you do know that was blamed on the British as instigating it right? also it happened after the balfour decleration which doesn't excuse any sort of bad behavior you can't ignore how that was an attack an the native arab population and what's relentless persecution of indigenous jews in palestine? there hasn't been unprovocked anti-jewish sentiment in the region outside of the normal hatred of the other for more than 2 millennia. both the riots of of the early to mid 20th century and the roman crack down were the results and the reactions of jewish actions; through zionism demanding dominion and rulership over the palestinians and an honest to god revolt respectively.
US and Isreal - Why?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
you do know that was blamed on the British as instigating it right? also it happened after the balfour decleration which doesn't excuse any sort of bad behavior you can't ignore how that was an attack an the native arab population and what's relentless persecution of indigenous jews in palestine? there hasn't been unprovocked anti-jewish sentiment in the region outside of the normal hatred of the other for more than 2 millennia. both the riots of of the early to mid 20th century and the roman crack down were the results and the reactions of jewish actions; through zionism demanding dominion and rulership over the palestinians and an honest to god revolt respectively.
And the millennium of vicious anti-Semitism before that was the British also? I think you give our time-traveling abilities too much credit.
As for that anti-Semitism, have a look around. I certainly don't agree with what Israel is doing, but there's so long a people will stay down before they take action to prevent their extermination. You certainly can't call dhimmitude "provoked", pj.
As for that anti-Semitism, have a look around. I certainly don't agree with what Israel is doing, but there's so long a people will stay down before they take action to prevent their extermination. You certainly can't call dhimmitude "provoked", pj.
I might also mention here, par example, the Damascus Affair as an example of the kind of racist or bigoted attitudes held towards Jews in much of the ME. I mean, are we really even talking about this issue?
I'm curious who the #1 culprit is in that case. Definitely the US is a paranoid country, the conspiracy theories coming out of there are even crazier than what Hollywood produces. I used to listen to the Art Bell show online when I was a kid and you shoulda heard the crap people were calling in about... Men in Black popping in to say hi while they're busy crapping on the toilet and then melting into the floor tiles, people claiming to have built time machines in their backyards...
Was a real treat though when they had Brian Greene (famous string theorist) on the show and he set them straight like a father telling his kids there's no Santa Claus or tooth fairy or Big Bird.I recently watched a Youtube vid where some retards confronted one of the Rothschilds on the streets somewhere and were telling him how they weren't afraid of his new world order, and the expression on his face looked like he was thinking "this is why crack cocaine should remain illegal".
Thanks for the details. I don't doubt that Israel meddles in the US intelligence community and I think that's about as smart as repeatedly poking an elephant with a stick, I just wanted clarification/information because the way pjdude phrased it, it sounded like he meant Israel was #3 in the world in covert attempts to undermine US national security, which I personally find rather absurd. Maybe I misunderstood him but that's why I wanted him to provide a source.
On that note, thinking of nations who work to actually undermine US national security (and have this in itself as an explicit goal), I wonder what your take on Russia and China might be. My layman's impression is that those two countries have serious ego issues on the international stage, and indeed they are only too happy to damage US interests even when their own interests are somewhat harmed in the process (latest example, backing the Assad regime in Syria with supplies, intelligence and diplomatic obstructionism).
But both Jews and Arabs combined make up only a tiny minority of Americans, and I don't see how they could accomplish much on their own. The Jews have found common cause with America's conservative base and it seems to me like that base is what dominates US policy towards Israel. Personally I see liberal disillusionment with Israel's West Bank settlement policies as the greatest threat to the relationship, not the number of Arabs living in the US.
In Israel itself there's talk of a growing demographic both amongst Arabs under Israeli occupation and amongst Arab Israeli citizens, and how this eventually alter the Middle East political climate. However, that view doesn't seem to account for the fact that although the Muslim population is growing faster than the Jewish population, the single fastest growing demographic (by a long shot) consists of ultra orthodox Jews and that in itself poses the greatest threat to the current balance.
http://amirmizroch.com/2011/12/11/official-statistics-in-50-years-time-israel-wont-work/
(Note: with regards to "Israel not working" they're talking about the reputation of ultra orthodox Israelis to pursue lifelong religious studies at the expense of the state, much as religious study is prioritized over economic development in much of the Islamic world)
With regards to global fears about Muslim population growth and resentment towards the west, I think that in itself garners support towards Israel as a line in the sand against Islamic expansionism and explains why there's little appetite to sell Israel out in the hopes of appeasing its enemies. Just like the US won't abandon Taiwan to Chinese fascists even though it would improve the relationship in the short term (and stoke China's appetite for imperialism in the long term).
