Theresa May on London attacks: Enough is Enough

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Compared with the stringent conditions the U.S. puts on aid and arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

You missed my point. US foreign aid to Israel is far, far larger than US foreign aid to its neighbours. One might therefore argue that Americans (who fund that foreign aid with their taxes) might be entitled to criticize Israel's human rights abuses more loudly than Egypts (or to hold Israel to a higher standard).

I don't see what arms sales to Saudi Arabia (which are probably dwarfed by arms sales to Israel anyway) has to do with anything.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

Term plucked from this comic.]

Wow.

In a strong field, that is a contender for stupidest thing ever posted on this forum. I didn't know it was possible to fit so many fallacies into four panels.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enought, but both sides were doing the same thing here. Naga and Itse are the mirror image ying and yang of each other.

This isn't fair. Naga actually says stuff.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of foreign aid from the US since WWII (despite its small size and population). That suggests that Americans at least might be entitled to expect good behaviour in exchange. Why the US government seldom insists on such remains a mystery.

Read about how contingent US aid to Israel was during the Yom Kippur War.

Kissinger actually told Meir that Israel would be forced to accept a first strike from the Arab Coalition in order to appear more sympathetic. Thousands of Israelis lost their lives as a result.

So yes, good behaviour (most condescending term ever) is frequently for and given.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by peter12

This isn't fair. Naga actually says stuff.

The stuff that Naga says is always, 100% in support of Israeli policies regardless of what they are. I understand the mentality. Israel is possibly the only nation in the world that has been in a state of existential crisis from the day it was formed. Understandably, Israeli's and Jews around the world that see Israel as "their Nation" are defensive, especially when they are being accused of behaving against neighbors who typically do or try to do much worse to Israel and others.

But even so, it's not an objective viewpoint. So, when Naga "says stuff" some of the stuff he says is accurate and some of it is just blind defensiveness of Israel. When it's the latter he should be called out on it as should others when they defend the despicable actions of other bad actors in the region.

I don't think there is any question that Israel has some policies regarding Palestinians that should not be considered acceptable in a liberal democracy. Do we hold the Palestinians, Iranians, Saudi's, etc to the same standard? Of course not, they are not liberal democracies. Unfortunately, a lot of Israelis and a lot of Israeli supporters fail to recognize that their blind, stubborn support of Israeli policies like Settlements likely makes life harder for Israelis and the prospect of peace.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wow.

In a strong field, that is a contender for stupidest thing ever posted on this forum. I didn't know it was possible to fit so many fallacies into four panels.

By changing a few words it could just as easily be a comic written by the far right. Which, you know, kinda proves the point that the far left and far right have much in common.

Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.

- Eric Hoffer

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Makarov

You missed my point. US foreign aid to Israel is far, far larger than US foreign aid to its neighbours. One might therefore argue that Americans (who fund that foreign aid with their taxes) might be entitled to criticize Israel's human rights abuses more loudly than Egypts (or to hold Israel to a higher standard).

I don't see what arms sales to Saudi Arabia (which are probably dwarfed by arms sales to Israel anyway) has to do with anything.

This isn't true. I'm going off wikipedia here, so take it with a grain of salt. List of countries by foreign aid from the USA:

Afghanistan: 4.5 billion
Israel: 3 billion
Egypt: 1.6 billion
Jordan: 1.2 billion
Palestinians: 1 billion
Lebanon: 376 million

As you can see Israel is getting less aid than its neighbours. Although per capita or individually, Israel does get more. However, when compared with the Palestinian authority, the per capita numbers are very close (keep in mind that the Gaza Strip is no longer under the authority of the PA).

There is also a different in the quality of aid provided. Israel's aid is almost all military aid, which means it must largely be spent on US arms. The USA in turn limits which countries that Israel can buy or sell arms to. The USA has prevented Israel from selling weapons to China and Nigeria recently:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700351.html

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Rep...Nigeria-388985

Meanwhile the money to the Arab countries is largely humanitarian aid, which can be spent on anything. Conversely, Israel isn't really getting money, so much as they are getting a discount on arms, that must be purchased from the USA. The USA also severely limits Israel's ability to profit off their own arms and technology. As Israel is one of the world's innovators in military technology, the USA is also getting first and often exclusive access to Israel's technology and their field experience.

