Dear Boaz,
Yes I am an Israeli. As for Austrialia - I wanted to know what your response was to my question: why is the Australian and American "profile" on the Middle East - both on the right and the left - so similar? Don't you think it is a result of ambivilence about the founding of these two nations? After all, they are the two best examples that "conquest" and "occupied territories" are not automatically "unsuccessful"; for better or for worse, all the nations of the world - even the Bantu nation in South Africa! - are results of conquest. The sin is not a moral one of "conquest", but rather whether the "occupation" is demographically and politically viable.

Hi Aspin.

"my question: why is the Australian and American "profile" on the Middle East - both on the right and the left - so similar?"

RESPONSE: My opinion would be that Australia and USA hold similar values. Our backgrounds are not quite the same. USA fought a war of independance against ENGLAND, and a civil war between themselves. But ages of the 2 countries are not that dissimilar. Both countries were founded on a strong Judao Christian thread in their histories.
The Christian understanding, while not unilateral or monotonic, does include a strong belief (even b4 1948) in the return of Jews to Israel. This applies to both countries. Hence the strong conservative evangelical support for Israel.

The "left" and "right" seem to both manifest themselves similarly in such a socio historical condition. Neither of our 2 countries have a strong sense of long standing history .. USA only what 400 yrs ? ours 200 yrs Perhaps there is a sense of identity with a young struggling country like Israel ?

~~~

Don't you think it is a result of ambivilence about the founding of these two nations? After all, they are the two best examples that "conquest" and "occupied territories" are not automatically "unsuccessful";

~~~

In the case of the USA, they were successful because of superior military force and a very harsh approach (sadly) to the indigenous inhabitants. Indians were far greater in population than Australian Aborigines. In Australia's case, (also with the US) there were much fewer actual conflicts of a military nature, more scurmishes etc. The biggest killer was 'unintended biological warfare'.. i.e. our diseases to which the Aborginals were not resistant.
The end result in both the US and Australian cases, is that both now have very small indigenous populations which would never pose a serious military threat. Though, a radicalization of both could be quite a danger.

MORALITY. Speaking just in atheistic human terms, there is no such thing as morality. So, might is always "right". Though few peoples will see it this way in public. If this reasoning was followed through, Israel has as much 'right' to stomp on the Palestinians as they do toward Israel. Unfortunately, this type of view generally leads to a cold and heartless brutality of holocaust proportions. Every empire has taken this approach in the past. The Islamic empires have been slightly different, they justified their brutality by claiming they were bringing peoples willingly or not under submission to 'Allah'. But I, as a Christian see them as a totally false religion having zero divine authority. (2 B blunt but honest.) Islam was Mohammed's way of achieving political,sexual and social power.

VIABILITY OF ISRAEL.
Aspin, any Jew/Israelite who does not 'learn' from the book of Judges and Joshua, needs serious counselling on history and human nature. When the Israelites failed to obey God in that time of totally wiping out the Canaanites, they had ongoing problems which are with us to this day. (Philistines/Palestinians/Gaza etc.)
There is no divine mandate to eliminate Palestinians today, but anyone who believes that a 2 state solution is also viable is living in Disneyland/Fantasyland. It may be in the short term, but the underlying issues of 'biblical covenant' and 'Islamic hostility' (mainly focused on the Temple mount) will always prove the undoing of well intentioned political solutions. Even though 'most' Jews may be secular, and have little interest in the status of the Temple, ENOUGH Jews, who are politically powerful DO believe in the biblical justification for taking back the land.
The ONLY moral justification for taking the land back is the Biblical one. I often point to the Roman Exile of Jews in AD70, but even this is dependant on the Abrahamic covenant for its legitemacy (as a justification for Jews having a claim on the land).

The only solution I can see to the violence, is a clean sweep of relocating Palestinians to other regions. The cities they are occupying now, are to much rooted in Biblical history for the religious right of Israel to accept them living there. I realize this sounds a harsh solution, but considering the long standing running sore of continual homicide bombings etc etc....seems the best solution to avoid bloodshed.

