Amadeus Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 There’s an old joke about that. Moses is said in the Bible to have been “slow of speech” which translates into him having a stammer. The joke goes that Big G told Moses that the Tribes of Israel would be given a land. A land that was to be overflowing with milk and honey, and that Big G would like Moses to say where he would like it to be. “Tttthanks vvvvery mmmmuch” said Moses “Pppplease ccccould wwwe hhhave Cccccc ---“ A this point getting a tad impatient with the stutter Big G spoke up “Of course you can have Canaan!” he said. Now if ONLY Moses had been able to say ‘California’ which is what he was TRYING to say how much different things would be today! You'd have Schwarzenegger as your leader... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 There’s an old joke about that. Moses is said in the Bible to have been “slow of speech” which translates into him having a stammer. The joke goes that Big G told Moses that the Tribes of Israel would be given a land. A land that was to be overflowing with milk and honey, and that Big G would like Moses to say where he would like it to be. “Tttthanks vvvvery mmmmuch” said Moses “Pppplease ccccould wwwe hhhave Cccccc ---“ A this point getting a tad impatient with the stutter Big G spoke up “Of course you can have Canaan!” he said. Now if ONLY Moses had been able to say ‘California’ which is what he was TRYING to say how much different things would be today! You'd have Schwarzenegger as your leader... The myth that Israel wants peace (the government, not the people) and the United States is an unbiased broker Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid, receiving over one-third of total US aid despite being home to just .001% of the global population and having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200. The interest costs born by US taxpayers on behalf of Israel are $49,937,000,000 - making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 more than $134 billion. The total cost of this financial aid to US tax payers per Israeli is $23,240. For the 2005 fiscal year, Israel received $357 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF), $2.202 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and $50 million in migration settlement assistance. For 2006, the Administration has requested $240 million in economic support and $2.28 billion in military support . House and Senate measures also add $40 million for the settlement of migrants from the former Soviet Union and take note of Israel's plan to bring remaining Ethiopian Jews to Israel in three years. Israeli press reported that Israel is requesting some $2.25 billion in special aid in a mix of grants and loan guarantees over four years, with one-third to be used to relocate military bases from the Gaza Strip to Israel. To help Israel out of its economic slump, the U.S. provided $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years, use of which has since been extended to 2008. We hear all the time that 'Iran arms Hezbollah', but when are we told that 'America arms Israel'? Talking of arms supplies: Israel is ranked fourth among the world's arms suppliers. Israel is reportedly China's second major arms supplier, after Russia. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations and http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/...d_to_Israel.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phildo Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Cheers for that, Rog. On the basis of your post then, and a little off-topic (but still helping me to glean an understanding of the situation), would you agree that the same logic could be applied to the idea of creating a homeland for, say, the Romany people - as they too have been somewhat victimised throughout their history? In princiople, yes. Providing of course that they WANTED one and were justified in seeing themselves as a nation and were likewise perceived as so being by the majority of the rest of the world's nation states. Fair enough - but what justifiction would be used in this process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I have been watching the news on Sky and following it on the BBC website and it does appear that Israel is using a "disproportionate use of force" lately. I have never really followed or understood the Israeli situation over the last 10 years, but from what I have seen lately it doesn't add up. Two Israeli soldiers are kidnapped and others attacked and killed by a Terrorist organization based out of Lebanon, so Israel launches air strikes against civilian targets and also attacks their civilian airport, in total killing around 50 civilians. Are Israel right do what they are doing, or are they just seriously p*ssed off (and is it justified?) I reckon like others its just an reason to go after Iran! Hope I`am wrong! Sun. Jul. 16, 2006. Wildly disproportionate attack on Lebanon seems like pretext to confront Iran, says Linda McQuaig Jul. 16, 2006. 01:00 AM As Israeli firepower rained down on Lebanon last week, pundits here in the West wasted no time pinning the blame on — Iran. "Iran and its radical allies are pushing toward war," wrote Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. Washington defence commentator Edward Luttwak weighed in: "Iran's leaders have apparently decided to reject the Western offer to peacefully settle the dispute over its weapons-grade uranium-enrichment program." In fact, Iran's leaders haven't rejected the "Western offer;" they've said publicly they will respond to it by Aug. 22. This isn't fast enough however to satisfy Washington, which considers the "offer" more of an ultimatum. Is it really Iran that is pushing for war? Think about it. Why would Iran want to provoke a war with Israel and the U.S. — both heavily armed nuclear powers — when it has no nuclear weapons itself? The U.S. and Israel, on the other hand, are very keen to attack Iran. In a recent series of articles in New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed Washington's plans to attack Iran. Israel has called Iran a "major threat" that "must be stopped" from developing nuclear weapons. But the U.S. and Israel don't want to look like aggressors. They insist their intentions are purely defensive. Recall that Washington also claimed its invasion of Iraq was purely defensive — to protect itself from Iraq's arsenal of deadly weapons, which, it turned out, didn't exist. So when Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon seized two Israeli soldiers last week, a perfect opportunity arose. Since Hezbollah has links to Iran, presto, here was a prima facie case that Iran was gunning for confrontation. Did the Western pundits who quickly embraced this theory ever consider that the Hezbollah militants, as