So while the aid to the surrounding Arab countries essentially disappears into thin air, much of the aid to Israel goes back to the USA via arms deals.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah but I think Nage is wrong on a bunch of stuff...



This year the UN says Israel is guilty of apatheid...

https://web.archive.org/web/20170316...on-english.pdf

Some pretty persuasive arguments there that have since been removed from the UN website just because guys like Nage scream louder than anyone else. Same ole game.

Hilarious that several Arab countries that actually practice slavery of black people have been elected to human rights committees, that then go onto target Israel almost exclusively. It'd be comical...if it didn't mean countries getting away with slavery.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The US just signed a deal to give Israel $38 billion in military aid over the next decade, so that $3 billion figure is obviously not quite right. With Trump wanting to cut aid and with Israel being untouchable, very likely they are currently or will shortly be #1 in US aid payments.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Out of curoiusity Nage Waza, did you participate in the local demonstration against Trump's Islamophobic travel ban back in February? Or is it only other communities that bear a responsibility to protest the actions and beliefs of others within same?

Actually, I was posting about what to do in regards to issues like what England is experiencing. We just had some idiot drive into a crowd leaving a mosque. Wouldn't a strong showing by the Muslim community against events that just add fuel to the fire be a good start? We have all had enough...Al Quds is a dumb idea made worse.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Naw, hardline Zionists only support groups that unabashedly support Israel. If you speak out against Israel's settlement policies, or in favor of Muslims in any shape or form, you are labelled a "Fake Jew" in a very Trumpian fashion and relegated to an out-group.

How about engaging in debate on a subject instead of crying about 'zionists' like it is a swear word?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

How about engaging in debate on a subject instead of crying about 'zionists' like it is a swear word?

*possesses never swaying, unassailable opinion*

"Uhhh ever heard of debate which is totally a thing I'm interested in and not posturing at all."

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

The stuff that Naga says is always, 100% in support of Israeli policies regardless of what they are. I understand the mentality. Israel is possibly the only nation in the world that has been in a state of existential crisis from the day it was formed. Understandably, Israeli's and Jews around the world that see Israel as "their Nation" are defensive, especially when they are being accused of behaving against neighbors who typically do or try to do much worse to Israel and others.

Quite right, to be honest. When people also throw in the hateful rhetoric (and ignorance of it's source is no excuse) and don't engage in any type of debate, I jump in. On any subject...

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

But even so, it's not an objective viewpoint. So, when Naga "says stuff" some of the stuff he says is accurate and some of it is just blind defensiveness of Israel. When it's the latter he should be called out on it as should others when they defend the despicable actions of other bad actors in the region.

I am still waiting for quotes when I blindly defend anything. I get called all the names, but there is never any quote. But you are correct nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I don't think there is any question that Israel has some policies regarding Palestinians that should not be considered acceptable in a liberal democracy. Do we hold the Palestinians, Iranians, Saudi's, etc to the same standard? Of course not, they are not liberal democracies. Unfortunately, a lot of Israelis and a lot of Israeli supporters fail to recognize that their blind, stubborn support of Israeli policies like Settlements likely makes life harder for Israelis and the prospect of peace.

I think when you throw in the state of terrorism surrounding Israel, volatile regimes, and RAMPANT hate due to state instituted racism (not just against Jews as we have seen lately across the middle east), you can begin understanding why they do what they do. Israel has no partner in the region to even honestly negotiate any peace with, and the entire world knows it. If anyone decides to watch any of the Al Quds Day videos, it is all hateful rhetoric that includes the elimination of every Jew in the region.

