What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Obama and Israel (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
AS a supporter of Israel, Barack Obama's viewpoint on this issue is of vital interest to me, as it is to most Jews. Jews will play a very important part in the upcoming election, for demographic reasons. Although we are only 2% of the population, there are lots of us in swing states that matter, especially Ohio and Florida. And Jews vote in large numbers.

The first article is from the American Spectator, which is right wing, but very supportive of Israel. I normally don't approve of the type of journalism in this magazine, but this particluar article is well documented and asks important questions, IMO.

The second article is a direct interview with Obama by NYT reporter Jeffrey Goldberg completely devoted to the issue of Israel.

The two articles obviously contradict each other. The question is, which to believe?

 
David Axelrod laughed.

We were in the spin room following last month's debate in Philadelphia, and I had just asked Barack Obama's chief strategist to respond to a statement made by a top Hamas adviser endorsing Obama's candidacy, and favorably comparing the young Illinois Senator to John F. Kennedy.

"I like John Kennedy too," Axelrod responded. "That's about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."

Just a few days later, Obama was asked, at a diner stopover, about Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas, and his response was, "I'm just going to eat my waffle."

Last week, Obama described it as a "smear" that John McCain, in response to a question, correctly noted that a spokesman for the terrorist group publicly expressed support for Obama. But on Friday, McCain was further vindicated when the Times of London reported that Obama adviser Robert Malley had to sever ties with the campaign, because the newspaper was about to report that the prominent critic of Israel had been regularly engaging in talks with Hamas.

The Obama campaign has suggested that Malley's role with the campaign was "informal." But this is the same campaign that tried to downplay Obama's 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright (who, among other incendiary remarks, referred to Israel as a "dirty word").

Why was there a need to sever ties if none really existed? And if Obama is so utterly opposed to dealing with Hamas, as he has stated publicly, then why would he have an adviser, even an "informal" one, who was doing just that?

THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN, Obama and his staffers have dismissed any scrutiny of his views on Israel with a blend of outrage and sarcasm, as if his record of support for Israel is so extensive, so undeniable, that anybody who raises doubts about his actual views is launching an inquisition.

But as is the case with most issues, Obama is such a blank slate, and has such a thin public record, that voters are forced to parse his statements, sift through his past, and examine those he chooses to associate with to get a better sense of his underlying philosophy.

Obama has touted his foreign policy approach as a break from "conventional Washington thinking." As part of this approach, Obama has boasted of his willingness to engage in direct talks with our enemies, including Iran, without preconditions.

Iran has consistently been deemed the leading state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department, has vowed to annihilate Israel within the context of seeking nuclear weapons, and has helped finance Hamas. Why should it be beyond the pale to question the earnestness of Obama's vow not to negotiate with Hamas, when he has promised, as part of his sweeping program for change, to negotiate with its patron, which shares the same ultimate goal?

It's no secret that within elite liberal foreign policy circles, one of the primary laments is that the United States hinders peace in the Middle East by being too reflexively pro-Israel.

So when a liberal politician comes along and assures that same crowd that he is going to do away with "conventional Washington thinking," it is only fair to wonder whether he is sending an unspoken signal that he also plans to tilt the balance of U.S. policy in the Middle East in a direction that is more favorable to the Palestinians and more critical of Israel.

ALI ABUNIMAH, a Palestinian activist from Chicago, insists that at least in the recent past, Obama wanted to see U.S. policy move in that direction.

"In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor," Abunimah has written. "On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

Abunimah says that as late as 2004, during his tough primary race, Obama praised him for his activism, and apologized, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front."

The Obama campaign has disputed Abunimah's account, and there is no audio to back him up. But Abunimah has released a photo of Obama breaking bread with Edward Said, one of the leading anti-Israel intellectuals of the 20th century, at a 1998 Arab community event in Chicago.

Furthermore, Obama has ties with Rashid Khalidi, who currently serves as the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. Khalidi, who once served as a flak for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, is an active proponent of the view that U.S. policy is too biased in favor of Israel.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama spoke at a going away party in honor of Khalidi in Chicago in 2003:

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

WITH THIS PAST as prologue, many of the statements (or omissions) Obama has made on the campaign trail raise questions about his true stance on Israel.

When Obama said, "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people," did he really mean as he later clarified, that nobody was suffering more from the failure of the Palestinian leadership? Or was he trying to start a "conversation" about whether the U.S. is too focused on Israeli suffering, and not enough on the suffering of the Palestinians?

When he was asked by Brian Williams in a debate last year to name the top three allies of the United States, why did he filibuster the question without naming Israel?

When he said in February, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," what did he mean by "pro-Likud"?

There is an active strain within the liberal foreign policy community that believes that since Hamas was democratically elected and controls Gaza, any peace process would have to include talks with their leaders. When Carter met with Hamas last month, Obama was slow to criticize the former president. "I'm not going to comment on former President Carter," Obama said at first. "He is a private citizen, and you know, it's not my place to discuss who or -- who he shouldn't meet with." (Obama, interestingly, didn't employ the private citizen dodge when he called on NBC to fire Don Imus last year in the wake of the controversy over the radio show host's racially insensitive remarks.)

