nebula Posted March 28, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 I never meant for this to be about blaming Obama. It's about a continuation that is being heightened either by or Obama or under Obama or with Obama or through Obama. Either way, it's a continuation and a heightening. As for the US alliance with Israel and looking out for their interests . . . I only have to present Gaza. The US pressured Israel into leaving Gaza and giving it over to the Palestinians. Nothing good has come from this move. Israel lost land, greenhouses, and other benefits. In return they received rocket fire from Gaza, more strife, more blame for Palestinian misery, . . . . Land for peace? Ha! Israel gave land. When will Palestinians give peace back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 27 2009, 06:47 PM) In the public eye, the US appears to be a major supporter of Israel, but the truth is sadly, the US is really nothing but a paper ally. I disagree that we are just a paper ally. we have pretty much always been there for Israel. How many UN Security Council votes have we vetoed in support of Israel? That is my point. We are a paper ally. We are the ones forced Israel to give up the Sinai, which not provided a needed security buffer, but would have made Israel energy independent. We are the primary reason Israel makes insane concessions for "peace" that threaten its own security and national well-being and make the nation more vulnerable to terrorists. All of the US led peace plans demand Israel to adopt policies the US would NEVER adopt were we facing a similar threat. We are hardly a true friend of Israel's. In Israel's three major wars, the US government all but completely abandoned Israel. Israel was predicted to lose in 1948, , '67' and '73. In fact the Army 's War College at West Point does not study those three wars because Israel's victories cannot be explained militarily given the odds Israel faced. QUOTE What I mean is that Israel has some strategic value for the United States in the region where both Russia and Iran are concerned. The "support" the US government gives Israel should not be confused with the unconditional love that many Christians in the US genuinely possess for Israel. Without a doubt. But why should a secular Govt have any sort of unconditional love for Israel? It is a silly thing to expect of a worldly Govt.That is not the point. The point is that to the WORLD the US and Israel have some love fest going on, and I was simply pointing out that such is not really the case and I was simply showing the true motivators behind any governmental "support" Israel receives. QUOTE Going back as far as Henry Kissenger, the US State Department has had a decidedly negative view of Israel. When the Yom Kippur War was on and it appeared that Israel was going to be wiped out, Secretary of State Kissenger's advice to Nixon was "let the Jews bleed." Had it been up to Kissenger alone, the US would not have sent Israel one shiny bullet. Fortunately, Nixon saw it differently. this is the thing that bugged me the most about this thread and the tone of it. This is not something new to Obama like so many want to make it out to be.I don't think anyone suggested that this was new or that it was unique to Obama. The Obama administration will be just anti-Israel as other administrations that precede it. It will take on a form that is unique to the Obama administration, but the anti-Israel sentiments themelves are not at all unique to this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 QUOTE (RunningGator @ Mar 27 2009, 05:44 PM) It is possible to be supportive of both parties while trying to find a solution to the problem; in fact it is the only way we will ever find a solution. Which shows that you really don't understand the dynamics of this conflict or the threat that Israel is really up against. QUOTE (RunningGator @ Mar 27 2009, 05:44 PM) But the US Govt's stated goal is peace between Israel and the Arab world. And as such, yes they can show support to both sides, and again I say that it is the only way we can ever have such a peace. The problem is that Israel is being forced to make "peace" with entity that is dedicated to Israel's destruction. The PA and Hamas are adamant that they will not accept Israel's right to exist and will recognize Israel as a nation. The rest of the Arab world additionally refuses to recognize Israel as either nation or its right to exist at all. Israel is not under any obligation to accept peace with entities that continut foment and maintain a state of belligerance with the nation and people of Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 That is only your perception and, imo, its totally off-base. I posted below a couple of previous statements that sum up what the article says to remind you what we're talking about. Obama's administration is taking a markedly new direction vis-a-vis Israel though. Call it "credit" or call it "blame" doesn't matter. I call it a huge mistake that will cost us all dearly in unintended consequences. Nothing you have shown me is any different than with the guy in the White House for the last 8 years. I am NOT going to defend Bush's actions as if they were "good" for Israel but my opinion is that the James Baker State Department has been running this since 1990. It doesn't matter who the President is, they are going to bat for the State Department's wishes. Bill Clinton was directly involved in Israeli elections during the 90s to make sure Netanyahu didn't win. Doth thou thinketh his concubine wouldeth be of divers opinion? "Dead flies in the ointment of the apothocary causeth it to send forth a stinking savor" Ecc 10:1 It was obvious that Bush had major disagreements with the State Department. Colin Powell was always contradicting Bush on Israel policy. My perception was that the State Department would try something their way and when it failed Bush got to try something else. That is pure conjecture on my part but I've been paying close focused attention to this issue since 1990 But "if" the State Department is running this as I have guessed, then this has been a strategy all along and they only needed new players. There is definitely a seismic shift in the way Israel is being treated in public statements from this White House. Genesis 3:3 "....and the serpent was the most subtle beast of the field" * The administration is offering more support to Arab countries * The media of the US paints Israel as bad and the Palestinians as poor victims * Charles Freeman, appointed by Barack Hussein Obama to chair the National Intelligence Council has blamed US ties with Israel for 9/11 * Freeman is anti-Israel * Obama's cabinet is filled with people who are anti-Israel * Jews are being blamed for the current financial crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts