Natanyahu Lowers the Boom

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do agree with MSKs ban on our bigoted friend because in my view she went to far .

Marc,

Great to see you!

She went too far?

Heh.

This has been building for a long time.

She had already been under moderation once.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would though love to ask her if she ever went to an Arab country to research womens rights , or what they do to young girls so they do not experience pleasure from sex . Then I would ask her to actually ask Arab Israelis about their life in Israel proper , as opposed to Arabs in anyone of the 22 Arab States .

Marc,

In my experience, you would not have gotten anything rational or reasonable from her.

Just snarling in an understated manner and snark--all in a tone of certainty.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

On several occasions during the 1970s I appeared on an interview-format television program (broadcast in Southern California) called "Talk About." On one occasion I sat on bleachers near the sound stage and watched the segment that preceded mine. It was a "debate" about Israel. On was side was a Rabbi who came armed with a number of maps; he used these to show the areas that supposedly had been given to the Jews by God. On the other side was a plain Palestinian man who had emigrated to the U.S. around a decade earlier. He was very perplexed by the history lesson. His case (which I paraphrase roughly from memory) went like this:

"As a boy I lived with my large family on a farm that had been in my family for several hundred years. Then one day some Israeli soldiers came to our door and told us that we had 24 hours to pack up everything we could carry and get off the land. Our house would be destroyed the next day, so we took what we could carry in a car and a couple of carts and got out. We used to get along fine with our neighbors, both Jewish and Muslim, and I didn't understand why our land was stolen from us."

I thought the guy had a good point.

Ghs

[Marc]

Marc, a citizen of Israel writes, as of two years ago:

Last week marked Israel’s 64th year of independence; it is also when Palestinians commemorate the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” during which many of Palestine’s native inhabitants were turned into refugees.

In 1948, the Israeli brigade commander Yitzhak Rabin helped expel Lydda’s Palestinian population. Some 19,000 of the town’s 20,000 native Palestinian inhabitants were forced out. My grandparents were among the 1,000 to remain.

They were fortunate to become only internally displaced and not refugees. Years later my grandfather was able to buy back his own home — a cruel absurdity, but a better fate than that imposed on most of his neighbors, who were never permitted to re-establish their lives in their hometowns.

Three decades later, in October 1979, this newspaper reported that Israel barred Rabin from detailing in his memoir what he conceded was the “expulsion” of the “civilian population of Lod and Ramle, numbering some 50,000.” Rabin, who by then had served as prime minister, sought to describe how “it was essential to drive the inhabitants out.”

Two generations after the Nakba, the effect of discriminatory Israeli policies still reverberates. Israel still seeks to safeguard its image by claiming to be a bastion of democracy that treats its Palestinian citizens well, all the while continuing illiberal policies that target this very population. There is a long history of such discrimination.

In the 1950s new laws permitted the state to take control over Palestinians’ land by classifying them “absentees.” Of course, it was the state that made them absentees by either preventing refugees from returning to Israel or barring internally displaced Palestinians from having access to their land. This last group was ironically termed “present absentees” — able to see their land but not to reach it because of military restrictions that ultimately resulted in their watching the state confiscate it. Until 1966, Palestinian citizens were governed under martial law.

Today, a Jew from any country can move to Israel, while a Palestinian refugee, with a valid claim to property in Israel, cannot. And although Palestinians make up about 20 percent of Israel’s population, the 2012 budget allocates less than 7 percent for Palestinian citizens.

Tragically for Palestinians, Zionism requires the state to empower and maintain a Jewish majority even at the expense of its non-Jewish citizens, and the occupation of the West Bank is only one part of it. What exists today between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is therefore essentially one state, under Israeli control, where Palestinians have varying degrees of limited rights: 1.5 million are second-class citizens, and four million more are not citizens at all. If this is not apartheid, then whatever it is, it’s certainly not democracy.

The failure of Israeli and American leaders to grapple with this nondemocratic reality is not helping. Even if a two-state solution were achieved, which seems fanciful at this point, a fundamental contradiction would remain: more than 35 laws in ostensibly democratic Israel discriminate against Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.

For all the talk about shared values between Israel and the United States, democracy is sadly not one of them right now, and it will not be until Israel’s leaders are willing to recognize Palestinians as equals, not just in name, but in law.

Marc, how much do the taxpayers of your country contribute through your government to propping up Israel? In this country, there is a long history of it. It is done primarily out of benevolence (with taxpayers' money) for the Jewish people in Israel and its symbolism against the holocaust. There are tap dances that try to twirl a self-interest-of-the-USA rationale, but it is empty air. It's hard for some to admit they do good things that they think good and that can't be justified by self-interest.

Marc, the state of Israel and I are the same age. If it fails before I do, I'll be here along with 300+ other Americans (yes, we far outnumber the bigots presently acting like jackasses over immigrants from south of our border) welcoming all Israel's citizens to this land.

I am not really going to write about the op ed letter that you included unless you want me to factually explain to you what the history of the Palestinians really is , not what one person writes in the NY Times . If you do wish , I could get into it and write about the true history . Just because so and so is a citizen of Israel , what does that mean ? I could find Rabbis in Israel who write garbage about untrue history . As a matter of fact , I remember years ago a group of Rabbis calling themselves Arafats' Rabbis . I mean who cares ? A is A , someone said , no ?

My interest is addressing your incorrect comments .

I am Canadian and I have no idea how much we give Israel . I do recall though a former CIA director wrote a book claiming that the US would need to invest 10x the amount of money in the region that they give to Israel ( at the time , I believe it was 4 billion annually ) if Israel did not exist .

People and countries act in self interest .

The United States has a level playing field strategy in the middle east . Lots of folks spoke about this . The US sells to both sides, directly or indirectly via 3rd countries . The United States is a military economy . I think I remember hearing when I was trading institutional derivatives and stocks that 70 % of the economy was indirectly military based ( please do not jump me on this point - I think that is what I heard 15 years ago ) . The United States does not " prop up Israel " , check out Start Up Nation , Tel Aviv is the second most important startup scene in the world after Silicon Valley .

[Marc]

Fine, but let's not forget how some of that land was acquired.

George,

We can take that logic back to the founding of the USA. By contextless right, this should be a country of Indian tribes, or rather, not a country at all. America should not exist.

btw - Did the Indians have a right to war on each other as much as they did way back when? They sure weren't happy with losing their lands. Not even to each other. But I wouldn't be, either. Nobody who loses is happy about it.

Conquest has been a value and process in the founding of every country on earth. Every single one. Modern civilization arose on top of this. It did not start magically in some utopian past and then history was a progression of violators against it.

But for Jews, it's not permissible to have even a smidgen of this reality (and I say smidgen considering that vast tracts of Israel were legitimately purchased before Israel existed).

It's not permissible for the USA, too, in some quarters.

Why the double standard of allowing the enemies a tacit right to conquest?

Put another way, who will feel gratified if an Arabian country conquers Israel? (I can think of many.) If such happens, will the new conquerors have the right to sack and pillage while the world looks to the side? Because that is exactly what they will do. I seriously doubt the new conquerors would instigate technological and farming boons so more Jews could flourish.

Where will the moral crusaders be then? Taking time off? This, I believe, is what Ayn Rand was getting at in her controversial comments about Indians. People defend in all righteousness the brute and the ignorant. But they will not defend those of the mind.

Want a good example? Where are the moral crusaders who were so busy and so righteous about the war in Iraq now that ISIS is arising and slaughtering people wholesale? I don't know of anyone who condones that, but I can't help but notice a total lack of moral enthusiasm by these same people who used to claim universality of their standards when the object of their criticism was the USA.

I'm not a fan of conquest, but I'm not a fan of denying reality, either. A standard to be valid has to apply to all, not just to one collective. The same goes for exceptions to that standard. If XXXX is excepted (like backward cultures), so has to be all (like advanced cultures).

I'm cool with saying conquest has to stop, then going through the messy process of making that happen. We are building a new world where we can get rid of conquest because humans have the capacity to acquire wisdom and create a world of abundance instead of scarcity. It's a choice so people of the mind can flourish (but not so new dictators can flourish). I love living at a time when I can witness this transformation.

However, I don't agree--on a conceptual level--with applying this standard to mankind's nature as if conquest never existed universally up to now, or selectively applying it to cherry-picked collectives. That's incorrect epistemology in my understanding.

Michael

Michael,

As indicated in an earlier post on this thread, I agree with you about the conquest origin of states. I also stated that there is nothing unique about Israel in this regard, so I don't single it out for special condemnation. Nevertheless, people who have been forcibly dispossessed by a nascent state tend to get pissed off, and they frequently attempt to defend themselves or, if that fails, to seek restitution or even revenge. In short, some Palestinians have a legitimate grievance against the state of Israel. It is not as if a bunch of pacifistic Jews settled in an uninhabited wilderness, made it blooom, and are now dealing with a bunch of ungrateful Palestinians.

History cannot be reversed, so given the political status quo, Israel has as much right to defend itself as any nation does. It is idiotic and hypocritical for various terrorist groups, such as Hamas, to call for the extinction of Israel. Even worse, those Palestinians with legitimate grievances long ago made a terrible decision to resist Israel with violence. A Gandhian-style movement of nonviolent resistance would have been much more effective.

Ghs

Very good post . Just one point sir . Palestinians did not make that decision , the Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia , Syria , The drug trade in the bekka valley , and these leaders push the Palestinians to resist with force . This is because they can then propagate to the world what they always do . As the saying goes , the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

[Marc]

I do agree with MSKs ban on our bigoted friend because in my view she went to far .

Marc,

Great to see you!

She went too far?

Heh.

This has been building for a long time.

She had already been under moderation once.

Michael

hahahhah !!!! I would prefer arguing with her , but I think she still is reading , and I hope she is !

[Marc]

I would though love to ask her if she ever went to an Arab country to research womens rights , or what they do to young girls so they do not experience pleasure from sex . Then I would ask her to actually ask Arab Israelis about their life in Israel proper , as opposed to Arabs in anyone of the 22 Arab States .

Marc,

In my experience, you would not have gotten anything rational or reasonable from her.

Just snarling in an understated manner and snark--all in a tone of certainty.

Michael

In all seriousness this is how I see it . When I hear people discuss Ayn Rand , they state these ridiculous points about Rands name not coming from the typewriter due to the year , how many drinks Frank O Conner had in a day , and other stuff . Or they say Rand is a fascist or what have you , but they stay OFF point , why ? We both know that it is because they will lose the argument if they stay on point discussing Rands ideas . Same as this . We could stay on point about one issue . The actual number of Palestinian refugees , but if we did stay on point , especially our banned friend - then she would not have a toe nail , never mind a leg to stand on

[Marc]

On several occasions during the 1970s I appeared on an interview-format television program (broadcast in Southern California) called "Talk About." On one occasion I sat on bleachers near the sound stage and watched the segment that preceded mine. It was a "debate" about Israel. On was side was a Rabbi who came armed with a number of maps; he used these to show the areas that supposedly had been given to the Jews by God. On the other side was a plain Palestinian man who had emigrated to the U.S. around a decade earlier. He was very perplexed by the history lesson. His case (which I paraphrase roughly from memory) went like this:

"As a boy I lived with my large family on a farm that had been in my family for several hundred years. Then one day some Israeli soldiers came to our door and told us that we had 24 hours to pack up everything we could carry and get off the land. Our house would be destroyed the next day, so we took what we could carry in a car and a couple of carts and got out. We used to get along fine with our neighbors, both Jewish and Muslim, and I didn't understand why our land was stolen from us."

I thought the guy had a good point.

Ghs

The guy did not have a good point . Here is a guy who is taking about " As a boy " vis a vis the rabbi " with maps " . Both of these folks are not the issue . This is a site for Objectivists so all I ask for is an objective point of view . Lets use history , not the old man with his boyhood recollections and not an old Rabbi with paper . Facts following :

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!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"As a boy I lived with my large family on a farm that had been in my family for several hundred years. Then one day some Israeli soldiers came to our door and told us that we had 24 hours to pack up everything we could carry and get off the land. Our house would be destroyed the next day, so we took what we could carry in a car and a couple of carts and got out. We used to get along fine with our neighbors, both Jewish and Muslim, and I didn't understand why our land was stolen from us."

I thought the guy had a good point.

George,

Fauzi Mansur, the Palestinian I learned cinema from in Brazil, had a similar story. Oddly enough, his opinion was very close to that of Yaron Brook in the podcast I posted earlier.

He said if you draw a line and call one side of the line X and the other Y, but later wish to call them both X or both Y, or even something else, he had no problem with that. He said he did not understand why his parents got pushed off of X.

I had some rather spirited arguments with Barbara about this, too. I started digging and learned that the Arabs back during this time had a habit of forcing long-settled people off their land to make it look like Israelis were doing it.