While Obama did eventually criticize Carter's trip, it was only after much prodding, and he still didn't consider the question important enough to disrupt his waffle-eating experience.

On a number of other issues, there has been a pattern of Obama saying one thing on the campaign trail that was undercut by his advisers. We saw that when his economic adviser assured the Canadians that Obama wasn't really serious about the anti-NAFTA rhetoric he was spewing in Ohio.

We saw that when former adviser Samantha Power, speaking of Obama's plans to withdraw troops out of Iraq, said Obama wouldn't "rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate." And now we have Obama's public opposition to Hamas undercut by the fact that an adviser is meeting with them.

SO IS IT REALLY a stretch to wonder whether Obama would eventually support talks with the terrorist group, despite his public pronouncements to the contrary?

This is not a theoretical matter. Ahmed Yousef, the same Hamas adviser who said that the terrorist group supports Obama, wrote a Washington Post op-ed last June arguing for engagement with Hamas.

The group is obviously embarking on a strategy, similar to the one Arafat pursued during the Oslo peace process, of making public overtures of peace abroad, duping naive Western leaders into granting them legitimacy and the financial aid that comes along with it, while continuing to support terrorism at home. Clearly, Hamas views Obama as an easy mark.

The interesting thing about Obama's candidacy is that his lack of experience, and the mixed messages he sends, enable close observers to come to drastically different conclusions as to what kind of policies he would support as president.

Michael Lerner, editor of the left-wing Jewish magazine Tikkun, said, "Based on my conversations with Obama, I have a very strong belief that he shares the Tikkun perspective..." But the staunchly pro-Israel Marty Peretz assured "friends of Israel" that they could trust Obama.

Abunimah, the Palestinian activist from Chicago, is disappointed that Obama has sold out to the pro-Israel Lobby, while Hamas adviser Yousef chalked up Obama's pro-Israel statements to election year posturing, and declared that the terrorist group still wants him to win.

Obama is running for the most powerful job in the world without much of a public record of which to speak. Yet those who demand to know a little bit more about the candidate by scrutinizing his statements and relationships are arrogantly dismissed as engaging in "smears" and being divisive for refusing to simply take him at his word.

Welcome to the new kind of politics.

Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator.

 
The Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did Barack Obama no favor recently when he said: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.” John McCain jumped on this statement, calling it a “legitimate point of discussion,” and tied it to Obama’s putative softness on Iran, whose ever-charming president last week called Israel a “stinking corpse” and predicted its “annihilation.”

The Hamas episode won’t help Obama’s attempts to win over Jewish voters, particularly those in such places as –- to pull an example from the air –- Palm Beach County, Florida, whose Jewish residents tend to appreciate robust American support for Israel, and worry about whether presidential candidates feel the importance of Israel in their kishkes, or guts.

Obama and I spoke over the weekend about Hamas, about Jimmy Carter, and about the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. He seemed eager to talk about his ties to the Jewish community, and about the influence Jews have had on his life. Among other things, he told me that he learned the art of moral anguish from Jews. We spoke as well about my Atlantic cover story on Israel’s future. He mentioned his interest in the opinions of the writer David Grossman, who is featured in the article. “I remember reading The Yellow Wind when it came out, and reading about Grossman now is powerful, painful stuff.” And, speaking in a kind of code Jews readily understand, Obama also made sure to mention that he was fond of the writer Leon Uris, the author of Exodus.

Here are excerpts from our conversation:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I’m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.

And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.

JG: You’ve talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking

BO: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it’s something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.

One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate.

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don’t know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it.

BO: I find that really interesting. I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what’s been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they’re asking themselves moral questions.

Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations.

The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I’m University of Chicago, I’ve got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it’s curious.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

BO: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.

JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?

BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked.

 
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,"

What does this mean? How can you call something inexcusable and at the same time provide an excuse for it, all within the same sentence? And I wish Obama would state what kind of resolution he's looking for, though I'm pretty sure I know it: once again, Israel will have to give up more hard-earned land in the vain hope that her enemies might decide to make nice one day.

 
THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN, Obama and his staffers have dismissed any scrutiny of his views on Israel with a blend of outrage and sarcasm, as if his record of support for Israel is so extensive, so undeniable, that anybody who raises doubts about his actual views is launching an inquisition.
This is the Obama campaign strategy to anyone who questions anything about him. It's been very effective so far.
 
The Obama campaign has suggested that Malley's role with the campaign was "informal." But this is the same campaign that tried to downplay Obama's 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright
This is where I moved on.
Malley was different than Wright, though. He was the top advisor to Obama on Middle East affairs. We're talking about something very different here. I defended Obama over and over again on the Wright matter. And I'm not accusing him here, only suggesting this is cause for concern. Malley's attitude towards Israel was well known before he was hired by the Obama campaign.
 
AS a supporter of Israel, Barack Obama's viewpoint on this issue is of vital interest to me, as it is to most Jews. Jews will play a very important part in the upcoming election, for demographic reasons. Although we are only 2% of the population, there are lots of us in swing states that matter, especially Ohio and Florida. And Jews vote in large numbers.

