Natanyahu Lowers the Boom

[Brant Gaede]

And btw , its not "statist rhetoric" , its a fact . I simply cut and pasted a factual comment to show you something rather than some dude who had a recollection of life as a boy and about a rabbi showing maps ? I thought on an Objectivist website , someone as respected as you would enjoy facts . I also did not say I love or hate the UN , although I despise them . Lastly we are not talking about the US confiscating my land either . I really enjoy reading you over the years although usually I do not comment much . You know your stuff , no doubt . On this issue though , you are absolutely in need of more facts .

I don't post on OL or other lists nearly as much as I used so, so I had nearly forgotten how moronic some posters can be.

Ghs

Curious if you mean I am among the "moronic" posters or if you mean the ones who are making up facts and re writing history ? Just to clarify please ? Need I actually explain to you how on a site that is about Objectivism , even when we are not discussing Rand , her ideas and her great value in our world - we really must still be Objective . Now , if Israel and the history of Israel and the history of Jews for 5000 years trying to go home to Jerusalem is not your thing , then sit down and read and learn . I have read your amazing posts for years and will always . They are brilliant , you are brilliant . On this topic though sir , respectfully you are incorrect and calling me a moron does not make you right . Playing word games also will not change history . For 5000+ years we have been chanting " Next year in Jerusalem " . Five thousand years .

I am giving you some homework sir , Research how many times Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem are each mentioned in the Koran .

The real problem in Israel is not the "Palestinians" , not the 22 Arab nations trying to and praying and killing their own babies to destroy Israel , not the media , not the 5th pillar ,not even people like our banned friend . Her , I respect because she believes what she is saying , and she knows exactly why she is saying it . I would have loved to debate her . The reason is Israels weak leaders . Arabs respect strength , not weakness .

Saying you're being moronic on a subject is not calling you a moron. You haven't been chanting anything for 5000 years, nor has anyone else, only affirming a collectivistic, tribal identity quite useful for shedding blood and being irrational. The more you've talked about Israel here--and Jews--the more irrational you have become, now unto a fulminating frenzy of an "objective" rant you are purblind to. This does make for good soldiering as long as those who give you your orders aren't nuts in how they use you.

You are illustrating another reason for U.S. aid, influence and some serious control respecting what Israel does--keeping people like you out of the geo-political kitchen.

--Brant

[moralist]

I remember Jesse Helms who called Israel " Americas aircraft carrier in the ME " . Folks , and Nations have mutual benefits when dealing with each other . Altruism ? Does the United States "help" Israel , or do they have mutual interests ?

Shared self interest... obvious to some while obscure to others.

And while some reference the relation"ship" as a pejorative collusion... to others it is virtuous benign goodwill.

This is the moral acid test of Israel. It separates the wheat from the chaff. You can see that world wide process unfolding on a microcosmic scale right here in this thread as each of us expresses our own personal choice of one of two antithetical views.

Yeah they have shared moral values , and also shared business relations .

Yes. And I can add that there can be no business relations without shared moral values... heck, or even without shared immoral values, too!

By the way , the 3 or 4 billion that the US gives Israel as George Tenet stated in his book years ago , saves the US 10x what they give . Now , I am going to take the word of a former CIA director but everyone gets their own choice what to believe.

Now in that deal , the Israelis must spend three quarters of that must be spent buying American goods and services- which is cool . Just making this seem like its totally altruistic really irks me .

Well, this is a setting where Objectivists come to visit, and where altruism by default has a negative connotation. So it's only natural for some here to attempt to cast the relationship between the US and Israel in a negative light.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Israel is going to deal with its problems one way or the other. The closer Israel is to the United States the weaker it is as a soverign nation. Every once in a while the U.S. will bring intolerable pressure to bear forcing Israel to act against its own perceived interests. This is not altruism on the part of the U.S.--the providing of aid and support in various forms; that aid is used to make Israel toe the line--it is altruism for Israel to accept it. Doing that also subsidizes its socialism. Here we can posit two kinds of altuism, subjective and objective. Taking the aid seems selfish to the taker, but that's welfare which is generally eviscerating--which is the objective evaluation.

