Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest David

In The World: Israel

Recommended Posts

Further confirmation that I am not a "Zionist".....

 

Huge new Israeli settlement in West Bank condemned by US and UK

 

The UK and US governments have criticised, in unusually strong language, Israel's decision to approve one of the largest appropriations of Palestinian land for settlement in recent decades.

 

The UK foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said he deplored the move as "particularly ill-judged".

 

However, Israel's economics minister, Naftali Bennett, who visited the Gush Etzion settlement in the occupied West Bank on Monday, applauded Sunday's decision as an "appropriate Zionist response to murder". Bennett said: "What we did yesterday was a display of Zionism. Building is our answer to murder."

 

The settlement affects nearly 400 hectares (1,000 acres) at Gvaot near Bethlehem, which have been designated as state land, as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential Israeli building.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/israeli-settlement-west-bank-gvaot-condemned

 

The whole "state land" concept is a crock of crap.  Radical settlers harass or otherwise impede Palestinians from using land.  It gets declared unused or underused, and becomes "state land".

 

They need to bring their squatters back within their legal borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this here because Netan-Yahoo's visit is about Israel, not Iran. Baby bully wants big bully USA to run around and beat up all the Arabs in his backyard, banking on the big bully's short memory. Go fight your own wars of paranoia.....

 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU’S LONG HISTORY OF CRYING WOLF ABOUT IRAN’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

BY MURTAZA HUSSAIN

 

...In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,” apparently forgetting about the expiration of his old deadline.

 

For a considerable time thereafter, Netanyahu switched his focus to hyping the purported nuclear threat posed by another country, Iraq, about which he claimed there was “no question” that it was “advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.” Testifying again in front of Congress in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”

 

Needless to say, these claims turned out to be disastrously false. Despite this, Netanyahu, apparently unchastened by the havoc his previous false charges helped create, immediately went back to ringing the alarm bells about Iran.

 

MORE:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baby bully wants big bully USA to run around and beat up all the Arabs in his backyard, banking on the big bully's short memory. Go fight your own wars of paranoia.....

 

Interesting take considering Iran has said it wants to wipe Israel, our greatest ally in the middle east, off the map.  Israel goes down, who do we have to rely on?  The Saudi's? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're picking theocracies to go to war against Iran with I'll take the Saudi's every time.

 

Indeed.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.  Ask many of those who came here after the overthrow of the Shah, and they'll tell you they're Persians, not Iranians.  But the much more emphatic point they'll make is that they are definitely not Arabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fine point, but Persian comes from the Greek pronunciation of the name of one of the Iranian tribes (the Parsi), who have long been dominant in the area that is now Iran.  Iran/Iranian is actually older and broader than Persia/Persians.  Persians are Iranian, but not all Iranians are Persians.  Not everyone who lives in Iran is ethnically Iranian, not all ethnically Iranian peoples trace their roots back to the land occupied by modern nation of Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baby bully wants big bully USA to run around and beat up all the Arabs in his backyard, banking on the big bully's short memory. Go fight your own wars of paranoia.....

 

Interesting take considering Iran has said it wants to wipe Israel, our greatest ally in the middle east, off the map.  Israel goes down, who do we have to rely on?  The Saudi's? 

 

First, Israel is not going down.

 

Second, we have plenty of allies in the middle east outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

 

Third, what exactly is it we are "relying on" Israel for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Israel isn't going down without a fight.  But it is hopelessly outnumbered by Iran alone, let alone the others in its neighborhood.  Syria and Egypt are internally crippled at the moment, but it wasn't so long ago that they were allied in an open attempt to annihilate Israel.  Israel has learned that it's best to take death threats from Islamist fanatics (and Arab nationalists, and anyone else in your area with a large army) seriously.

 

Second, that's true, but in many of those cases, we are allied primarily with the government and there is serious anti-Americanism at the street level.  Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, and especially Qatar all fall into that category.  I don't want to write them off, and they deserve to be included in this conversation, but they are all qualitatively different from Israel in terms of technology, culture, and attitude towards the West in general and America in particular.