The first article is from the American Spectator, which is right wing, but very supportive of Israel. I normally don't approve of the type of journalism in this magazine, but this particluar article is well documented and asks important questions, IMO.

The second article is a direct interview with Obama by NYT reporter Jeffrey Goldberg completely devoted to the issue of Israel.

The two articles obviously contradict each other. The question is, which to believe?
What does it mean to be a supporter of Israel and why does Israel need your support?
 
AS a supporter of Israel, Barack Obama's viewpoint on this issue is of vital interest to me, as it is to most Jews. Jews will play a very important part in the upcoming election, for demographic reasons. Although we are only 2% of the population, there are lots of us in swing states that matter, especially Ohio and Florida. And Jews vote in large numbers.

The first article is from the American Spectator, which is right wing, but very supportive of Israel. I normally don't approve of the type of journalism in this magazine, but this particluar article is well documented and asks important questions, IMO.

The second article is a direct interview with Obama by NYT reporter Jeffrey Goldberg completely devoted to the issue of Israel.

The two articles obviously contradict each other. The question is, which to believe?
What does it mean to be a supporter of Israel and why does Israel need your support?
Good questions. I will try to answer, though my answer may not be complete.I believe in Israel's right to exist.

I believe that Zionism is a good thing.

I believe that in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arabs are and have been historically mostly wrong, and Israel is and has been historically mostly right.

I don't like the idea of giving up land for peace.

I think Hamas and Hezbollah are in the same category as al-qeada: they are evil organizations that should not be dealt with in any way. Their leaders should either be assassinated or captured and held on trial for war crimes.

The above are my views and I do not claim them for anyone else.

As to your second question, Israel needs my support and the support of every thinking person because they are the most unjustly criticized nation on Earth. They are a tiny country, surrounded by enemies dedicated to Israel's utter destruction. I believe they are the good guys who deserve our support.

 
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,"What does this mean? How can you call something inexcusable and at the same time provide an excuse for it, all within the same sentence? And I wish Obama would state what kind of resolution he's looking for, though I'm pretty sure I know it: once again, Israel will have to give up more hard-earned land in the vain hope that her enemies might decide to make nice one day.
He's saying that militant jihadists are using the Israel/Palestine situation as an excuse to do the inexcusable.
 
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,"What does this mean? How can you call something inexcusable and at the same time provide an excuse for it, all within the same sentence? And I wish Obama would state what kind of resolution he's looking for, though I'm pretty sure I know it: once again, Israel will have to give up more hard-earned land in the vain hope that her enemies might decide to make nice one day.
He's saying that militant jihadists are using the Israel/Palestine situation as an excuse to do the inexcusable.
That's not quite how he put it. He says "provides an excuse". The fault is with the lack of resolution.
 
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,"What does this mean? How can you call something inexcusable and at the same time provide an excuse for it, all within the same sentence? And I wish Obama would state what kind of resolution he's looking for, though I'm pretty sure I know it: once again, Israel will have to give up more hard-earned land in the vain hope that her enemies might decide to make nice one day.
You do understand that there are some settlements built on land that was not "hard-earned"? There is even extreme disagreement in Israel on some of the settlements built by extreme hardliners. How can Obama even expect to state what kind of resolution he would like? He fully understands that the sides have a long, long way to go, especially with the split of Fatah and Hamas . There is no way he is going to back himself into a corner and make any statement - and no matter what, it is very close to Clinton's or McCain's, there is not a lot of significant difference in them or the latitude for it. He will work and create action and effort towards a resolution rather than completely ignoring the ground work laid in the Clinton years like the Bush administration did - whether any thing would have come out of that it's hard to say - but to ignore the fact that we had the two sides working very hard at some of the stickier issues and to let it fall through the cracks was despicable.
 
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,"What does this mean? How can you call something inexcusable and at the same time provide an excuse for it, all within the same sentence? And I wish Obama would state what kind of resolution he's looking for, though I'm pretty sure I know it: once again, Israel will have to give up more hard-earned land in the vain hope that her enemies might decide to make nice one day.
He's saying that militant jihadists are using the Israel/Palestine situation as an excuse to do the inexcusable.
That's not quite how he put it. He says "provides an excuse". The fault is with the lack of resolution.
And it does provide an excuse for jihadists worldwide. They rally behind that. If we could solve the Israel/Palestine problem, militants in Iran, Syria, etc. won't be able to point to the Palestinians and say "our muslim brothers are suffering over there!" Instead, they'd have to deal with their own governing, etc.
 
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,"What does this mean? How can you call something inexcusable and at the same time provide an excuse for it, all within the same sentence? And I wish Obama would state what kind of resolution he's looking for, though I'm pretty sure I know it: once again, Israel will have to give up more hard-earned land in the vain hope that her enemies might decide to make nice one day.
He's saying that militant jihadists are using the Israel/Palestine situation as an excuse to do the inexcusable.
That's not quite how he put it. He says "provides an excuse". The fault is with the lack of resolution.
And it does provide an excuse for jihadists worldwide. They rally behind that. If we could solve the Israel/Palestine problem, militants in Iran, Syria, etc. won't be able to point to the Palestinians and say "our muslim brothers are suffering over there!" Instead, they'd have to deal with their own governing, etc.
You need to realize that the only way to "solve" the problem in a way that will satisify the jihadists is the utter destruction of Israel.
 
