Question For The Online Anti Jewish Lobby

Let's suppose that Israel gives the Palestinians everything they have asked for. Imagine a scenario where Israel agrees to evacuate all settlements in the West Bank, including the Muslim section of Jerusalem, plus agreeing to some deal that gives Gaza independence as well. The question is: What then? Would that satisfy everyone? Would there be peace and justice for all in the middle east?

 

You asked an anti-Israel question, not an anti-Jewish one. There is a major difference. As for the middle east it would certainly benefit us to not support such a hated entity. If we could keep out of there entirely and just trade then I think we wouldn't have much of an issue with islamic terrorists, especially considering they're hardly an issue today.

 

Who isnt hardly an issue?

 

No, those people on these boards you meet here, especially the Europeans, hate Jewish people. They hate them in Israel and they hate them outside of Israel and nothing but a 2nd holocaust will satiate them. They don't say that because it sounds bad, but read some of their posts and you can tell that is what the far left wants. They embrace Muslim terrorists and want to see an end to a Jewish state. Absolutely nuts, unless you are an anti Semite.

 

There seem to be a whole lot of people who don't distinguish between anti Israel and anti Jewish.

- - - Updated - - -

Far left? Really? I can't tell the difference between far left and far right any more.

 

Dig deeper and your anti-Israeli person is also an anti-semite sub-consciously if not overtly. Look at Naomi Klein. She says she just wants Israel to suffer, but she is so vehement about it becomes clear she hates all Jews.

Well if you ever need any help just let me know. I am very good at pigeon holing people.

 

According to your chosen title I'm not qualified to answer your question but that seldom stops me.

While there's little doubt there's a contingency of right wingers that hate everyone that is different than them it's inescapable that the left wing wears anti Israel as a badge. Not all of course but it seems to trend towards the majority.
It matters not at all how much land Israel has. The ME will never accept them, not in my lifetime anyway. Israel requires control of that land to protect its population from invasion. Consider it a very small buffer zone. JMO

 

Islamic terrorists. They are a non-issue in the US.

 

No, Zionists would remain unsatisfied, as would the Palestinians displaced from Israel.

I think the whole two state idea is dead, it is used these days only to maintain the power of ruling factions on both sides whose prominence is entirely dependent on maintaining the status quo.

I have a question for you.
What if the Palestinians abandoned the two state solution and demanded immediate citizenship and equal rights as Israelis?

 

Yes Israel supporters seem to have a hard time with that but there is a huge difference. Of all of my friends including a Jewish girl none of us like Israel and its strong lobby in our government, but none of us hate the Jewish people. It's a really big and important distinction, especially when talking about Israel and especially when you talk about reasons for us to support Israel (or not support them). I am against them because they have a huge influence in our government, take a great deal of money and military aid then sell the items we give them to China and if we won't sell something to us they'll just steal the technology from us anyway. In return they offer no support because if they were to get involved in any military conflict with us the whole damn region would go ape (*)(*)(*)(*). If it were up to me we would cut all military ties. If they still had something worth trading then why not but no more support.

 

Nazis were a non issue in the US if you are going to be like that. Like Lincoln said (paraphrase) not all the armies of Europe Asia and Africa combined can take by force a drink from the Ohio.

But they are a threat to our interests, the interests of our allies, and overall world stability and human rights. If every country were capitalist and had a democracy that guaranteed basic human rights we would have no war. The jihadis stand at odds with that, and they are growing and succesful and deadly. Time to wake up America. Us and our allies are all that stands in the way of a vast intercontinental extreme Islamic state. Our old notions of borders and countries vs countries is outdated. We are fighting a nation with roots from Africa to Asia.

 

There would be a just peace in Palestine.

 

They don't get them. You can't demand citizenship of a foreign state. What if china demanded citizenship in the US and voted the current citizens out of power. Conquer by population from an outside nation is just as effective as one by force, maybe even more so.


Besides, that is not what these jihadis want. They want the Israelis dead.

 

There will never be a vast intercontinental extremist Islamic state... That old saw is just the way to create your own boogie man and stir the pot.