I have tried to discuss this several times online and I never got anywhere. But I did do some reading. So I came to my own conclusions.

The first is that this time in history was a mess. There were probably people on all sides doing bad things and good things. So it is literally possible to have valid personal stories that illustrate every point of view. I knew Fauzi well enough to know he wasn't lying. It doesn't sound like the man in your story was, either.

But in more acrimonious discussions than I care to think about, I have seen people distort things, and when I dig to uncover facts, this distortion has fallen disproportionately on the anti-Israel side. Also, I HATE the Hamas (and similar) policy of hiding heavy weapons behind women and children, then lying about it. So I don't trust what they say.

But this leads to my second point. Barbara was a hardliner on Israel. My friend Marc is, too. I respect their views because I never walked in their shoes. My ancestors (except the Indian side) were never openly threatened with such an aggressive formal attempt at genocide as happened with them.

I'm at peace with the hardline while still holding on to my own perceptions. I don't blame them for thinking the way they do. In their shoes, I would probably think that way, too.

Michael

[Marc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-to-fight-academic-bigotry/2014/01/09/64f482ee-795e-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/24/krauthammer-on-israel-palestinian-peace-talks-answer-always-no/

A few good articles by Krauthammer for the thread

[Guyau]

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and Arms Sales

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. Foreign Military Financing. For FY2015, the President’s request for Israel would encompass approximately 55% of total FMF funding worldwide. Annual FMF grants to Israel represent 23% to 25% of the overall Israeli defense budget. (Sources)

"Senate Looks to Double Funds for Israel’s Iron Dome Missile Defense" – 7/15/14

Marc, the USA has made Israel possible and continues to do so. Painful as it might be to admit, the USA is a very generous and benevolent country.

[George H. Smith]

On several occasions during the 1970s I appeared on an interview-format television program (broadcast in Southern California) called "Talk About." On one occasion I sat on bleachers near the sound stage and watched the segment that preceded mine. It was a "debate" about Israel. On was side was a Rabbi who came armed with a number of maps; he used these to show the areas that supposedly had been given to the Jews by God. On the other side was a plain Palestinian man who had emigrated to the U.S. around a decade earlier. He was very perplexed by the history lesson. His case (which I paraphrase roughly from memory) went like this:

"As a boy I lived with my large family on a farm that had been in my family for several hundred years. Then one day some Israeli soldiers came to our door and told us that we had 24 hours to pack up everything we could carry and get off the land. Our house would be destroyed the next day, so we took what we could carry in a car and a couple of carts and got out. We used to get along fine with our neighbors, both Jewish and Muslim, and I didn't understand why our land was stolen from us."

I thought the guy had a good point.

Ghs

The guy did not have a good point . Here is a guy who is taking about " As a boy " vis a vis the rabbi " with maps " . Both of these folks are not the issue . This is a site for Objectivists so all I ask for is an objective point of view . Lets use history , not the old man with his boyhood recollections and not an old Rabbi with paper . Facts following :

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!

Thanks for the thoroughly statist rhetoric. By what conceivable right did the U.N. partition land in the first place? Or "set aside" privately owned land to be used by others in the formation of a new state? By all means let us forget about individual rights in the great enterprise of forming states. That's some peculiar type of Objectivism that you appear to endorse.

But since you have such great respect for the U.N., you must surely approve of the 45 U.N. resolutions condemning Israel as of 2013. Right?

Should the U.S. government ever confiscate your land, or anything else you own, I'm sure you will take comfort in knowing that your "recollections" of that theft count for nothing. Well, in a sense they don't. It was the objective act of theft, not the memory of it, that counts.

Ghs

[Marc]

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and Arms Sales

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. Foreign Military Financing. For FY2015, the President’s request for Israel would encompass approximately 55% of total FMF funding worldwide. Annual FMF grants to Israel represent 23% to 25% of the overall Israeli defense budget. (Sources)

"Senate Looks to Double Funds for Israel’s Iron Dome Missile Defense" – 7/15/14

Marc, the USA has made Israel possible and continues to do so. Painful as it might be to admit, the USA is a very generous and benevolent country.

Why do you believe the United States is doing this ? Giving Israel all this money ? Why did the director if the CIA ( not the Mossad , the CIA ) state that about Israel in his book ? I love the United States , would prefer to live their over Canada or Israel actually but not the issue here . Why is the USA giving Israel money ?

[Marc]

On several occasions during the 1970s I appeared on an interview-format television program (broadcast in Southern California) called "Talk About." On one occasion I sat on bleachers near the sound stage and watched the segment that preceded mine. It was a "debate" about Israel. On was side was a Rabbi who came armed with a number of maps; he used these to show the areas that supposedly had been given to the Jews by God. On the other side was a plain Palestinian man who had emigrated to the U.S. around a decade earlier. He was very perplexed by the history lesson. His case (which I paraphrase roughly from memory) went like this:

"As a boy I lived with my large family on a farm that had been in my family for several hundred years. Then one day some Israeli soldiers came to our door and told us that we had 24 hours to pack up everything we could carry and get off the land. Our house would be destroyed the next day, so we took what we could carry in a car and a couple of carts and got out. We used to get along fine with our neighbors, both Jewish and Muslim, and I didn't understand why our land was stolen from us."

I thought the guy had a good point.

Ghs

The guy did not have a good point . Here is a guy who is taking about " As a boy " vis a vis the rabbi " with maps " . Both of these folks are not the issue . This is a site for Objectivists so all I ask for is an objective point of view . Lets use history , not the old man with his boyhood recollections and not an old Rabbi with paper . Facts following :

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!

Thanks for the thoroughly statist rhetoric. By what conceivable right did the U.N. partition land in the first place? Or "set aside" privately owned land to be used by others in the formation of a new state? By all means let us forget about individual rights in the great enterprise of forming states. That's some peculiar type of Objectivism that you appear to endorse.

But since you have such great respect for the U.N., you must surely approve of the 45 U.N. resolutions condemning Israel as of 2013. Right?

Should the U.S. government ever confiscate your land, or anything else you own, I'm sure you will take comfort in knowing that your "recollections" of that theft count for nothing. Well, in a sense they don't. It was the objective act of theft, not the memory of it, that counts.

Ghs

During the second world war , in Europe you would see written " Jew go home to Palestine " . Some Jews did go home . Israel is the size of New Jersey . Where should Jews live , on the moon ? You are showing the thread an op ed from the NY Times of some person , yeah ? And what ? I answered you with a fact . Now you are gonna tell me about how I love the UN ?????? Let me ask you something , where should Jews live ? Not Israel ?

[Marc]

On several occasions during the 1970s I appeared on an interview-format television program (broadcast in Southern California) called "Talk About." On one occasion I sat on bleachers near the sound stage and watched the segment that preceded mine. It was a "debate" about Israel. On was side was a Rabbi who came armed with a number of maps; he used these to show the areas that supposedly had been given to the Jews by God. On the other side was a plain Palestinian man who had emigrated to the U.S. around a decade earlier. He was very perplexed by the history lesson. His case (which I paraphrase roughly from memory) went like this:

"As a boy I lived with my large family on a farm that had been in my family for several hundred years. Then one day some Israeli soldiers came to our door and told us that we had 24 hours to pack up everything we could carry and get off the land. Our house would be destroyed the next day, so we took what we could carry in a car and a couple of carts and got out. We used to get along fine with our neighbors, both Jewish and Muslim, and I didn't understand why our land was stolen from us."

I thought the guy had a good point.

Ghs

The guy did not have a good point . Here is a guy who is taking about " As a boy " vis a vis the rabbi " with maps " . Both of these folks are not the issue . This is a site for Objectivists so all I ask for is an objective point of view . Lets use history , not the old man with his boyhood recollections and not an old Rabbi with paper . Facts following :

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!

Thanks for the thoroughly statist rhetoric. By what conceivable right did the U.N. partition land in the first place? Or "set aside" privately owned land to be used by others in the formation of a new state? By all means let us forget about individual rights in the great enterprise of forming states. That's some peculiar type of Objectivism that you appear to endorse.

But since you have such great respect for the U.N., you must surely approve of the 45 U.N. resolutions condemning Israel as of 2013. Right?

Should the U.S. government ever confiscate your land, or anything else you own, I'm sure you will take comfort in knowing that your "recollections" of that theft count for nothing. Well, in a sense they don't. It was the objective act of theft, not the memory of it, that counts.

Ghs

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 .

[Selene]

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...

[moralist]

Marc, the USA has made Israel possible and continues to do so.