What some people here, and Obama as well, don't realize, is that it's not the settlements and the non-creation of a Palestinian state that is creating tension. And it's not the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that is creating tension.

What has created tension is Israel itself. The reason none of these proposed solutions will work is that the Arab world will never be satisfied until Israel is utterly destroyed. There will always be war until that happens. What Israel needs to do is to stop looking for peace and instead look for the most effective way to win the war.

 
What some people here, and Obama as well, don't realize, is that it's not the settlements and the non-creation of a Palestinian state that is creating tension. And it's not the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that is creating tension.

What has created tension is Israel itself. The reason none of these proposed solutions will work is that the Arab world will never be satisfied until Israel is utterly destroyed. There will always be war until that happens. What Israel needs to do is to stop looking for peace and instead look for the most effective way to win the war.
So your assertion is that there will always be war until the Arab world destroys Israel. How does Israel win the war then? By destroying the Arab world?
 
What some people here, and Obama as well, don't realize, is that it's not the settlements and the non-creation of a Palestinian state that is creating tension. And it's not the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that is creating tension.

What has created tension is Israel itself. The reason none of these proposed solutions will work is that the Arab world will never be satisfied until Israel is utterly destroyed. There will always be war until that happens. What Israel needs to do is to stop looking for peace and instead look for the most effective way to win the war.
This is wrong, wrong, 1000x wrong!The hardliners and these illegal settlements are at the root of the split inside Israeli politics and American politics - they are making it harder and harder to present a united effort in any kind of effort. It is this tension that the Arab world can use to great effect to keep us apart. So you are completely wrong

Most in the Arab world understand that the destruction of Israel = their destruction. They talk big but know what will happen.

 
What some people here, and Obama as well, don't realize, is that it's not the settlements and the non-creation of a Palestinian state that is creating tension. And it's not the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that is creating tension.

What has created tension is Israel itself. The reason none of these proposed solutions will work is that the Arab world will never be satisfied until Israel is utterly destroyed. There will always be war until that happens. What Israel needs to do is to stop looking for peace and instead look for the most effective way to win the war.
This is wrong, wrong, 1000x wrong!The hardliners and these illegal settlements are at the root of the split inside Israeli politics and American politics - they are making it harder and harder to present a united effort in any kind of effort. It is this tension that the Arab world can use to great effect to keep us apart. So you are completely wrong

Most in the Arab world understand that the destruction of Israel = their destruction. They talk big but know what will happen.
Um, the Arabians have been around for a considerably longer period of time, and no matter the threat of destruction against them, they will try to do whatever they want. So unless/until the destruction of Israel is sanctioned by a major power, they'll simply bide their time.
 
The Obama campaign has suggested that Malley's role with the campaign was "informal." But this is the same campaign that tried to downplay Obama's 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright
This is where I moved on.
Malley was different than Wright, though. He was the top advisor to Obama on Middle East affairs. We're talking about something very different here. I defended Obama over and over again on the Wright matter. And I'm not accusing him here, only suggesting this is cause for concern. Malley's attitude towards Israel was well known before he was hired by the Obama campaign.
Says who? Link please.I've read plenty of articles about Obama's foreign policy teams and advisers. I never saw his name mentioned until this controversy erupted, and all of a sudden right-wing sites are calling him Obama's "top adviser on the Middle East." Whatever.

 
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,"

What does this mean? How can you call something inexcusable and at the same time provide an excuse for it, all within the same sentence? And I wish Obama would state what kind of resolution he's looking for, though I'm pretty sure I know it: once again, Israel will have to give up more hard-earned land in the vain hope that her enemies might decide to make nice one day.
He's saying that militant jihadists are using the Israel/Palestine situation as an excuse to do the inexcusable.
That's not quite how he put it. He says "provides an excuse". The fault is with the lack of resolution.
And it does provide an excuse for jihadists worldwide. They rally behind that. If we could solve the Israel/Palestine problem, militants in Iran, Syria, etc. won't be able to point to the Palestinians and say "our muslim brothers are suffering over there!" Instead, they'd have to deal with their own governing, etc.
You need to realize that the only way to "solve" the problem in a way that will satisify the jihadists is the utter destruction of Israel.
I do realize that. The difference is, I'm optimistic that if peace can be brokered, and more importantly, upheld for the better part of a generation, the jihadist numbers would dwindle significantly over time. There are still those whose parents and grandparents remember getting kicked out of their homes by the British to make room for Israel. As those generations diminish, my fingers are crossed that some of the hate will as well. It could be pie-in-the sky, but if it's not, why bother with peace agreements? Why not just nuke the middle east into glass? Or is that what you're hoping for?
 
What some people here, and Obama as well, don't realize, is that it's not the settlements and the non-creation of a Palestinian state that is creating tension. And it's not the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that is creating tension.