How long has it been since you were in a Muslim country? You should know, the "Palestine Issue" to them is nothing more than a political game.
Christians call Jews "chosen people" Jews don't.
If you are talking historically, there was no systematic persecution pre Jewish influx - tensions rose thereafter and to this day. The locals could see the writing on the wall and clearly their fears have come to pass.
If a thousand Hells Angels took up residence in your back yard whats going to happen?
Ending occupation and gaining statehood is obviously a political endeavor. The political game being played is the denial of such to the indigenous population of Palestine as more and more Palestinian land is illegally settled.
You are clearly not Jewish.
Actually, that's not so. There has been systematic persecution for a considerable time, without getting into the multitude of pogroms. I'm sorry, but this fact simply has to be recognized. It's not really in dispute.
So Jews are Hell's Angels? Should other nations then expulse other immigrant groups? Should Israelis force Palestinians out, because they can see the writing on the wall?
We are talking about Palestine right? So the Jews were systematically persecuted in Palestine when?
I don't mean "political endeavor", I mean "political game". Political leaders use it (and items like it...say anti-Americanism) to distract from the poor living conditions they have.
I am Jewish and speak Hebrew pretty well. They might more typically refer to themselves as "am ha-sefer" or "people of the book". Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
The nuance here is obviously there will be conflict.
Are these other nations under occupation?
They have already been forced out. One of the paradoxical injustices of this world where the rights, democratic and other, of all and sundry (Arab Spring) are trumped up and demanded, yet the Palestinians don`t seem to enjoy these same rights?
Ditto. Perhaps Mizrahi understand Birkat HaTorah differently.
Perhaps... although I am not sure where you would get it.
" אשר בחר בנו מכול העמים ונתן לנו התורתו "
Is what I assume you are referring to.
?לקבל ולמד...כן? מי לא לקריאת הספר .
It doesn't seem incite self-importance to me.
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
CptBork, et al,
Among the surviving 20th Century American thinkers, transitioning into the 21st Century, that still have political-military influence today in the US, --- they tend to considered China the most significant threats to US national security, with Russia posing the number two threat. Having said that, the nature of the threat is not military based. Neither China or Russia has any desire to launch military action against the US.
The difference in the scale of the threat posed by China and Russia, it somewhat difficult to understand. But there is quite the gap between the two; with China so much farther ahead of Russia.
> The "backing the Assad regime in Syria with supplies, intelligence and diplomatic obstructionism" is a direct response to US interventionism, which no one but the Israelis appreciate in that Region; and is eroding Russian attempts to reestablish its influence.
(COMMENT)
Yes, you are right on target. Both China and Russia have a direct interest in eroding US influence in the region; but for different reasons.
China is an emerging economic and industrial power; the foundation on which a super power builds its hegemony. And as China builds economic and industrial influences around the world, it will (by necessity) need to improve and expend its military capacity for the very same reasons that the US does; with one difference. The US influence is enhanced by a powerful "pol-mil" hegemony. The Chinese influenced is enhanced by a "pol-econ" hegemony. Each country has a reason to promote a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with the other. Yes! The US has a national security interest in seeing that China becomes strong, prosperous, and successful in world affairs. One of the reasons, but not limited to, is the fact that China is a major holder of US debt ($1.150+ Trillion), just above Japan which holds a like sum (about $50B less). This is huge, as the next largest debt holder owns considerably less that $300B. If China were to become economically unstable, it would have a rather significant impact on the US and it economic stability; which is not in all that great shape. However, the mutual relationship means a mutual liability. If the US dollar suffers, then so does the huge holding of China. The nature of the Chinese threat is economic and industrial. The US technology is largely based on foreign based manufactured industrial components. Like the recent unveiling of the Chinese Stealth Fighter, it is not about the improvement of the Chinese Air Force or the potential for confrontation. It is more about the opening of an alternative market for stealth technology. If the US and Chinese has them, then maybe other regional neighbors will want them. It is also good barter material for energy contracts with regional interests.