 

Third, a lot.  Not to mention that's like asking "what are we relying on Sweden for?"  It's not like we'd collapse without them, but there's more to being an ally than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, I'd say we owe them for what the rest of the world has done to them, and for the Judeo-Christian Code that founded this country.  That's what makes the USA exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, I'd say we owe them for what the rest of the world has done to them, and for the Judeo-Christian Code that founded this country.  That's what makes the USA exceptional.

 

Wow, really? I think that the argument for reparations for blacks is stronger than us "owing" anything to Israel.

 

Supporting Israel's apartheid state doesn't make us exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's about us "owing" them, either, honestly, any more than we "owe" anything to any NATO ally.  If we were really to talk about obligations, I'd say they owe us more than we owe them.  But so do a lot of countries bordering aggressive authoritarian regimes.  We could say the same about South Korea.  And friendships aren't built on debts, anyway.

 

I'd say simply that we have similar cultures and similar enemies.  That is the foundation of a good international working relationship.  (Edited to remove "alliance."  "Ally" is actually a legal term in international law and we are actually not technically allies with Israel.  Turkey is legally an ally, even though we've had some real differences with them lately.  Israel is not legally an ally no matter how friendly they are with our people and government.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's about us "owing" them, either, honestly, any more than we "owe" anything to any NATO ally.  If we were really to talk about obligations, I'd say they owe us more than we owe them.  But so do a lot of countries bordering aggressive authoritarian regimes.  We could say the same about South Korea.  And friendships aren't built on debts, anyway.

 

I'd say simply that we have similar cultures and similar enemies.  That is the foundation of a good international working relationship.  (Edited to remove "alliance."  "Ally" is actually a legal term in international law and we are actually not technically allies with Israel.  Turkey is legally an ally, even though we've had some real differences with them lately.  Israel is not legally an ally no matter how friendly they are with our people and government.)

 

Similar values, too.  Quite a bit of population in common as well as many people split their time between the two nations as well as migrating either way.  We're inevitably going to be close, even though both nations will quite cheerfully work against the interests of the other. 

 

I'm no fan of Israeli policies in the West Bank, to put it mildly, but supporting one does not mean supporting the other.  Indeed, we are close enough that we can criticize freely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) From everything I could find, South Korea isn't even in the top 25 of foreign aid recipients. I'm not sure I see the similarity unless the belief is that Israel will one day be able to get by without our money.

 

2) Given point #1, and considering I don't know the legal definition of "ally," Israel would be more aptly described as one of our dependent states. They literally bring nothing to the table for us and almost certainly make us a bigger target for Muslim extremism.

 

3) And finally, given the political clout of AIPAC, there's no such thing as any member of Congress or even sitting President being able to "freely" criticize Israel. Obama's come the closest but even he doesn't have the character or balls to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or ... perish the thought ... maybe he's not as anti-Israel as you wish he were and I fear he is.

 

Also, Israel could get by today without our money, though not without hardship that I'm happy we take steps to prevent, not to mention forcing Israel to take significantly more dangerous and dramatic actions to protect itself because it would have much less margin for error.

 

And AIPAC is a strong lobby, but not that strong.  They have the advantage that their counterpart is CAIR, which has been known to equivocate on minor issues such as whether we are imperialist warmongers who deserved 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My quick response to the video title would be that personally I have no problem with Obama or any other sitting president NOT loving Israel.  He's not the president of their country... he's ours. His love for the US and the lives of our troops (which seem all to expendable to some, including Israel- yeah, I said it) should always come first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or ... perish the thought ... maybe he's not as anti-Israel as you wish he were and I fear he is.

 

Also, Israel could get by today without our money, though not without hardship that I'm happy we take steps to prevent, not to mention forcing Israel to take significantly more dangerous and dramatic actions to protect itself because it would have much less margin for error.

 

And AIPAC is a strong lobby, but not that strong.  They have the advantage that their counterpart is CAIR, which has been known to equivocate on minor issues such as whether we are imperialist warmongers who deserved 9/11.