What has created tension is Israel itself. The reason none of these proposed solutions will work is that the Arab world will never be satisfied until Israel is utterly destroyed. There will always be war until that happens. What Israel needs to do is to stop looking for peace and instead look for the most effective way to win the war.
This is wrong, wrong, 1000x wrong!The hardliners and these illegal settlements are at the root of the split inside Israeli politics and American politics - they are making it harder and harder to present a united effort in any kind of effort. It is this tension that the Arab world can use to great effect to keep us apart. So you are completely wrong

Most in the Arab world understand that the destruction of Israel = their destruction. They talk big but know what will happen.
Um, the Arabians have been around for a considerably longer period of time, and no matter the threat of destruction against them, they will try to do whatever they want. So unless/until the destruction of Israel is sanctioned by a major power, they'll simply bide their time.
Wow - I didn't know the Arabs had been around considerably longer. Guess they better go back to all those Dead Sea scrolls and fix them.
 
What some people here, and Obama as well, don't realize, is that it's not the settlements and the non-creation of a Palestinian state that is creating tension. And it's not the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that is creating tension.

What has created tension is Israel itself. The reason none of these proposed solutions will work is that the Arab world will never be satisfied until Israel is utterly destroyed. There will always be war until that happens. What Israel needs to do is to stop looking for peace and instead look for the most effective way to win the war.
This is wrong, wrong, 1000x wrong!The hardliners and these illegal settlements are at the root of the split inside Israeli politics and American politics - they are making it harder and harder to present a united effort in any kind of effort. It is this tension that the Arab world can use to great effect to keep us apart. So you are completely wrong

Most in the Arab world understand that the destruction of Israel = their destruction. They talk big but know what will happen.
Um, the Arabians have been around for a considerably longer period of time, and no matter the threat of destruction against them, they will try to do whatever they want. So unless/until the destruction of Israel is sanctioned by a major power, they'll simply bide their time.
Wow - I didn't know the Arabs had been around considerably longer. Guess they better go back to all those Dead Sea scrolls and fix them.
I meant in comparison to the likes of the US and Britain, if you must know.
 
Just got back- to answer several questions at once with the same answer:

The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is for Israel to be strong enough to scare off this generation of Arabs from attacking her. No amount of negotiation is going to do it. The leadership of the current group of Arabs is too radicalized to accept the existence of Israel. All Israel has ever asked is that her right to exist be recognized, and then there will be peace. That's why there is peace with Egypt now, and the Sinai desert was returned. If Syria recognized Israel, the Golan Heights would be returned. And if Hamas was willing to recognize Israel and disavov terrorist attacks, there would be an independent Palestinian state within a few years. But Israel should not continue to unilaterally withdraw from land until this happens, and I don't believe it will happen during this generation. So we all must accept the fact that there will be war in the Middle East throughout our lifetime.

 
To speak positively for a moment, Obama's mention of Leon Uris is reassuring. Exodus (the novel, not the Biblical chapter) is an excellent tool for knowing the background of the region and the moral reason for Israel's existence. There's no way that Obama could have read this and not be a supporter of Israel's right to exist. So that is a good thing.

 
A couple of questions for Tim,

Do you think it is in America's interest to broker peace in Gaza and the West Bank?

What American interests are served by supporting Israel in a prolonged fight with their neighbors?

My take on these two questions: First, as oil commodities continue to become more valuable so to do diplomatic relations with oil rich countries. A major criticism of the US is our unwaivering and exorbitant support for Israel. Several amicable peace agreement that ensure the existence of Israel, address Palestinian concerns over Jerusalem, ensure a recognized Palestinian state and resolve the refugee problem have been proposed and are currently under considerations. Such a peace agreement, brokered with the help of the US would be huge for our interests in the region. Not only for economic reasons but it would also open up diplomatic relations and help us in the fight against terrorism.

Two: No American interests are served by continued conflict in the region. Prolonged conflict means more settlements for greater Israel but the US sees no real positive return for supporting Israel's fight against the Palestinians. Politicians, including Obama, must posture themselves to favor support from AIPAC, but as a US citizen I fail to see how prolonged conflict is in our interest at all.

 
Two: No American interests are served by continued conflict in the region. Prolonged conflict means more settlements for greater Israel but the US sees no real positive return for supporting Israel's fight against the Palestinians. Politicians, including Obama, must posture themselves to favor support from AIPAC, but as a US citizen I fail to see how prolonged conflict is in our interest at all.
I think it is quite apparent that the financial interests of many very powerful US constituents are served quite well by continued conflict in the middle east and elsewhere.
 
CletiusMaximus said:
Two: No American interests are served by continued conflict in the region. Prolonged conflict means more settlements for greater Israel but the US sees no real positive return for supporting Israel's fight against the Palestinians. Politicians, including Obama, must posture themselves to favor support from AIPAC, but as a US citizen I fail to see how prolonged conflict is in our interest at all.
I think it is quite apparent that the financial interests of many very powerful US constituents are served quite well by continued conflict in the middle east and elsewhere.
Very true. Though I would argue that such interests are subversive in nature and primarily support the US military/industrial complex.
 