My point remains, wouldn't standing up against more hatred make more sense then another day of hate? Israel is not going anywhere, period. A day for Muslims to stand together to promote PEACE might be a better idea than throwing Jews into the sea.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The US just signed a deal to give Israel $38 billion in military aid over the next decade, so that $3 billion figure is obviously not quite right. With Trump wanting to cut aid and with Israel being untouchable, very likely they are currently or will shortly be #1 in US aid payments.

I've already explained the difference between military and general aid. Israel already has a deal in place to spend much of its aid on f-35 fighters bought from America. Israel also played a pivotal role in developing the F-35. Most of the modern targeting and display systems in the USAF were based on Israeli technology.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Naw, hardline Zionists only support groups that unabashedly support Israel. If you speak out against Israel's settlement policies, or in favor of Muslims in any shape or form, you are labelled a "Fake Jew" in a very Trumpian fashion and relegated to an out-group.

Often times it is Jewish voices which best hold Isreali policies to account. They just get attacked and their arguments aren't addressed.

From 1978 to 1994, Siegman served as executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Henry Siegman was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three years later, the Nazis came to power. After fleeing Nazi troops in Belgium, his family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Henry Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He later became head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

And I have always asked myself, and this has a great deal to do with my own changing views about the policies of governments, not about the Jewish state qua Jewish state, but of the policies pursued by Israeli governments and supported—you know, they say Israel is a model democracy in the Middle East, so you must assume—the public has to assume some responsibility for what the government does, because they put governments in place. So, the question I ask myself: What if the situation were reversed? You know, there is a Talmudic saying in Pirkei Avot, The Ethics of the Fathers: "Al tadin et chavercha ad shetagiah lemekomo," "Don’t judge your neighbor until you can imagine yourself in his place." So, my first question when I deal with any issue related to the Israeli-Palestinian issue: What if we were in their place?
What if the situation were reversed, and the Jewish population were locked into, were told, "Here, you have less than 2 percent of Palestine, so now behave. No more resistance. And let us deal with the rest"? Is there any Jew who would have said this is a reasonable proposition, that we cease our resistance, we cease our effort to establish a Jewish state, at least on one-half of Palestine, which is authorized by the U.N.? Nobody would agree to that. They would say this is absurd. So the expectations that Palestinians—and I’m speaking now about the resistance as a concept; I’m not talking about rockets, whether they were justified or not. They’re not. I think that sending rockets that are going to kill civilians is a crime. But for Palestinians to try, in any way they can, to end this state of affair—and to expect of them to end their struggle and just focus on less than 2 percent to build a country is absurd. That is part of—that’s propaganda, but it’s not a discussion of either politics or morality.

The Israeli historian, right, then in the book Righteous Victims, in which he said—I recall, when I read it, I was shocked—in which he—particularly in his most recently updated book, which was based on some new information that the Israel’s Defense—the IDF finally had to open up and publish, that Israeli generals received direct instructions from Ben-Gurion during the War of Independence to kill civilians, or line them up against the wall and shoot them, in order to help to encourage the exodus, that in fact resulted, of 700,000 Palestinians, who were driven out of their—left their homes, and their towns and villages were destroyed. This was terror, even within not just the terrorist groups, the pre-state terrorists, but this is within the military, the Israeli military, that fought the War of Independence.

That he executed civilians. And the rationale given for this when Shavit, some years ago, had an interview with Benny Morris and said to him, "My God, you are saying that there was deliberate ethnic cleansing here?" And Morris said, "Yes, there was." And he says, "And you justify it?" And he said, "Yes, because otherwise there would not have been a state." And Shavit did not follow up. And that was one of my turning points myself, when I saw that. He would not follow up and say, "Well, if that is a justification, the struggle for statehood, why can’t Palestinians do that?