 

Why would you believe that? Israel conquered those lands in wars either started or provoked by Islamist nations. If the hatred predates the land acquisition why would anyone believe giving back the land would end the hatred. You know what Spock would say.

 

Not if the free armies of the world being put to use have anything to say about it. Once they are not though, the terrorists will win. They are very capable and world wide. Syria is not a weak nation in that part of the world and look what they can do against that army. You people who write them off and want to give them Israel are basing your opinions on what? The Experience of Iran? Egypt? Libya? Afghanistan? Mali? Indonesia? The Philippines? Somalia? Kenya? Morroco? Saudia Arabia? Yemen?


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/12/world/12aqmap.html

 

Syria is a weak nation.. Who"writes" off the Arab world or wants to give them Israel??

Your assumptions will be the undoing of Israel.

 

Syria has a powerful army. They have our 1980s capabilities. Very lethal. Not NATO powerful, but who is these day?

Huh? How so?

 

I think that you have forgotten Operation Susannah and the 1967 war.

 

Nazis were a threat to the US. They were an actual organized army that had taken the European mainland. Islamic terrorists are a bunch of ignorant dirt farmers in the third world lead by a few smart people. They are not a threat to us. If you live in one of these third world ditches then yes, they may kill you. If you live here you'll almost certainly die from something else. The government spending vase amounts of money and eroding our rights to fight this "threat" is a larger threat to us than the terrorists ever could be.

 

If your standard is threat to American soil which it sounded like in your first post these dirt farmers killed more of our citizens on our soil then the nazis and the Japanese combined. Don't move the goal post. But of you are, they are also active and growing in an area of the world far larger then that occupied by the nazis and the Japanese. Sure, not under their control, but their is a long lasting pervasive usurpation plan. Not flash in the pan blitzkrieg. These people are capable of ethnic cleansing too if they get power. If you are a woman it is probably better to be under the Reich then the Taliban. If Jewish you would probably meet the same fate either way.

 

Move what goal posts? Of course they killed more of our citizens being that the armies in world war II didn't even hit our mainland! That's hardly an argument. How you can compare a bunch of dirt farmers committing random acts of violence and taking small, random chunks of third world ditches with the German military seizing the European mainland and the Japanese navy making a bid to run the Pacific Ocean is beyond me. It's comparing apples and, honestly I don't know what because you're insanely out if left field on this comparison. You cannot take Islamic terrorism and then say it's somehow worse than World War II because it's not!

This makes no sense, and BTW they are not gaining power. Holy (*)(*)(*)(*) dude, this is nothing like WWII and it never will be. Hell Islamic terror groups are lucky if they have anything bigger than a RPG let alone a national military!

 

Never said it was a worse war. Moving the goal posts again. I am saying they present an equal threat to people if/when they takeover and they are worldwide. From the very beginning my argument was that armies are the only things stopping these people. If they don't engage their will be no opposition.

 

What (*)(*)(*)(*)ing goalposts? You know what that means right, to move the goalposts in an argument? I haven't moved them. I've stated that islamic terrorists are not really a threat here in the US. They are not. You are more likely to be hit by lightning several times than die in a terrorist related incident, and that includes all forms of terrorism here in the US not just islamic. If you live in a third world ditch with islamic terrorists then yes they are a threat, but for the US and the rest of the modern world no they are not a threat. It's not the military holding them back either, it's the fact that they are mostly uneducated dirt farmers who are risen to fight local conflicts and are unable to get into the US because they can't get a greencard.

 

"Here in the US". Then it became "worldwide threat" since terrorists kill more citizens on our soil, then it moved from being "world coverage", to extent of control etc... This is goal post moving.

A) they are more of a threat on our soil then the axis.
B) they are not capable of conquering countries as quickly as the axis.
C) they are capable of taking countries, and want to conquer more
D) they want an intercontinental Islamist nation state that will ethnically cleanse people and abuse women.
E) they will get it unless armies stand up to them.
F) our military capabilities compared to theirs are greater, unlike when we fought the axis, so our casualties will be lower.

Where do we disagree? Lets go from there.