A couple of questions for Tim,Do you think it is in America's interest to broker peace in Gaza and the West Bank? What American interests are served by supporting Israel in a prolonged fight with their neighbors?My take on these two questions: First, as oil commodities continue to become more valuable so to do diplomatic relations with oil rich countries. A major criticism of the US is our unwaivering and exorbitant support for Israel. Several amicable peace agreement that ensure the existence of Israel, address Palestinian concerns over Jerusalem, ensure a recognized Palestinian state and resolve the refugee problem have been proposed and are currently under considerations. Such a peace agreement, brokered with the help of the US would be huge for our interests in the region. Not only for economic reasons but it would also open up diplomatic relations and help us in the fight against terrorism. Two: No American interests are served by continued conflict in the region. Prolonged conflict means more settlements for greater Israel but the US sees no real positive return for supporting Israel's fight against the Palestinians. Politicians, including Obama, must posture themselves to favor support from AIPAC, but as a US citizen I fail to see how prolonged conflict is in our interest at all.
Sorry, I didn't see this posting. I will try to answer you as best I can:1. Yes, it would be in our interest to do so if it could be done, but I do not believe it can be done with Hamas and Hezbollah. It is not to our interest to HOPE that it can be done, and to push Israel to give up one concession after another with this hope in mind. All we are doing is weakening our ally. To be specific: any Palestinian state would have to have a government that recognized the State of Israel and stop demanding the Right of Return. If these two goals are met, I believe that a peaceful settlement would take place. Arafat agreed to the first part, but never to the second and rejected the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians do not want peace.2. You're correct that no American interests are served by continued conflict. But no American interests are served by weakening Israel, either. With the hope of peace, you are only guaranteeing further conflict. The only way to reduce conflict is for Israel to be strong, with or without our help. I also must respond to your back-handed swipe at AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee). AIPAC is certainly influential in American politics, though not to the extent that its detractors claim. But it would not be influential if Israel was in the wrong. Both parties recognize the moral rightness of the Israeli cause, and that is the reason America supports Israel, and should continue to.
 
Both parties recognize the moral rightness of the Israeli cause, and that is the reason America supports Israel, and should continue to.
This is a naive view of American foreign policy in my opinion. Whether a cause or nation is morally "right" or "wrong" has no place in our foreign policy and never has.
 
Both parties recognize the moral rightness of the Israeli cause, and that is the reason America supports Israel, and should continue to.
This is a naive view of American foreign policy in my opinion. Whether a cause or nation is morally "right" or "wrong" has no place in our foreign policy and never has.
It's definitely ethnocentric, but it's not so naive as you think. Nations that are "like us", and here I'm referring to Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea (and a few others scattered across the globe) are likely to be our closest friends. They will always be valuable trading partners, and will perceive the world in the same way as we do. This is merely an extension of Churchill's vision of the uniting of the "English-Speaking Peoples." Israel, along with the other nations I mentioned, are a vital part of that coalition.
 
A couple of questions for Tim,Do you think it is in America's interest to broker peace in Gaza and the West Bank? What American interests are served by supporting Israel in a prolonged fight with their neighbors?My take on these two questions: First, as oil commodities continue to become more valuable so to do diplomatic relations with oil rich countries. A major criticism of the US is our unwaivering and exorbitant support for Israel. Several amicable peace agreement that ensure the existence of Israel, address Palestinian concerns over Jerusalem, ensure a recognized Palestinian state and resolve the refugee problem have been proposed and are currently under considerations. Such a peace agreement, brokered with the help of the US would be huge for our interests in the region. Not only for economic reasons but it would also open up diplomatic relations and help us in the fight against terrorism. Two: No American interests are served by continued conflict in the region. Prolonged conflict means more settlements for greater Israel but the US sees no real positive return for supporting Israel's fight against the Palestinians. Politicians, including Obama, must posture themselves to favor support from AIPAC, but as a US citizen I fail to see how prolonged conflict is in our interest at all.
Sorry, I didn't see this posting. I will try to answer you as best I can:1. Yes, it would be in our interest to do so if it could be done, but I do not believe it can be done with Hamas and Hezbollah. It is not to our interest to HOPE that it can be done, and to push Israel to give up one concession after another with this hope in mind. All we are doing is weakening our ally. To be specific: any Palestinian state would have to have a government that recognized the State of Israel and stop demanding the Right of Return. If these two goals are met, I believe that a peaceful settlement would take place. Arafat agreed to the first part, but never to the second and rejected the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians do not want peace.2. You're correct that no American interests are served by continued conflict. But no American interests are served by weakening Israel, either. With the hope of peace, you are only guaranteeing further conflict. The only way to reduce conflict is for Israel to be strong, with or without our help. I also must respond to your back-handed swipe at AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee). AIPAC is certainly influential in American politics, though not to the extent that its detractors claim. But it would not be influential if Israel was in the wrong. Both parties recognize the moral rightness of the Israeli cause, and that is the reason America supports Israel, and should continue to.
Wasn't meant to be backhanded. How influential do you think AIPAC is? Jews constitute 2% of the US population yet every candidate running for high office is required to publicly state their unfettered support for Israel. Why does Israel receive over $3 billion dollars in US aid, second only to Iraq? I'm not trying to take any swipes at AIPAC other than to say that they are one of the most influential lobbies active in the United States.And what is meant by "weakening" Israel? The withdrawal of any settlements? What about future settlements? What is fair for Israel to sacrifice for peace?ps, I hope to keep this constructive. If I come across demeaning or inflammatory please do not take it personally.
 