The main reason the U.S. needs the basic status quo current relationship with Israel is to keep Israel from letting fly with its nuclear weapons by being a big brother obviating any perceived need to do so. Nuclear prolifferation has two aspects: the obtaining of these weapons and their use. Use in turn has two aspects: I've got the bomb so don't screw with me and literal use or delivery and detonation. The latter has only happened twice, ending WWII. If it happens again it will be a whole new geo-political world with just about any city, near an ocean at least, at risk, both real and psychologically to its inhabitants. The idea behind keeping Iran from getting the bomb is to protect cities. There is only one city in Israel the destruction of which destroys the country by ripping out its urban heart. The U.S, cannot be destroyed by blowing up any one city; there are too many of them. Aside from blowing up many of its cities, the way to its destruction is its electrical grid with a giant electomagnetic pulse (EMP) over its midwest heartland which cannot be repaired in time to prevent most of the population from starving to death. Cars and trucks won't run. Deliveries won't be made. Water won't flow. In fact, many people will die from dehydratrion before they starve. The former takes only days while the latter takes weeks.

--Brant

why living in a poor, third world country could be long-term safer than a modern, industrialized one

If a key goal is to prevent a terror attack on a U.S. city, how does having what Marc and Jesse Helms call an "aircraft carrier in the ME" help?

[Brant Gaede]

If a key goal is to prevent a terror attack on a U.S. city, how does having what Marc and Jesse Helms call an "aircraft carrier in the ME" help?

Israel is not an aircraft carrier or air base for the United States. If American planes are stationed on Israeli soil under American control then that'd be true. That was the case for Great Britain in WWII, in spades.

--Brant

[Frediano]

I finally watched that video.

Fantastic.

The Arab populations were able to increase because of the technological and farming advances of Jews. That's a hell of a way to commit genocide...

Michael

Fine, but let's not forget how some of that land was acquired. I doubt if anyone on this list would be satisfied if, after having their land confiscated, were assured that the confiscators would make much better use of it than they, the legitimate owners, did. From a Quaker peace outfit:

During 1947 and 1948, Israel systematically demolished 531 Palestinian villages inside the

area that became Israel. More than 200 of these villages were destroyed, and between 250,000

and 350,000 people were displaced before May 1948 when the first Arab-Israeli war officially

began. Ultimately, approximately 750,000 Palestinians were displaced in 1948 as a result

of the war and the systematic demolition of Palestinian towns and villages. In 1967 Israel

took over the West Bank and Gaza, displacing even more Palestinians. These peoples rights

to compensation and return were never fulfilled, and they and their descendants remain

refugees today.5

http://www.afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Forced%20Displacement_v2.pdf

Ghs

"During 1947 and 1948" was -long- after the local events that resulted in the defensive state of Israel.

The George Gilder video describes some of this, and (conveniently ignored)history describes the rest.

The Turks/failed Ottoman Empire and its 700+ years of colonization of the land rimming the Med. came to abrupt halt when they sided with Germany in WW1 and lost a WW. Ataturk saw the handwriting on the wall and led Turkey into modernity, but the former O.E. colonies were left in the turmoil of a vaccuum; a war weary West divided the vacuum up into 'mandates', tried to redraw the maps, and unconquered dark agers in the deserts never got the message that the rest of the world wanted to peacefully get on with the party called 'modernity.'

So look at the history of Jews settling in America vs. those settling in B.M. Palestine during the early part of the 20th century. Did all the reasonable Jews come to the US, and all the Arab baby eaters settle in BM Palestine? The difference was, the sensibilities they were met with from the majority population they tried to settle in. In the US, KKK sensibilities are suppressed. In BM Palestine, KKK sensibilities were institutionalized in the local governing entities, such as the Jerusalem High Muslim Council, of which Arafat's Uncle Nazi -- The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Hussein

Yes, lets not forget how that land was acquired, in the words of Arafat's Uncle Nazi.

A copy of his testimony (with added comments in blue) is here http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/1937.htm but basically, his complaint in 1937, referring back to the 20's, was -still- that 'Too many Jews are buying land in the 'hood.'

In the US, emigrating Jews lived alongside of Arabs, Germans...even the Welsh for chrissakes... and peacefully built synagogues, started businesses, became teachers and doctors and lawyers without anyone bombing children.

In BM Palestine, the majority met them with the Hebron Massacre in 1929.