 

I guess we'll simply have to disagree here on what role we should be playing in propping up an apartheid state. It seems that once we throw religion into the mix on these types of issues, everyone becomes blind to reality (see: Jon Voigt in above video).

 

From everything I've ever read about the respective power of lobbying groups, AIPAC is consistently considered to be right near the top.

 

Hopefully this yahoo running Israel loses tomorrow and some of the right wing policy and rhetoric are toned down a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Netanyahu being pushed further to the right alienating himself from Western consensus felt like a victory until I remembered that Republicans will just write another letter saying that they will never go along with any treaty with Palestinians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of antisemitism in the world today.

 

Agreed. Especially seeing the more progressed rise of "nationalism" from Eastern Europe. Very worrying about how that will play out as similar less developed groups rise further west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the more interesting differences I've noted between Europe and America is on that front.  The American right is strongly pro-Israel even though most Jews are on the left (though that may be swinging closer to parity).  The European right still hasn't moved as far from Nazism as you'd hope, though of course, now it's also added anti-Muslim animus to its repertoire, and tends to play that card more now because it gets more traction when trying to carve off electoral seats from the center-right parties in European parliaments.

 

I'll be very interested in the outcome of the elections, and in particular, if Bibi loses, how it implicates the Republicans' messaging strategy here, particularly on Iran.  Obama really wants Bibi to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the more interesting differences I've noted between Europe and America is on that front.  The American right is strongly pro-Israel even though most Jews are on the left (though that may be swinging closer to parity).  The European right still hasn't moved as far from Nazism as you'd hope, though of course, now it's also added anti-Muslim animus to its repertoire, and tends to play that card more now because it gets more traction when trying to carve off electoral seats from the center-right parties in European parliaments.

 

I'll be very interested in the outcome of the elections, and in particular, if Bibi loses, how it implicates the Republicans' messaging strategy here, particularly on Iran.  Obama really wants Bibi to lose.

 

One of the reasons is the American Christian Right has a lot of beliefs in Biblical prophecies that involve Israel.  Of course, these don’t bode well for Israelis, particularly those with no intent of eventually converting to Christianity. This is why pro-Israel American Christians are way more supportive of radical Israeli “settlements” than the bulk of Israelis. 

 

A side effect of this is that active anti-semitism is almost extinct in America, and what is left exists on the far fringes of left and right, with virtually no influence at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^unfortunately most anti-Semitism in America today comes from college students, especially at elite, predominately left-wing campuses. These schools have become such cesspools of political correctness, which seems by its very nature to be anti-Semitic, based in all this nonsensical knee-jerk jargon about Israel being an "apartheid state," etc. These people claim to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but since Israel has historically been a Jewish state, this sort of double talk is just a smokescreen for plain, unbridled hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"These people..."? So glad you've chosen to rise above the murderous hatred that exists on both sides of that millennia-old conflict.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think that most American anti-Semitism comes from college students, or even college professors (though the latter are, probably, statistically, one of the most anti-Israel groups in the country, and I do generally agree that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are extremely closely linked, however much the abandon-Israel crowd demurs).  There non-college-educated adult far right has its fair share of conspiracy theorists ("Mossad did 9/11!") and also true isolationists, and there are some among that who sincerely believe that if it weren't for Israel, America's global footprint would be enormously smaller, which they see as an end in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being supportive of Palestine's "right to exist" (thank you, thank you) is NOT anti-semitism

 

Very true.  Supporters of "Eretz Israel" (i.e. the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank) try to make that connection, at least in the US.  It's hard to make it in Israel where people are sick of their nonsense.  Unfortunately, one of the severe weaknesses of a parliamentary system is the power it can give fringe parties.  That's how you end up with a situation in Hebron akin to a Klan enclave in East Cleveland getting overwhelmingly heavy police and military protection.

 

On the other hand, denial of Israel's right to exist is often tied to anti-semitism.