A couple of questions for Tim,Do you think it is in America's interest to broker peace in Gaza and the West Bank? What American interests are served by supporting Israel in a prolonged fight with their neighbors?My take on these two questions: First, as oil commodities continue to become more valuable so to do diplomatic relations with oil rich countries. A major criticism of the US is our unwaivering and exorbitant support for Israel. Several amicable peace agreement that ensure the existence of Israel, address Palestinian concerns over Jerusalem, ensure a recognized Palestinian state and resolve the refugee problem have been proposed and are currently under considerations. Such a peace agreement, brokered with the help of the US would be huge for our interests in the region. Not only for economic reasons but it would also open up diplomatic relations and help us in the fight against terrorism. Two: No American interests are served by continued conflict in the region. Prolonged conflict means more settlements for greater Israel but the US sees no real positive return for supporting Israel's fight against the Palestinians. Politicians, including Obama, must posture themselves to favor support from AIPAC, but as a US citizen I fail to see how prolonged conflict is in our interest at all.
Sorry, I didn't see this posting. I will try to answer you as best I can:1. Yes, it would be in our interest to do so if it could be done, but I do not believe it can be done with Hamas and Hezbollah. It is not to our interest to HOPE that it can be done, and to push Israel to give up one concession after another with this hope in mind. All we are doing is weakening our ally. To be specific: any Palestinian state would have to have a government that recognized the State of Israel and stop demanding the Right of Return. If these two goals are met, I believe that a peaceful settlement would take place. Arafat agreed to the first part, but never to the second and rejected the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians do not want peace.2. You're correct that no American interests are served by continued conflict. But no American interests are served by weakening Israel, either. With the hope of peace, you are only guaranteeing further conflict. The only way to reduce conflict is for Israel to be strong, with or without our help. I also must respond to your back-handed swipe at AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee). AIPAC is certainly influential in American politics, though not to the extent that its detractors claim. But it would not be influential if Israel was in the wrong. Both parties recognize the moral rightness of the Israeli cause, and that is the reason America supports Israel, and should continue to.
Wasn't meant to be backhanded. How influential do you think AIPAC is? Jews constitute 2% of the US population yet every candidate running for high office is required to publicly state their unfettered support for Israel. Why does Israel receive over $3 billion dollars in US aid, second only to Iraq? I'm not trying to take any swipes at AIPAC other than to say that they are one of the most influential lobbies active in the United States.And what is meant by "weakening" Israel? The withdrawal of any settlements? What about future settlements? What is fair for Israel to sacrifice for peace?ps, I hope to keep this constructive. If I come across demeaning or inflammatory please do not take it personally.
Thank you. I don't take it personally. Please understand that in the attacks on AIPAC there is often an anti-Semitic element, discussing the "Jewish lobby", etc., so I probably tend to get touchy about it. I will answer all of your questions in the next post; this one is too long already.
 
I fully realize that precious few of you will believe me here, let alone accept the implications of what I write, but here is the truth:

Israel and the Arabs descend from a common "father" (Abraham). The problems between the peoples started with his sons...and have continued for the four plus millenia since. Check out Genesis and what it says. According to it, the two groups were destined to fight until the end of days.

While many may not believe the Bible, or it's prophecies, surely all can recognise that Jews and Arabs have hated each other for FOUR MILLENIA, and it's foolish to believe that we can undo that now. The best we can ever hope for is an uneasy, forced truce.

 
1. Whatever extra influence Jews have in this country regarding Israel, it's for two reasons- first, because while our numbers are small, we are prominent in key swing states, and second, because Jews are united on the issue of supporting Israel. It's proof of pluralism at work.

2. This in itself does not explain the American support for Israel, which is why I don't believe AIPAC is nearly as influential as people argue that it is. I really don't believe politicians are "required" to state support for Israel; I think the support for the most part is genuine. There are a lot of Jews who might agree with you in the case of Obama, the subject of this thread: they believe that when he says he supports Israel he is only paying lip service. But I disagree; while I am concerned by what some of his specific policies might be, I think he really does support Israel, and I think most of the Congress does as well. I stated my reasons why in the post directly above your latest set of questions, but I'll paste it again here:

It's definitely ethnocentric, but it's not so naive as you think. Nations that are "like us", and here I'm referring to Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea (and a few others scattered across the globe) are likely to be our closest friends. They will always be valuable trading partners, and will perceive the world in the same way as we do. This is merely an extension of Churchill's vision of the uniting of the "English-Speaking Peoples." Israel, along with the other nations I mentioned, are a vital part of that coalition.