To flash ahead to '1947-1948' -- in the immediate aftermath of WWII and the evidence of a world gone mad, with gas chambers and institutionalized hatred aimed at the Jews-- and focus only on the defensive response which was the State of Israel -- is complete nonsense. By then the Jews realized -- exactly like today with all the rampant spineless gesture politics loose in the world -- that they are on their own, nobody in this world is going to lift a finger when the local KKK dark agers wage their S4B war of petty jealousy and envy, and if they are going to exist anywhere in peace in this world, they need to defend that right.

S4Bs launch rockets into Israel, Israel responds with a remarkably restrained hand. Enough already, the dark agers are not evolving, and the moderates are doing nothing to clean out their own swamps. Like all conflicts, the humane thing to do is -end it.- In this case, only one way to do that. The ';Third Way' has totally failed. Remove the remarkable restraint, and roll.

[moralist]

Israel is going to deal with its problems one way or the other. The closer Israel is to the United States the weaker it is as a sovereign nation.

It is that closeness which produced Iron Dome. Does that make Israel weaker or stronger as a sovereign nation?

Aside from blowing up many of its cities, the way to its destruction is its electrical grid with a giant electromagnetic pulse (EMP) over its midwest heartland which cannot be repaired in time to prevent most of the population from starving to death. Cars and trucks won't run. Deliveries won't be made. Water won't flow. In fact, many people will die from dehydratrion before they starve. The former takes only days while the latter takes weeks.

Too bad Reagan wasn't able to build his Star Wars missile defense system. He was a visionary who was way ahead of his time. The US should take the cue from Israel who is demonstrating the preventative value of defense in real time.

why living in a poor, third world country could be long-term safer than a modern, industrialized one

The real solution is to live as if you are in a third world country while in a modern industrialized one...

...this robs Black Swan events of their power over your life.

Greg

[Frediano]

These peoples rights to compensation and return were never fulfilled, and they and their descendants remain
refugees today.

Losing a war of aggression has consequences for the losing aggressors and those aligned with them. As will losing the next one. And the next one.

How many times are dark ager S4Bs going to attack Israel and get their head handed to them before they modern up?

Now the dark agers are flying cheap UAVs cobbled together at Radio Shack. This is exactly what they need to do; enter a modern battlefield wielding beacons of 'come get me' to bring on the Magic Jini Make Boom.

[Brant Gaede]

If Israel were truly on its own it would immediately find ways not to be on its own using various types of stratagems and leverage. It's mostly on its own respecting Europe, which is only a loss to Israel if it lets it be. Israel is loved to be hated by its haters. They know subconsciously at least that if it were gone so would most of their reason for being around and about. They could and would compensate by ramping up their hatred for each other above and beyond what they are already doing like that silly, deadly little group in Iraq begging to have its head cut off.

--Brant

[Frediano]

If a key goal is to prevent a terror attack on a U.S. city, how does having what Marc and Jesse Helms call an "aircraft carrier in the ME" help?

Israel is not an aircraft carrier or air base for the United States. If American planes are stationed on Israeli soil under American control then that'd be true. That was the case for Great Britain in WWII, in spades.

--Brant

For sure. No need at all. The US has fighter jets stationed in Jordan on Jordanian soil under US control, much less, Israel, and has for years. The number waxes and wanes based on current tensions. Since at least the 90s for sure, and probably since the 80s.. I've talked with warrant officers stationed at those bases, grumbling to me about spare parts for US F16s. The US F16s based in Jordan are among the world's worst kept secrets. By design. They do no good if nobody knows they are there. It is only domestically that they are some kind of half-assed national secret. Most of America thinks we were just in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is an expensive 8 lane logistic paved highway from Ike's MIC straight into the ME and has been for years.

The US has bases in some number like 15 M.E. countries.

The US wouldn't need a base in Isreal; they have their own crowded bases.

How many Israelis in uniform in Israel? They don't need a US base in Israel; their bases are crowded already. They got an area the size of NJ covered quite well, as allies.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You haven't been chanting anything for 5000 years, nor has anyone else, only affirming a collectivistic, tribal identity...

Brant,

That's not just a slogan for an ad hoc collective or tribe.

That's a core story for an entire culture.

Jews used to be scattered all over the world. I have trouble equating that in my mind to a tribe. It's bigger.

Core stories are the glue that binds cultures together, even in O-Land. We certainly have our own core stories.