well as the Palestinian militants in Gaza who captured a single Israeli soldier last month, might have had their own motives for striking Israel? Certainly the Palestinians have endless grievances against Israel. In addition to four decades of Israeli military occupation of their land, Israel has attempted to destroy the Hamas government, which was democratically elected by Palestinians last January. Hezbollah's seizure of the two Israeli soldiers was probably an act of support for the Palestinians in Gaza, who have been under Israeli military siege since the capture of the first soldier. Hezbollah also said it seized the soldiers because it wanted to trade them for Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails. A similar Israeli-Hezbollah prisoner exchange took place in 2004. Abandoning Canada's traditional role as an honest broker in the Middle East, Prime Minister Stephen Harper unabashedly supported Israel last week, calling its devastating attacks on Gaza and Lebanon "measured." If Israel is simply trying to "defend" itself, its actions are wildly disproportionate. On the other hand, if Israel and the U.S. are looking for an excuse to attack Iran, the capture of the Israeli soldiers is as good as any. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Cheers for that, Rog. On the basis of your post then, and a little off-topic (but still helping me to glean an understanding of the situation), would you agree that the same logic could be applied to the idea of creating a homeland for, say, the Romany people - as they too have been somewhat victimised throughout their history? In princiople, yes. Providing of course that they WANTED one and were justified in seeing themselves as a nation and were likewise perceived as so being by the majority of the rest of the world's nation states. Fair enough - but what justifiction would be used in this process? Who knows? One thing is for sure, so far as we know it’s not as if they had been displaced illegally or been forced to leave just as neither had the now-called palestinians been forced to leave what is now Israel. Nor so far as we know had they elected to leave their homeland and fight a war against a nation in the expectation that they might be on the victorious side and so sweep in and take over the material advantages that those who had legitimate possession of that nation such as is the case of what the so-called returnees had done and that the palestinian apologists keep banging on about. Nor as far as we know been ejected from what was their homeland by their own actions as so many of the now-called palestinians were from what has become Jordan, the REAL Palestinian state. They objected to the Hashemite ruler and tried to overthrow him with loads of support mostly from the good old muslim brotherhood. Maybe we’d better just wait to see what others think might be justification for establishing a homeland for the Roma people. Who knows, maybe they wouldn’t want one. Maybe they have taken heed of the concept of FIFO as a damm sight more people should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Don't you mean LIFO Rog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Don't you mean LIFO Rog? If that were the case then w'd have no trouble at all! We were there first! Check out the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 If the Israelis kill any British citizens in Lebanon we should be pushing for swingeing sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 If the Israelis kill any British citizens in Lebanon we should be pushing for swingeing sanctions. Why? It's a war zone. The Lebanese government are in fact a pupet government under control of hezballah aka the Syrian irregular army. The hezballah scum have been allowed to do as they pleased, they attacked Israel (had been doing increasingly for some time by firing across the border) and eventually invaded. Anyone who goes to such a country at a time of escalating tensions in a region takes their safety and even their life in their own hands. If sanctions were to be an option then they should have been applied to The Lebanon ages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Israel seems to think it is acceptable to harm many if one of their soldiers is kidnapped. I don't see why the British government should be any more sanguine about the loss of British life. Sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Israel seems to think it is acceptable to harm many if one of their soldiers is kidnapped. I don't see why the British government should be any more sanguine about the loss of British life. Sanctions. This is about far more than the invasion and kidnapping of members of the IDF. That was the final straw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The invasion? Weren't these soldiers taken prisoner ("kidnappings" are for civilians) on non-Israeli territory (at least in the eyes of the international community: we all know that Israel has a rather more expansionist view of its own borders than anyone else finds acceptable)? In any event, causing economic inconvenience to a few diamond merchants or orange growers is clearly worth it when British lives are at stake. Sanctions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The invasion? Weren't these soldiers taken prisoner ("kidnappings" are for civilians) on non-Israeli territory (at least in the eyes of the international community: we all know that Israel has a rather more expansionist view of its own borders than anyone else finds acceptable)? In any event, causing economic inconvenience to a few diamond merchants or orange growers is clearly worth it when British lives are at stake. Sanctions Sanctions work both ways. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I've thought about it and consider it worthwhile. I feel fairly confident that the UK and EU buy more from Israel than we sell to it. And there are British and European lives at stake here, which is far more important than economic inconvenience for a few foreigners. Sanctions are definitely the way to proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I've thought about it and consider it worthwhile. I feel fairly confident that the UK and EU buy more from Israel than we sell to it. And there are British and European lives at stake here, which is far more important than economic inconvenience for a few foreigners. Sanctions are definitely the way to proceed. Think again ---- but deeper. It's an old adage that not all Jews are in Israel. Sanctions would be seen by us not as sanctions against our country but against us. Sanctions work both ways. Apart from that it's Israel who are the injured party and have been for years. Sanctions should have been applied against the Lebanon years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.