 

Consider this:  Israel and the USA are nations of or descended from immigrants, many of whom came for idealistic reasons.  Are there any others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Netanyahu and Likud scored a big win in the Israeli elections.

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-claims-victory-as-vote-count-shows-likud-further-ahead/

 

Interestingly, this actually avoids a possible dilemma for Obama that would have arisen if Netanyahu and Likud had lost.  If the Zionist Union (Labor) party had taken the election, Obama probably couldn't have afforded to be as hostile to them as he is to Netanyahu--even though their view of the Iran threat is actually basically identical, with Labor leader Isaac Herzog responding to a debate question about his differences with Netanyahu on that issue, "there are no differences about the strategic threat."

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/how-obama-can-lose-in-israel-s-election

 

The two major parties were strengthened, and the minor parties were weakened.  That can be a good thing for stability, but unfortunately, one of the larger losers was Yesh Atid, a secular middle class party founded by a former journalist, which dropped from 19 seats to 11.  (In the Knesset, that's actually a pretty big deal.  Every seat counts.  Likud's "landslide" still only gets them 30 seats out of 120.

 

Netanyahu can go two ways with this: a national unity government with the Zionist Union and one or two other parties, or another coalition with the right-leaning religious groups.  But he did that the last time, and it turned out that there were significant tensions both within the coalition and between the government and the rest of Israeli society, because of how hard the pull to the right proved to be.  At least one [conservative American Jewish] commentator thinks that Netanyahu might actually much prefer to be the center guy in a center/center-right/right coalition than the leftmost guy in a center-right/right/hard-right/off-the-map-right coalition.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415564/seven-preliminary-thoughts-about-israels-preliminary-results-elliott-abrams

 

That might also lead to Herzog as foreign minister, which could be more palatable to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binyamin Netanyahu: 'Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves'

Israel prime minister releases a video on election day urging supporters to vote as Joint List party prompts high Israeli Arab turnout at polls

Mairav Zonszein in Tel Aviv

Tuesday 17 March 2015 13.51 EDT

 

Israel’s prime minister has made a last-ditch attempt to rally his supporters as the country went to the polls, with an incendiary warning that a high turnout of Israeli Arab voters could threaten his party’s hold on power.

 

In a 28-second video posted on his Facebook page, Binyamin Netanyahu said Israeli Arabs were turning out “in droves” and urged his supporters to go out and vote.

 

“The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves,” he wrote. “Left-wing NGOs are bringing them in buses.”

 

MORE:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/17/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-arab-election


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Netanyahu and Likud scored a big win in the Israeli elections.

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-claims-victory-as-vote-count-shows-likud-further-ahead/

 

Interestingly, this actually avoids a possible dilemma for Obama that would have arisen if Netanyahu and Likud had lost.  If the Zionist Union (Labor) party had taken the election, Obama probably couldn't have afforded to be as hostile to them as he is to Netanyahu--even though their view of the Iran threat is actually basically identical, with Labor leader Isaac Herzog responding to a debate question about his differences with Netanyahu on that issue, "there are no differences about the strategic threat."

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/how-obama-can-lose-in-israel-s-election

 

The two major parties were strengthened, and the minor parties were weakened.  That can be a good thing for stability, but unfortunately, one of the larger losers was Yesh Atid, a secular middle class party founded by a former journalist, which dropped from 19 seats to 11.  (In the Knesset, that's actually a pretty big deal.  Every seat counts.  Likud's "landslide" still only gets them 30 seats out of 120.

 

Netanyahu can go two ways with this: a national unity government with the Zionist Union and one or two other parties, or another coalition with the right-leaning religious groups.  But he did that the last time, and it turned out that there were significant tensions both within the coalition and between the government and the rest of Israeli society, because of how hard the pull to the right proved to be.  At least one [conservative American Jewish] commentator thinks that Netanyahu might actually much prefer to be the center guy in a center/center-right/right coalition than the leftmost guy in a center-right/right/hard-right/off-the-map-right coalition.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415564/seven-preliminary-thoughts-about-israels-preliminary-results-elliott-abrams

 

That might also lead to Herzog as foreign minister, which could be more palatable to Obama.

 

Keep in mind that Zionist Union came in part from Kadima, with Tsipi Livni becoming one of the leaders.  Kadima was founded by Ariel Sharon.  "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this:  Israel and the USA are nations of or descended from immigrants, many of whom came for idealistic reasons.  Are there any others?

 

All of North and South America, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this:  Israel and the USA are nations of or descended from immigrants, many of whom came for idealistic reasons.  Are there any others?

 

All of North and South America, Australia.

 

Mostly for economic reasons.  Or, in the case of Austraila, "legal" reasons....

 

This is not to say that many, perhaps most US immigrants did not come for economic reasons.  But a lot came because of ideals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't consider almost any of it because of ideals now that I think of it. I would say most came to avoid persecution, flee civil wars, or find economic opportunities in times of hardship (or in the case of Georgia, because they would rather not spend their life in prison). I guess you could call avoiding persecution following ideals, but I would call it self-preservation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of antisemitism in the world today.

 

And there are a lot of people that quickly and falsely play the antisemitism card in order to justify even the most heinous of Israel's actions. It's possible to criticize some of the things that Israel is doing without actually being an antisemite. Further, some of the loudest criticism comes from Jews themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^unfortunately most anti-Semitism in America today comes from college students, especially at elite, predominately left-wing campuses. These schools have become such cesspools of political correctness, which seems by its very nature to be anti-Semitic, based in all this nonsensical knee-jerk jargon about Israel being an "apartheid state," etc. These people claim to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but since Israel has historically been a Jewish state, this sort of double talk is just a smokescreen for plain, unbridled hatred.

 

If apartheid is an inaccurate term, by all means please give us something that more aptly defines what's going on there. It's quite lazy to label all criticism lobbed at Israel as being anti-semitic, particularly when it's coming from Jews who happen to remember or are at least aware of how they (as a group) have been treated in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[And now for something completely different]: Don't let Netanyahu's win fool you: Israel shifted to the left http://t.co/iqm1QLVtDn


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, it's amazing, isn't it, how wrong all the polls and "reporting" were. I mean, it's not like the lamestream American media wanted Netanyahu to lose, is it?  :roll:

 

Admit it..... You copied this post straight from Sarah Palin's Twitter feed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, it's amazing, isn't it, how wrong all the polls and "reporting" were. I mean, it's not like the lamestream American media wanted Netanyahu to lose, is it?  :roll:

 

Admit it..... You copied this post straight from Sarah Palin's Twitter feed

okay, you got me! I don't have any original thoughts, but it's good to hear you're still apparently keeping up with her pearls of wisdom :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^unfortunately most anti-Semitism in America today comes from college students, especially at elite, predominately left-wing campuses. These schools have become such cesspools of political correctness, which seems by its very nature to be anti-Semitic, based in all this nonsensical knee-jerk jargon about Israel being an "apartheid state," etc. These people claim to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but since Israel has historically been a Jewish state, this sort of double talk is just a smokescreen for plain, unbridled hatred.

 

If apartheid is an inaccurate term, by all means please give us something that more aptly defines what's going on there. It's quite lazy to label all criticism lobbed at Israel as being anti-semitic, particularly when it's coming from Jews who happen to remember or are at least aware of how they (as a group) have been treated in the past.

yes, I suppose it's true that all criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but the fate of Jews and the state of Israel are inextricably linked; also, how do you make accommodations (or simple negotiate) with a people (Palestinians, who are of course simply Arabs) who have vowed over and over to wipe you off the face of the map, denying that you even have a right to exist. It seems you're labeling the wrong group of people as having an "apartheid" mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, I suppose it's true that all criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but the fate of Jews and the state of Israel are inextricably linked; also, how do you make accommodations (or simple negotiate) with a people (Palestinians, who are of course simply Arabs) who have vowed over and over to wipe you off the face of the map, denying that you even have a right to exist. It seems you're labeling the wrong group of people as having an "apartheid" mentality.