I'm not saying whether the different core stories are true or not. Not even whether the people who adhere to them believe them to be factually accurate. But core stories are, in essence, the underlying structures defining the identity of cultures and they are highly effective for that.

Let me give you an example of what a core story means to us here in O-Land, as opposed to someone artsy-fartsy from the outside. It deals with The Fountainhead. In France, in a place called Avignon, they have an annual theater festival. This year they are featuring a modernistic play version of The Fountainhead. See the review here:

The Fountainhead review – Ivo van Hove's smouldering take on Ayn Rand

Avignon festival

This mammoth production of the neocon classic shifts the focus to its enthralling and predatory femme fatale

by Andrew Todd

16 July 2014

The Guardian

From the article:

Yet most of the four-and-a-half-hour show consists of intimate scenes involving two or three people. Rand's novel is a love-square in which femme fatale Dominique Francon serially (and destructively) tests the mettle of architects Peter Keating and Howard Roark, along with imperious media magnate Gail Wynand, who veers from misanthropy to idealism.

Roark – played with smouldering understatement by Ramsey Nasr – is often at the drawing board, seen on the video screen sketching his designs (Renzo Piano's Shard and Louis Kahn's Trenton Bath House make guest appearances as his masterpieces). He is more Melville's Bartleby than the proto-Don Draper incarnated by Gary Cooper in King Vidor's 1949 film version.

Halina Reijn's superb Francon is the beating heart of the story (a shift from Rand's Roark-centred text). Predatory, loving, enthralling, indecently carnal, she violently couples with Roark in the dark, shown on the video screen in night vision, like rutting rhinos filmed by David Attenborough. Her complicity in Roark's final act of terrorism, dynamiting his compromised Cortland housing project, becomes their biggest S&M exploit, leaving her writhing postcoitally in a pool of her own blood, Nasr's exquisite real-time drawings shredded around her in a deafening, apocalyptic orgasm.

I think this is Dominique Francon and Howard Roark in the production:

Do you know anyone in O-Land who is going to resonate with that as anything to do with what Rand was about?

I sure don't.

Yet the pieces are all there like the parts of a Frankenstein monster's body.

On a core story level, they got the story wrong. To me it's simple. I have been living with the true core story most of my life as have others. Rand's rough sex was animalistic, not suicidal and neurotic S&M. More importantly, her rough sex was an add-on to her archetypes, not the motor driving them.

I resonate--and resonate deeply--with the core story as Rand intended it and, hell, I'm not even into rough sex. Never was. Based on the review, there is nothing in that play I ever could resonate with except to see it as boneheaded. (Like when some artsy-fartsy "artists" seeking profundity staged Wagner's Ring one year without scenery and costumes.) I'm practically sure you understand me, too. I don't think the people behind that production would or could.

Does that mean we are both "affirming a collectivistic, tribal identity" by sharing that understanding?

Or does that mean we both have carried the same story in our heads and hearts for decades?

That's the same mental area where I see the story of the homeless wandering Jews clamoring for 5,000 years. This is a powerful archetype that has helped unite a culture over centuries among people scattered throughout the entire earth--much stronger than a simple tribal hunting story.

This is cultural identity, not collectivism. There is no appeal to self-sacrifice for the collective as the highest good.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I don't object to core stories as long as they don't distort rationality in foreign relations or understanding what is really going on in the world. I can see value for Jews in these stories even if today's Jews are not the actual, literal descendants from the Jews of the ancient diaspora caused by the Romans. What happened to them?

I have to say you've drained all the blood out of the idea of "tribe" or "tribal" to re-enforce your thesis. You basic point is valid, but you kept on going after making it obscuring it in turn.

As for that play in France, I can only evaluate it through your eyes and I choose not to. That doesn't mean I'm objecting to what you said, for it's well worth keeping in mind. And I'd never have even heard of it if you hadn't told us about it. I do wonder about the legalities and permissions behind the production.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You basic point is valid...

I think I'm going to frame this.

