all that different from the Americans idolizing the founding father's and Turkey's idolizing of Ataturk. They're not a perfect democracy but neither is Israel.

[South Asia Minor]

Just what the title says. They have fired on American military personnel twice in the past knowingly too. So what do you think NS?THIS IS NOT A RELIGION FORUM. It is strictly about America's support and whether or not you think it is a legitamate state. Once again not a religion forum do not start an argument about it.

No they shouldn't.

It's sadly a legitimate state, otherwise it wouldn't have a seat on the UN and all that trade n' shit, but it shouldn't be, in my own opinion, given the murky nature of its origin and its appauling, horrific, unforgivable behaviour as a legitimate state in the past fifty years.

[Conserative Morality]

Has a long history of military coup d'etats and personality cults

So does Italy, but few people question it's status as a liberal democracy.

None of those countries are democratic according to Democracy Index or Freedom House.

And...?

Following the news of a country and learning about the function of it's system is far more reliable than freedom indexes, which are sketchy at best.

True, they were officially secular. Neverthess, most of them use at least some kind of sharia law.

Not more than Western 'secular' democracies used to use Judeo-Christian laws.

The interests of the Israeli people are our interests; the West should stand together.

It's in the interest of the West to destablize the Middle East, allow a country to violate international law because of the race they claim to represent and tarnish our own reputation around the world?

What the fuck?

[Murray land]

This question should be, "Should America continue its costly, constant support of nations who never seem to return the favor?"

Hell no and if you are the real Ron Paul dude I was so rooting for you after Cain dropped out.

[Jewcrew]

There is no peace in the Middle East right now because the Palestinian Arabs have refused to make peace.

See the peace negotiations of 1948, 2000 and 2008. Compare to what Israel accepted in order to be recognized in 1948 and what was given away in exchange for peace with Egypt (energy independence, for one).

I will reiterate; important books to read to understand the conflict are 'Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict' (which is also available online for free, Google it) and 'Son of Hamas'.

[Chinese Regions]

How do I make a poll?

Scroll to the bottom of the edit page they have a poll creator.

[Norsklow]

When did I say Israeli's should be deported?

So you're okay with the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank..?

I'm not okay with a single Arab breathing the air in Africa.
So whatever hurts the Arab is OK by me.

from wikipedia

The influence of an ideology of Arab supremacy propagated by Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi began to be acted upon by Darfurians, including those identified as "Arab" and "African" people. A famine in the mid-1980s disrupted many societal structures and led to the first significant fighting amongst Darfuris. A low level conflict continued for the next 15 years, with the government co-opting and arming Arab Janjaweed militias against its enemies. The fighting reached a peak in 2003 with the beginning of the Darfur conflict, in which the resistance coalesced into a roughly cohesive rebel movement. The conflict soon came to be regarded as one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. The insurgency and counter-insurgency have led to 480,000 deaths, though the numbers are disputed by the Khartoum government. Over 2.8 million people have been displaced since the beginning of the conflict.

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

[Conserative Morality]

The risk is simply too much for me to be dismissive about it, distasteful as it may for the U.S to acqueiesce to what is essentially blackmail. Even if they are really just bluffing, there's the possibility of the Iranians taking the rhetoric seriously and them doing something stupid. But yeah, it does boil down to possible widespread harm vs the guarantee of continual low level harm; not an easy decision at all.

Yeah. *sigh*

Damn international politics. Why can't thinks ever be in black and white?

As for Pakistan, I think we'd have a similar discussion. I don't know which is your worse "ally" between the two (Pakistan and Israel).

I think Israel is worse for our image and for regional stability as we continue supporting them, but Pakistan is worse in terms of internal affairs currently and what would almost definitely happen if we stopped the support.

[Yewhohohopia]

Its not working because the US isn't trying to make it work.

Because there are many more interesting things going on in the world than "Israel still exists for now", and many more pliant audiences than Netenyahu et al.

[Conserative Morality]

There is no peace in the Middle East right now because the Palestinian Arabs have refused to make peace.

See the peace negotiations of 1948, 2000 and 2008. Compare to what Israel accepted in order to be recognized in 1948 and what was given away in exchange for peace with Egypt (energy independence, for one).

I will reiterate; important books to read to understand the conflict are 'Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict' (which is also available online for free, Google it) and 'Son of Hamas'.

Compare Israel's current size to the Jewish and Palestinian Mandate at it's creation.

[Divair]

This question should be, "Should America continue its costly, constant support of nations who never seem to return the favor?"

Hell no and if you are the real Ron Paul dude I was so rooting for you after Cain dropped out.

Yes, Ron Paul joined NS. Makes sense

[Divair]

So you're okay with the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank..?

I'm not okay with a single Arab breathing the air in Africa.
So whatever hurts the Arab is OK by me.

from wikipedia

The influence of an ideology of Arab supremacy propagated by Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi began to be acted upon by Darfurians, including those identified as "Arab" and "African" people. A famine in the mid-1980s disrupted many societal structures and led to the first significant fighting amongst Darfuris. A low level conflict continued for the next 15 years, with the government co-opting and arming Arab Janjaweed militias against its enemies. The fighting reached a peak in 2003 with the beginning of the Darfur conflict, in which the resistance coalesced into a roughly cohesive rebel movement. The conflict soon came to be regarded as one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. The insurgency and counter-insurgency have led to 480,000 deaths, though the numbers are disputed by the Khartoum government. Over 2.8 million people have been displaced since the beginning of the conflict.

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

At least you admit you're racist.

[Jewcrew]

There is no peace in the Middle East right now because the Palestinian Arabs have refused to make peace.

See the peace negotiations of 1948, 2000 and 2008. Compare to what Israel accepted in order to be recognized in 1948 and what was given away in exchange for peace with Egypt (energy independence, for one).

I will reiterate; important books to read to understand the conflict are 'Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict' (which is also available online for free, Google it) and 'Son of Hamas'.

Compare Israel's current size to the Jewish and Palestinian Mandate at it's creation.

You mean smaller? Because the original mandate included modern day Jordan.

If the Arabs hadn't started wars in 1948 and 1967, Israel would be far smaller, and there (might) be peace. But the Arabs did start those wars, so your point is moot.

[Murray land]

Hell no and if you are the real Ron Paul dude I was so rooting for you after Cain dropped out.

Yes, Ron Paul joined NS. Makes sense

Hey ,hey, hey! HE hasn't said if he is the real Ron Paul or not.

[Divair]

Yes, Ron Paul joined NS. Makes sense

Hey ,hey, hey! HE hasn't said if he is the real Ron Paul or not.

Ron Paul probably wouldn't even understand how to use a forum, let alone waste his time on this site.

[Jewcrew]

Hey ,hey, hey! HE hasn't said if he is the real Ron Paul or not.

Ron Paul probably wouldn't even understand how to use a forum, let alone waste his time on this site.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Compare Israel's current size to the Jewish and Palestinian Mandate at it's creation.

You mean smaller? Because the original mandate included modern day Jordan.

If the Arabs hadn't started wars in 1948 and 1967, Israel would be far smaller, and there (might) be peace. But the Arabs did start those wars, so your point is moot.

The Arab states have their share of the blame to be accountable for and so does Hamas et al but tell me, right now, who's building those damn settlelments despite the rest of the fucking world pleading with them to put a stop to it?

[Divair]

You mean smaller? Because the original mandate included modern day Jordan.

If the Arabs hadn't started wars in 1948 and 1967, Israel would be far smaller, and there (might) be peace. But the Arabs did start those wars, so your point is moot.

The Arab states have their share of the blame to be accountable for and so does Hamas et al but tell me, right now, who's building those damn settlelments despite the rest of the fucking world pleading with them to put a stop to it?

"yea, but... might is right, so huh!"

I've lived here for 14 years. It's the same debate every time.

[Silent Majority]

Compare Israel's current size to the Jewish and Palestinian Mandate at it's creation.

You mean smaller? Because the original mandate included modern day Jordan.

If the Arabs hadn't started wars in 1948 and 1967, Israel would be far smaller, and there (might) be peace. But the Arabs did start those wars, so your point is moot.

That still doesn't justify illegally settling in the west bank.

[Conserative Morality]

You mean smaller? Because the original mandate included modern day Jordan.

If the Arabs hadn't started wars in 1948 and 1967, Israel would be far smaller, and there (might) be peace. But the Arabs did start those wars, so your point is moot.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg

When Japan attacked the US, did that give us the right to annex parts of Japan?

When Israel attacked Egypt in the six-day war, did that give Egypt the right to annex Israel if they lost?