 

A) So you're implying that Judaism or the Jews, as a people (who according to your logic are really just Europeans), cannot survive without the existence of a home state? Even though no one is arguing that Israel should not exist, that premise is a bit silly.

 

B) How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to a people that are also trying to wipe them off the map by continuously expanding their territory and preventing Palestinians from controlling their destiny? See, this argument can be made to sound simplistic and circular from both sides. At this point, neither side is behaving appropriately, and the adults in the room from the international community are doing a disservice by not stepping in and coming up with a fair solution once and for all. Give the Palestinians their state and hold them accountable for the responsibilities that come with sitting at the big boys table. To say that they don't deserve a chance because of how some of them are acting is completely unfair.

 

If you put a hungry dog on a chain and keep it outside 24/7, don't get made at the dog if it barks all night and nips at you when you walk by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hindsight is 20/20, what I'm about to say is mildly offensive and does not pose any solution whatsoever to the current situation. But I always thought the whole thing was a bad idea and if I could go back to 1948 I would tell the Jews to come to the real Zion,  the USA, the Zions of Brooklyn or Beachwood or Bexley. Is a symbolic piece of desert worth decades of war?

 

Now I fear there is just too much resentment on both sides for them to agree on peace. It's like a bad relationship... At a certain point it's unfixable, and so you just break up and cut off all contact. Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to cut ties when you bought a house together.

 

I don't know what the answers are besides time and education and integration, but I'm not holding my breath for peace any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hindsight is 20/20, what I'm about to say is mildly offensive and does not pose any solution whatsoever to the current situation. But I always thought the whole thing was a bad idea and if I could go back to 1948 I would tell the Jews to come to the real Zion,  the USA, the Zions of Brooklyn or Beachwood or Bexley. Is a symbolic piece of desert worth decades of war?

 

Basically, yes.  The Jewish people have been in a sort of diaspora over the centuries from place to place but they are at heart an insular people to whom having a homeland meant a lot.  Placing it in lands of extreme historical importance to them made it moreso.

 

Ironically, they have a dual homeland of sorts, Israel and the USA.  If a Jew goes to Israel and it's too Jewish, or sometimes even if it's not Jewish enough (which, by Orthodox standards, it often isn't), they typically end up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fate of Israelis and Israel are inextricably linked, not Jews generally speaking.  There are more Jews here in the Usa than there are in Israel..... A lot more if you are classifying Jewish as an ethnicity regardless of whether the individual practices the religion or fullfilled any rights of passages..... or if you don't meet some odd requirement like your mother having to be Jewish.  And Israel itself is home to plenty of non-Jews who are just as 'Israeli' as their Jewish countrymen, in fact non-Jews will likely exceed Jews in Israel in the not too distant future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took a look at Israel's demographics and population growth... WOW! They have some of the highest birthrates in the developed world. In 1900, barely any Jews lived in the area that would become Israel. 3 million Jews immigrated there in the past 100 years, and they have procreated it up to 6 million. According to wikipedia, their 2008 census had them at 7.4 million people total in the State of Israel, but estimated 2014 population is 8.2 million.

 

Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took a look at Israel's demographics and population growth... WOW! They have some of the highest birthrates in the developed world. In 1900, barely any Jews lived in the area that would become Israel. 3 million Jews immigrated there in the past 100 years, and they have procreated it up to 6 million. According to wikipedia, their 2008 census had them at 7.4 million people total in the State of Israel, but estimated 2014 population is 8.2 million.

 

Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth..."

 

EDIT: Also Exodus 23:31 "I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you..."

 

The Orthodox have a much higher birthrate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is refreshing. Maybe some more world leaders will similarly develop a backbone--

British leader Theresa May breaks with John Kerry’s condemnation of Israel

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britains-leaderbreaks-with-kerrys-condemnation-of-israel/2016/12/30/33371564-ce97-11e6-a87f-b917067331bb_story.html?utm_term=.720f53dd5722

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...