[anthony]

I think I didn't give MSK's "core story"-"narrative" idea enough credit when he first came out with it. It's getting clearer that it has increasing influence around and about, especially locally. The reason is (I'm sure) that it saves one a hell of a lot of data-finding, truth validation, thinking, self-responsibility, the pain of changing a mindset, and the courage of holding unpopular opinions. It admits one to the 'mass opinion', and grants one immediate authority and acceptance. When Israel was the 'David' and all its Arab enemies the 'Goliath' (to the West) for a short period in time, Israelis should have been most suspicious of the monikers. Sure enough, down the line, the roles reversed. That's what the West wants in some number: an easy explanation and a kind of morality they can grasp at no risk, while proclaiming their compassion and disgust for all to hear.

Well, the Left. Europeans, bored girls in particular, who perceived how sexy those Palestinian freedom fighters were, climbed aboard the train, and established a fashion statement for the next few generations. More core stories.The same who preached love, not war - who, in the New Progressivism still view love as the opposite to hatred. It's not. They're too closely related -- the opposite of both is indifference. Wonderful, pure, indifference. You carry on your life, and I'll continue mine, at a distance. Then perhaps they can have peace - maybe later do business - maybe get to know each other, and who knows, start respecting (and here and there, loving) one another. Self interest and rationality ( by people who might not even need to know of objectivism). ;)

[Brant Gaede]

You basic point is valid...

I think I'm going to frame this.

Yes, you can use it for a lot of things--like hope!

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Let me give you an example of what a core story means to us here in O-Land, as opposed to someone artsy-fartsy from the outside. It deals with The Fountainhead. In France, in a place called Avignon, they have an annual theater festival. This year they are featuring a modernistic play version of The Fountainhead.

[...]

Do you know anyone in O-Land who is going to resonate with that as anything to do with what Rand was about?

I sure don't.

[...]

On a core story level, they got the story wrong. To me it's simple. I have been living with the true core story most of my life as have others. Rand's rough sex was animalistic, not suicidal and neurotic S&M. More importantly, her rough sex was an add-on to her archetypes, not the motor driving them.

The director is quoted at the production site:

Ivo van Hove: ‘When I first read the novel the characters gripped me, each and every one of them humans of fles hand blood, and at the same time they are larger than life. They are symbols for ideas of grandeur: There’s the brilliant architect Howard Roark who follows his own ideals and dreams of a new world, a city of tomorrow. And then there’s Peter Keating, his colleague who constantly compromises and adapts his designs to fit the market’s demands. The battle between Roark and his adversaries is bloodcurdlingly well written. To me, The Fountainhead is a war of ideas. The great question the book poses: What is creation? WHat does it mean to create? And what is integrity in the process of creating? The novel is set in the milieu of architects in Twenties New York, where the battle between modernism and classicism raged, but even today its questioning of creation is one that plays in our minds: The balance between the commercial and the innovative, the market and pure expression. Rand uses the architect’s world as a metaphore to discuss art, engagement, individualism and autonomy. But The Fountainhead is also a love story that tinkers at the edges of decency. A relentless love develops between Howard Roark and Domonique Francon, that shows the hardships of giving yourself wholly to another while maintaining your own integrity. At a certain point Roark states: ‘I could die for you, but I couldn’t and wouldn’t live for you.’ It is an engaging, addictive novel that was begging to be staged.'

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a writer and a philosopher. After fleeing the Soviet Union to the United States, Rand set herself resolutely against socialism and all forms of altruism. She believed in the ultimate freedom of the individual. Her books and notions are inspirational, provocative and became cult treasures with millions of editions. Her other great novel Atlas Shrugged, and ode to capitalism, is the most popular book in the United States after the Bible, and it was thé source of inspiration for the Republican Party during the elections.

[...]

THE FOUNTAINHEAD BY AYN RAND. USED BY PERMISSION OF CURTIS BROWN LTD. COPYRIGHT © 1943. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

[PDS]

A very interesting discussion going on with this thread here at OL.

I wish I had more time right now to truly absorb everybody's points.

Good to see Ghs taking his old boxing gloves off of the hook they have been hanging on, too.

[Marc]

Israel is going to deal with its problems one way or the other. The closer Israel is to the United States the weaker it is as a soverign nation. Every once in a while the U.S. will bring intolerable pressure to bear forcing Israel to act against its own perceived interests. This is not altruism on the part of the U.S.--the providing of aid and support in various forms; that aid is used to make Israel toe the line--it is altruism for Israel to accept it. Doing that also subsidizes its socialism. Here we can posit two kinds of altuism, subjective and objective. Taking the aid seems selfish to the taker, but that's welfare which is generally eviscerating--which is the objective evaluation.