3. Regarding foreign aid: I am ideally against all foreign aid. In the case of Israel, our aid is tied into several American companies who trade with Israel, including all important aerospace, so it's really government subsidizing of our own industries. I think we should wean off this aid over time. But I don't want to pick on Israel here in particular; it's important to me to eventually reduce and eliminate ALL goverment subsidies of private businesses.

4. I define weakening Israel as pushing them to give up settlements or territories unilaterally in what I consider a vain hope that this will make the Arab world nicer towards them. Every poll that has ever been taken in Israel has had the same result: if Israelis believed there would really be peace, they would gladly give up ALL remaining settlements in the West Bank and Gaza; they might even agree to the Old City of Jerusalem becoming an international city again. Only a small minority disagree with this.

But I don't think the Arabs want peace. They gain too much by blaming Israel for all of their woes. I don't think we are able to broker at this time in history. That is why I would demand first, from any Palestinian or Arab group that wants peace, a recognition of the State of Israel's right to exist, and a renouncing of the claimed Palestinian Right of Return. Until they are willing to agree to these two items, there is no point in Israel talking to them, and there is certainly no point in removing any more settlements, IMO.

 
I fully realize that precious few of you will believe me here, let alone accept the implications of what I write, but here is the truth:Israel and the Arabs descend from a common "father" (Abraham). The problems between the peoples started with his sons...and have continued for the four plus millenia since. Check out Genesis and what it says. According to it, the two groups were destined to fight until the end of days.While many may not believe the Bible, or it's prophecies, surely all can recognise that Jews and Arabs have hated each other for FOUR MILLENIA, and it's foolish to believe that we can undo that now. The best we can ever hope for is an uneasy, forced truce.
Jews and Arabs have not hated each other for four millenia. During the heydey of the Muslims (600 to 1100, aproximately), Jews were prominent in Muslim society, and much better treated than they were among Christians. In fact, even though treatment of Jews worsened during the last millenium as a direct result of the Muslim world declining during this same period, the Jews who lived as minority subjects in the Muslim world have never suffered the horrors and massacres of the Jews who lived in the Christian world.In terms of modern times, the original Zionists who came to Palestine at the turn of the last century were very friendly with Arabs. The enmity started later, around World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The reasons are too complicated to go into here, but it has very little to do with the Book of Genesis.
 
I fully realize that precious few of you will believe me here, let alone accept the implications of what I write, but here is the truth:Israel and the Arabs descend from a common "father" (Abraham). The problems between the peoples started with his sons...and have continued for the four plus millenia since. Check out Genesis and what it says. According to it, the two groups were destined to fight until the end of days.While many may not believe the Bible, or it's prophecies, surely all can recognise that Jews and Arabs have hated each other for FOUR MILLENIA, and it's foolish to believe that we can undo that now. The best we can ever hope for is an uneasy, forced truce.
Jews and Arabs have not hated each other for four millenia. During the heydey of the Muslims (600 to 1100, aproximately), Jews were prominent in Muslim society, and much better treated than they were among Christians. In fact, even though treatment of Jews worsened during the last millenium as a direct result of the Muslim world declining during this same period, the Jews who lived as minority subjects in the Muslim world have never suffered the horrors and massacres of the Jews who lived in the Christian world.In terms of modern times, the original Zionists who came to Palestine at the turn of the last century were very friendly with Arabs. The enmity started later, around World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The reasons are too complicated to go into here, but it has very little to do with the Book of Genesis.
Please don't confuse Hitler's regime with the Christian world.
 
I fully realize that precious few of you will believe me here, let alone accept the implications of what I write, but here is the truth:Israel and the Arabs descend from a common "father" (Abraham). The problems between the peoples started with his sons...and have continued for the four plus millenia since. Check out Genesis and what it says. According to it, the two groups were destined to fight until the end of days.While many may not believe the Bible, or it's prophecies, surely all can recognise that Jews and Arabs have hated each other for FOUR MILLENIA, and it's foolish to believe that we can undo that now. The best we can ever hope for is an uneasy, forced truce.
Jews and Arabs have not hated each other for four millenia. During the heydey of the Muslims (600 to 1100, aproximately), Jews were prominent in Muslim society, and much better treated than they were among Christians. In fact, even though treatment of Jews worsened during the last millenium as a direct result of the Muslim world declining during this same period, the Jews who lived as minority subjects in the Muslim world have never suffered the horrors and massacres of the Jews who lived in the Christian world.In terms of modern times, the original Zionists who came to Palestine at the turn of the last century were very friendly with Arabs. The enmity started later, around World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The reasons are too complicated to go into here, but it has very little to do with the Book of Genesis.
Please don't confuse Hitler's regime with the Christian world.
I wasn't speaking of Hitler. I was talking about the Christian world, in particular, if you must know, St. Augustine, The Crusades, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, the Spanish Inquistion, The Roman Catholic Church, The Protestant Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church, among others, all of whom had a hand in the persecution and murder of Jews in the name of Jesus Christ long before Hitler was even born. Sorry, but this is the unfortunate truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top