There is also the political elements that bubble with China. As China becomes a successful economic and industrial power, it casts a new view on the form of government. Democracies are normally associated with successful economies, where non-democracies have the opposite reputation. But China can, again, can offer a new alternative to legitimizing authoritarianism and economic successes regimes.
This and more, challenges the stability of the US super power status; or, as some 20th Century thinkers suggest, US national security.
Most Respectfully,
R
Among the surviving 20th Century American thinkers, transitioning into the 21st Century, that still have political-military influence today in the US, --- they tend to considered China the most significant threats to US national security, with Russia posing the number two threat. Having said that, the nature of the threat is not military based. Neither China or Russia has any desire to launch military action against the US.
The difference in the scale of the threat posed by China and Russia, it somewhat difficult to understand. But there is quite the gap between the two; with China so much farther ahead of Russia.
NOTE: Iran and North Korea are in the mix, but don't have the force projection capability to reach beyond their respective regions. They need to be considered, but in a totally separate compartment. The nature of their threat is different and fueled differently.
(SIDE NOTE)
> The "backing the Assad regime in Syria with supplies, intelligence and diplomatic obstructionism" is a direct response to US interventionism, which no one but the Israelis appreciate in that Region; and is eroding Russian attempts to reestablish its influence.
(COMMENT)
Yes, you are right on target. Both China and Russia have a direct interest in eroding US influence in the region; but for different reasons.
China is an emerging economic and industrial power; the foundation on which a super power builds its hegemony. And as China builds economic and industrial influences around the world, it will (by necessity) need to improve and expend its military capacity for the very same reasons that the US does; with one difference. The US influence is enhanced by a powerful "pol-mil" hegemony. The Chinese influenced is enhanced by a "pol-econ" hegemony. Each country has a reason to promote a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with the other. Yes! The US has a national security interest in seeing that China becomes strong, prosperous, and successful in world affairs. One of the reasons, but not limited to, is the fact that China is a major holder of US debt ($1.150+ Trillion), just above Japan which holds a like sum (about $50B less). This is huge, as the next largest debt holder owns considerably less that $300B. If China were to become economically unstable, it would have a rather significant impact on the US and it economic stability; which is not in all that great shape. However, the mutual relationship means a mutual liability. If the US dollar suffers, then so does the huge holding of China. The nature of the Chinese threat is economic and industrial. The US technology is largely based on foreign based manufactured industrial components. Like the recent unveiling of the Chinese Stealth Fighter, it is not about the improvement of the Chinese Air Force or the potential for confrontation. It is more about the opening of an alternative market for stealth technology. If the US and Chinese has them, then maybe other regional neighbors will want them. It is also good barter material for energy contracts with regional interests.
There is also the political elements that bubble with China. As China becomes a successful economic and industrial power, it casts a new view on the form of government. Democracies are normally associated with successful economies, where non-democracies have the opposite reputation. But China can, again, can offer a new alternative to legitimizing authoritarianism and economic successes regimes.
This and more, challenges the stability of the US super power status; or, as some 20th Century thinkers suggest, US national security.
Most Respectfully,
R
You couldn't open the links? You should get a new browser. There's lots of other resources on dhimmitude, of course.
Oh, I see. I just inferred from the comparison of Jews to Hell's Angels that you were implicitly inferring negative aspects about Jews. Because, you know, Hell's Angels are known for a collection of bad things.
Hmmm! Some of them, perhaps. But does it matter? Perhaps they've also seen the writing on the wall.
Well, Arab Spring was mostly about the seizing of power by religious politicos. But the Israelis have seen the writing on the wall, surely. Maybe the designers of dhimmitude saw it too? Funny, how these things come to pass.
Silly.
This is a simple issue, playing with words cannot change the fundamental injustice.
So in order to protect from potential Dhimmitude, one imprisons and occupies minority groups? Isn`t that kinda ironic?
Oh, not so silly. Hell's Angels was a bit of a stretch. You could have picked white and black people, for instance.
It certainly cannot change the fundamental injustice of those future crimes that the writing on the wall is meant to warn us of. I'm glad you support such proaction... in selected cases, anyway.
Hmm. In order to prevent it, one occupies other minority groups? Get them before they get us, is that right? Such prescience is remarkable. One would almost think it promotes such conclusions rather than predicts them.
Gee I dunno... Iron Dome maybe?