The main reason the U.S. needs the basic status quo current relationship with Israel is to keep Israel from letting fly with its nuclear weapons by being a big brother obviating any perceived need to do so. Nuclear prolifferation has two aspects: the obtaining of these weapons and their use. The latter in turn has two aspects: I've got the bomb so don't screw with me and literal use or delivery and detonation. The latter in turn has only happened twice, ending WWII. If it happens again it will be a whole new geo-political world with just about any city, near an ocean at least, at risk, both real and psychologically to its inhabitants. The idea behind keeping Iran from getting the bomb is to protect cities. There is only one city in Israel the destruction of which destroys the country by ripping out its urban heart. The U.S, cannot be destroyed by blowing up any one city; there are too many of them. Aside from blowing up many of its cities, the way to its destruction is its electrical grid with a giant electomagnetic pulse (EMP) over its midwest heartland which cannot be repaired in time to prevent most of the population from starving to death. Cars and trucks won't run. Deliveries won't be made. Water won't flow. In fact, many people will die from dehydratrion before they starve. The former takes only days while the latter takes weeks.

--Brant

why living in a poor, third world country could be long-term safer than a modern, industrialized one

Toe the line ? Israel does not need to toe the line . Jewish blood is not that cheap . Why can a Jew nor an Israeli fight back ? During 911 , thank God we had a strong President in the White House who fought back . Thank God for President Bush in those times , God knows what Obama could have done/not done .Thank God Ronald Reagan fought back and warned Iran of what he would do . Iran respected President Reagan . If someone told you that the US should have shown restraint for 4000 dead bodies , would you preach the same slogan ? If someone "gave " the US 4 billion , do they then have the right to say " die " ? No , Israel does not need the United States to keep them from using a nuclear weapon for God sake ! Israel needs a nuclear weapon ( which by the way , they needed to trick the world to even obtain ) in order to keep themselves from being destroyed . They need planes and bullets too .

[Marc]

And btw , its not "statist rhetoric" , its a fact . I simply cut and pasted a factual comment to show you something rather than some dude who had a recollection of life as a boy and about a rabbi showing maps ? I thought on an Objectivist website , someone as respected as you would enjoy facts . I also did not say I love or hate the UN , although I despise them . Lastly we are not talking about the US confiscating my land either . I really enjoy reading you over the years although usually I do not comment much . You know your stuff , no doubt . On this issue though , you are absolutely in need of more facts .

I don't post on OL or other lists nearly as much as I used so, so I had nearly forgotten how moronic some posters can be.

Ghs

Curious if you mean I am among the "moronic" posters or if you mean the ones who are making up facts and re writing history ? Just to clarify please ? Need I actually explain to you how on a site that is about Objectivism , even when we are not discussing Rand , her ideas and her great value in our world - we really must still be Objective . Now , if Israel and the history of Israel and the history of Jews for 5000 years trying to go home to Jerusalem is not your thing , then sit down and read and learn . I have read your amazing posts for years and will always . They are brilliant , you are brilliant . On this topic though sir , respectfully you are incorrect and calling me a moron does not make you right . Playing word games also will not change history . For 5000+ years we have been chanting " Next year in Jerusalem " . Five thousand years .

I am giving you some homework sir , Research how many times Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem are each mentioned in the Koran .

The real problem in Israel is not the "Palestinians" , not the 22 Arab nations trying to and praying and killing their own babies to destroy Israel , not the media , not the 5th pillar ,not even people like our banned friend . Her , I respect because she believes what she is saying , and she knows exactly why she is saying it . I would have loved to debate her . The reason is Israels weak leaders . Arabs respect strength , not weakness .

Saying you're being moronic on a subject is not calling you a moron. You haven't been chanting anything for 5000 years, nor has anyone else, only affirming a collectivistic, tribal identity quite useful for shedding blood and being irrational. The more you've talked about Israel here--and Jews--the more irrational you have become, now unto a fulminating frenzy of an "objective" rant you are purblind to. This does make for good soldiering as long as those who give you your orders aren't nuts in how they use you.

You are illustrating another reason for U.S. aid, influence and some serious control respecting what Israel does--keeping people like you out of the geo-political kitchen.

--Brant

He did not state I was being moronic on a subject , he said - and I quote "so I had nearly forgotten how moronic some posters can be". Unlike you my friend , no one gives me orders .

[Marc]

Israel is going to deal with its problems one way or the other. The closer Israel is to the United States the weaker it is as a soverign nation. Every once in a while the U.S. will bring intolerable pressure to bear forcing Israel to act against its own perceived interests. This is not altruism on the part of the U.S.--the providing of aid and support in various forms; that aid is used to make Israel toe the line--it is altruism for Israel to accept it. Doing that also subsidizes its socialism. Here we can posit two kinds of altuism, subjective and objective. Taking the aid seems selfish to the taker, but that's welfare which is generally eviscerating--which is the objective evaluation.

The main reason the U.S. needs the basic status quo current relationship with Israel is to keep Israel from letting fly with its nuclear weapons by being a big brother obviating any perceived need to do so. Nuclear prolifferation has two aspects: the obtaining of these weapons and their use. Use in turn has two aspects: I've got the bomb so don't screw with me and literal use or delivery and detonation. The latter has only happened twice, ending WWII. If it happens again it will be a whole new geo-political world with just about any city, near an ocean at least, at risk, both real and psychologically to its inhabitants. The idea behind keeping Iran from getting the bomb is to protect cities. There is only one city in Israel the destruction of which destroys the country by ripping out its urban heart. The U.S, cannot be destroyed by blowing up any one city; there are too many of them. Aside from blowing up many of its cities, the way to its destruction is its electrical grid with a giant electomagnetic pulse (EMP) over its midwest heartland which cannot be repaired in time to prevent most of the population from starving to death. Cars and trucks won't run. Deliveries won't be made. Water won't flow. In fact, many people will die from dehydratrion before they starve. The former takes only days while the latter takes weeks.

--Brant

why living in a poor, third world country could be long-term safer than a modern, industrialized one

If a key goal is to prevent a terror attack on a U.S. city, how does having what Marc and Jesse Helms call an "aircraft carrier in the ME" help?

It is not a key goal . The key goal of the United States having a presence in the ME , is not an actual aircraft carrier but the entire state of Israel as the only true friend in the region with shared values . 1 State out of 23 that votes . Jesse Helms was addressing the United States foreign policy in the ME being that of a level playing field . Israel ensures this . No Israel , what do you think is going to happen ?

[Marc]

Eric Hoffer commented in 1968 that:

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on .

I found that highlighted phrase quite intriguing.

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace .

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on .

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

This is the alleged quote. <<<<I have not checked it's authenticity.

A...

Amen

[Marc]

THE U.N. PARTITION PLAN LEFT ONLY 25% OF THE ORIGINAL LAND PROMISED TO ISRAEL.

THAT 25% WAS FURTHER REDUCED BY ALMOST HALF IN FURTHER CONCESSIONS TO ARAB DEMANDS.

IN THE END, ARABS WERE AWARDED 85% OF THE BRITISH MANDATE LANDS, JEWS GETTING A PALTRY 15% OF WHAT HAD BEEN SET ASIDE FOR A JEWISH HOMELAND.

IT WAS ROBBERY ON A GRAND SCALE!

...and the Jews took those lemons and made lemonade out of them, to the envy of the Arabs.

Greg

very true but not the issue . This was to explain to anyone interested that the palestinians currently have 85 percent of said land and Israel has 15 % , and a million+ Arab Israelis live in the 15% happily

[Marc]

And btw , its not "statist rhetoric" , its a fact . I simply cut and pasted a factual comment to show you something rather than some dude who had a recollection of life as a boy and about a rabbi showing maps ? I thought on an Objectivist website , someone as respected as you would enjoy facts . I also did not say I love or hate the UN , although I despise them . Lastly we are not talking about the US confiscating my land either . I really enjoy reading you over the years although usually I do not comment much . You know your stuff , no doubt . On this issue though , you are absolutely in need of more facts .

I don't post on OL or other lists nearly as much as I used so, so I had nearly forgotten how moronic some posters can be.