They want to do that, for the first time—for years, I have been suggesting and arguing that they want to do that because they are intent on preventing the development of a Palestinian state. To put it bluntly, they want all of it. They want all of Palestine.
Now, this is something that Netanyahu said openly and without any reservations when he was not in government. He wrote about it, published a book about it, his opposition to a Palestinian state, that Israel couldn’t allow that. The difference between the time that he—and he, incidentally, opposed not just Palestinian statehood. He opposed peace agreements with Egypt. He opposed peace agreements with Jordan. Any positive step towards a stabilization and a more peaceful region, Netanyahu has been on record as opposing.
And when he came into office as prime minister, he understood that it is not a smart thing to say that Israel’s policy is to maintain the occupation permanently. So, the only difference between his positions in the past and the position now is that he pretends that he really would like to see a two-state solution, which, as you know, is the affirmation he made in his so-called Bar-Ilan speech several years ago. And some naive people said, "Ah, you know, redemption is at hand," when, to his own people, he winked and made clear, and as I just read recently—I didn’t know that—that it’s on record that his father said, "Of course he didn’t mean it. He will attach conditions that will make it impossible." But that was his tactic. His tactic was to say, "We are all in favor of it, but if only we had a Palestinian partner."

https://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/...ng_voice_of_us

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by blankall

As you can see Israel is getting less aid than its neighbours. Although per capita or individually, Israel does get more. However, when compared with the Palestinian authority, the per capita numbers are very close (keep in mind that the Gaza Strip is no longer under the authority of the PA).

The per capita numbers are very close when compared to the PA? US aid to Palestinians is funnelled primarily through UNRWA and explicitly cuts out the PA most of the time. Also, only a portion of that aid goes to the territories, as UNRWA also gives aid to refugees in neighbouring countries. If you include refugees in neighbouring countries, the per capita numbers are not similar for US aid.

I'm not going to get overly into the mental gymnastics you had to go through to pretend that US military aid to Israel of over 3B per year is a great thing for the US because they get first dibs on Israeli military tech. It's a policy decision, heavily influenced by the exceptionally powerful Israeli lobby in the US, and understandable in that context only; disingenuously making a distinction between humanitarian aid (can use for anything!) and military aid is silly. Israel can spend their savings on the military on anything they like, including subsidizing your average settler family in the West Bank about $10,000 per year.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Actually, I was posting about what to do in regards to issues like what England is experiencing. We just had some idiot drive into a crowd leaving a mosque. Wouldn't a strong showing by the Muslim community against events that just add fuel to the fire be a good start? We have all had enough...Al Quds is a dumb idea made worse.

I didn't ask you to reiterate what you think others should be doing. I asked whether you walk your talk. And I think you gave me your answer.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

The per capita numbers are very close when compared to the PA? US aid to Palestinians is funnelled primarily through UNRWA and explicitly cuts out the PA most of the time. Also, only a portion of that aid goes to the territories, as UNRWA also gives aid to refugees in neighbouring countries. If you include refugees in neighbouring countries, the per capita numbers are not similar for US aid.

I'm not going to get overly into the mental gymnastics you had to go through to pretend that US military aid to Israel of over 3B per year is a great thing for the US because they get first dibs on Israeli military tech. It's a policy decision, heavily influenced by the exceptionally powerful Israeli lobby in the US, and understandable in that context only; disingenuously making a distinction between humanitarian aid (can use for anything!) and military aid is silly. Israel can spend their savings on the military on anything they like, including subsidizing your average settler family in the West Bank about $10,000 per year.

Stating facts. There is a big difference between regular foreign aid and military aid.

[CliffFletcher]

Foreign aid is always a bit dodgy. It typically involves country A giving country B a bunch of money, with the stipulation that it must be spent on concrete/wheat/trucks/planes from sources in country A. Basically, it's a subsidy to domestic industry under the auspices of altruism.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Often times it is Jewish voices which best hold Isreali policies to account. They just get attacked and their arguments aren't addressed.

Not sure where you're getting this often get attacked business from. Benny Morris is a professor at a large university. He freely publishes his books. Israel has total freedom of speech.

You're also taking quotes from his books out of context. During the independence war there were no governments and things broke down into a state of total war. Both sides killed civilians. It was also the 1940s, if you look at how supposedly civilized and organized governments conducted themselves, things were much worse. Once again we're seeing the double standard of perfection being applied to Israel.