That is a beautiful bond of shared moral values between nations.

And just like the nation of Israel, some people are inspired by it... while others despise it.

Greg

[moralist]

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

[Marc]

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 ?

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

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 .

[Marc]

Marc, a citizen of Israel writes, as of two years ago:

Last week marked Israel’s 64th year of independence; it is also when Palestinians commemorate the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” during which many of Palestine’s native inhabitants were turned into refugees.

In 1948, the Israeli brigade commander Yitzhak Rabin helped expel Lydda’s Palestinian population. Some 19,000 of the town’s 20,000 native Palestinian inhabitants were forced out. My grandparents were among the 1,000 to remain.

They were fortunate to become only internally displaced and not refugees. Years later my grandfather was able to buy back his own home — a cruel absurdity, but a better fate than that imposed on most of his neighbors, who were never permitted to re-establish their lives in their hometowns.

Three decades later, in October 1979, this newspaper reported that Israel barred Rabin from detailing in his memoir what he conceded was the “expulsion” of the “civilian population of Lod and Ramle, numbering some 50,000.” Rabin, who by then had served as prime minister, sought to describe how “it was essential to drive the inhabitants out.”

Two generations after the Nakba, the effect of discriminatory Israeli policies still reverberates. Israel still seeks to safeguard its image by claiming to be a bastion of democracy that treats its Palestinian citizens well, all the while continuing illiberal policies that target this very population. There is a long history of such discrimination.

In the 1950s new laws permitted the state to take control over Palestinians’ land by classifying them “absentees.” Of course, it was the state that made them absentees by either preventing refugees from returning to Israel or barring internally displaced Palestinians from having access to their land. This last group was ironically termed “present absentees” — able to see their land but not to reach it because of military restrictions that ultimately resulted in their watching the state confiscate it. Until 1966, Palestinian citizens were governed under martial law.

Today, a Jew from any country can move to Israel, while a Palestinian refugee, with a valid claim to property in Israel, cannot. And although Palestinians make up about 20 percent of Israel’s population, the 2012 budget allocates less than 7 percent for Palestinian citizens.

Tragically for Palestinians, Zionism requires the state to empower and maintain a Jewish majority even at the expense of its non-Jewish citizens, and the occupation of the West Bank is only one part of it. What exists today between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is therefore essentially one state, under Israeli control, where Palestinians have varying degrees of limited rights: 1.5 million are second-class citizens, and four million more are not citizens at all. If this is not apartheid, then whatever it is, it’s certainly not democracy.

The failure of Israeli and American leaders to grapple with this nondemocratic reality is not helping. Even if a two-state solution were achieved, which seems fanciful at this point, a fundamental contradiction would remain: more than 35 laws in ostensibly democratic Israel discriminate against Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.

For all the talk about shared values between Israel and the United States, democracy is sadly not one of them right now, and it will not be until Israel’s leaders are willing to recognize Palestinians as equals, not just in name, but in law.

Marc, how much do the taxpayers of your country contribute through your government to propping up Israel? In this country, there is a long history of it. It is done primarily out of benevolence (with taxpayers' money) for the Jewish people in Israel and its symbolism against the holocaust. There are tap dances that try to twirl a self-interest-of-the-USA rationale, but it is empty air. It's hard for some to admit they do good things that they think good and that can't be justified by self-interest.

Marc, the state of Israel and I are the same age. If it fails before I do, I'll be here along with 300 million other Americans (yes, we far outnumber the bigots presently acting like jackasses over immigrants from south of our border) welcoming all Israel's citizens to this land.I

Do you really believe that the United States gives Israel money "out of benevolence " ? If so , I am respectfully asking you to explain how ?

[Francisco Ferrer]

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 ?

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

By the way , the 3 or 4 billion that the US gives Israel as George Tenat 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 .

It's no more altruistic than the federal school lunch program. Government robs taxpayer to pay farmer to feed hungry child. Taxpayer is told it's in his rational self-interest to support America's farmers and school children. Everybody's a winner.

[BaalChatzaf]

It's no more altruistic than the federal school lunch program. Government robs taxpayer to pay farmer to feed hungry child. Taxpayer is told it's in his rational self-interest to support America's farmers and school children. Everybody's a winner.

Every one is a winner, but the exchange of values was still forced at gunpoint.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

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

[Brant Gaede]

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

[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 .