Ghs

Curious if you mean I am among the "moronic" posters or if you mean the ones who are making up facts and re writing history ? Just to clarify please ? Need I actually explain to you how on a site that is about Objectivism , even when we are not discussing Rand , her ideas and her great value in our world - we really must still be Objective . Now , if Israel and the history of Israel and the history of Jews for 5000 years trying to go home to Jerusalem is not your thing , then sit down and read and learn . I have read your amazing posts for years and will always . They are brilliant , you are brilliant . On this topic though sir , respectfully you are incorrect and calling me a moron does not make you right . Playing word games also will not change history . For 5000+ years we have been chanting " Next year in Jerusalem " . Five thousand years .

I am giving you some homework sir , Research how many times Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem are each mentioned in the Koran .

The real problem in Israel is not the "Palestinians" , not the 22 Arab nations trying to and praying and killing their own babies to destroy Israel , not the media , not the 5th pillar ,not even people like our banned friend . Her , I respect because she believes what she is saying , and she knows exactly why she is saying it . I would have loved to debate her . The reason is Israels weak leaders . Arabs respect strength , not weakness .

Saying you're being moronic on a subject is not calling you a moron. You haven't been chanting anything for 5000 years, nor has anyone else, only affirming a collectivistic, tribal identity quite useful for shedding blood and being irrational. The more you've talked about Israel here--and Jews--the more irrational you have become, now unto a fulminating frenzy of an "objective" rant you are purblind to. This does make for good soldiering as long as those who give you your orders aren't nuts in how they use you.

You are illustrating another reason for U.S. aid, influence and some serious control respecting what Israel does--keeping people like you out of the geo-political kitchen.

--Brant

Last point that you made about keeping people like me out of the geo political kitchen , I stated earlier that I am one of those Jews who fight back and don"t toe anyones line . I get the feeling that that alone irks you . I don't stand down , not to you , not to anyone . On another note though , Barbara Branden and I use to speak about Israel for 4 to 5 hours at a time , then spend time on her archives . Israel though was something she was very afraid about . First thing she would ask me every visit over all these years was what I thought about Israel . Be it , President Obama not going to visit in his first term , or also about a potential attack but I always calmed her down . I really miss her and wish she was here to add her views to this discussion .

[Marc]

If a key goal is to prevent a terror attack on a U.S. city, how does having what Marc and Jesse Helms call an "aircraft carrier in the ME" help?

Israel is not an aircraft carrier or air base for the United States. If American planes are stationed on Israeli soil under American control then that'd be true. That was the case for Great Britain in WWII, in spades.

--Brant

For sure. No need at all. The US has fighter jets stationed in Jordan on Jordanian soil under US control, much less, Israel, and has for years. The number waxes and wanes based on current tensions. Since at least the 90s for sure, and probably since the 80s.. I've talked with warrant officers stationed at those bases, grumbling to me about spare parts for US F16s. The US F16s based in Jordan are among the world's worst kept secrets. By design. They do no good if nobody knows they are there. It is only domestically that they are some kind of half-assed national secret. Most of America thinks we were just in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is an expensive 8 lane logistic paved highway from Ike's MIC straight into the ME and has been for years.

The US has bases in some number like 15 M.E. countries.

The US wouldn't need a base in Isreal; they have their own crowded bases.

How many Israelis in uniform in Israel? They don't need a US base in Israel; their bases are crowded already. They got an area the size of NJ covered quite well, as allies.

Hey , I am just quoting what the former director of the CIA stated . Your fight is with him , not me

[Marc]

Michael, I don't object to core stories as long as they don't distort rationality in foreign relations or understanding what is really going on in the world. I can see value for Jews in these stories even if today's Jews are not the actual, literal descendants from the Jews of the ancient diaspora caused by the Romans. What happened to them?

I have to say you've drained all the blood out of the idea of "tribe" or "tribal" to re-enforce your thesis. You basic point is valid, but you kept on going after making it obscuring it in turn.

As for that play in France, I can only evaluate it through your eyes and I choose not to. That doesn't mean I'm objecting to what you said, for it's well worth keeping in mind. And I'd never have even heard of it if you hadn't told us about it. I do wonder about the legalities and permissions behind the production.

--Brant

In the Hebrew bible , Jerusalem in mentioned 669 times . In the Koran , it is not mentioned once . Jerusalem means something to Jews , this was my point . Even as I do not believe in God and take no part in religion at all , " Next year in Jerusalem " , is powerful for me .

[Brant Gaede]

You might enjoy reading ToThePointNews.com, a conservative site very supportive of Israel.

--Brant