My own ancestors and the ancestors of all people in Australia and the USA were at one time 'ethnically cleansed' by other invading powers. We are doing pretty well now, it could be the same for the Palestinians. But then again, the 'religious' aspect would always see them as hostile to Israel, so, perhaps u can see why my own personal hope is in the coming of the Messiah. For you, first time, for me 2nd time.

It’s interesting to see the directions this thread has taken, and it’s worth exploring some of the points of view expressed here.

Josh, for example, muses about how much nicer the world would be if Israel never existed, and suggests its creation was illegitimate. Let’s go with Josh’s premise for a bit: Israel should never have existed. OK, Josh, are you just idly musing or are you serious about this?

First, we will need to repeal UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which provided for the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into an Arab (what we know call Palestinian) and a Jewish state. As we all know, no Arab state accepted this partition, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea (their words – “Jews,” not “Zionists”) and destroy them. Not exile them, send them back to Europe or North Africa. Kill them. All of them.

Very well, the smoke clears and pretty soon pre-1967 Israel is in place. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees are outside Israel, and hundreds of thousands of Jews have been expelled from their homes in Arab countries. (That’s right – want to talk about Palestinians right of return? OK, then we’ll have to talk about Jews’ right of return to homes they were expelled from, businesses expropriated from them, in Amman, Cairo, Damascus, etc.) So Joshes of the online world, if you really want to see a world without Israel, just what do you propose doing with all the Jews there now? Send them back to Yemen, Iraq, Poland, Hungary…? A big ask, but not impossible.

There are a few other loose ends as well. The matters of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which reaffirm Israel’s right to exist within secure borders. See:

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/

for the texts of these and others.

Then we’ll need to decide what to do with Palestine. Shall we restore the British Mandate? Or do you prefer the Ottoman Empire? I’m sure Turkey would be happy to resume control over most of the Mideast. It’s a question of how much historical toothpaste you want to shove back in the tube. There would be no Palestinian state, though, you should be aware of that. (It’s interesting to note the plain fact that in ~ 19 years of occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, neither Egypt nor Jordan offered the Palestinians their own state in accordance with GA Res. 181.)

OK, now we’ve removed Israel, and the Mideast can go back to its Pre-Zionist peaceful idyll. Let’s explore that Edenic state, in a nice “It’s a Wonderful Life” what-if scenario.

The current slaughter in Sudan, of black Christians and Darfur Muslims, is not occurring. This atrocity is because of Israel, right? Massacres of hundreds of Algerian villagers at a time in Algeria? The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Assad Srs.’s destruction of 20,000 people in the town of Hama because of their opposition to his regime? The attacks by Eqypt on Yemen with chemical weapons in the early ‘60s. The 10-year war between Iraq and Iran and the millions killed (I'm sure the Iranian children sent to clear the mindfields are resting peacefuly knowing they died or lost limbs striking a blow against the "Zionist Entity")?

The stifling of intellectual, political, and economic development in the Arab world, even with all that oil money? “Sorry, people, we’d love to advance your freedoms, educational opportunities, and economic possibilities, but we can’t, you see, because of Israel. Well, our Royal Families’ kids can all go to Harvard and Princeton and ski at Vail and Davos and be corrupted by those evil Western decadent infidels, but you can’t.” I could go on. There are a lot of problems in the Mideast and one of them is related to Israel.

Look, everybody, I don’t seek to justify Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and I am very publicly and passionately committed to seeing the Palestinians have their well-deserved state implemented as soon as possible, for the sake of Israelis, Palestinians, and Jews, Muslims and Christians in general. For examples of organizations committed to ending the occupation and fostering a peaceful solution see:

http://www.btvshalom.org

http://www.tikkun.org

http://www.peacenow.org/

(these will also illustrate just how bloodthirsty and brutal “THE JEWS” are)

You really want to do something for the Palestinians? (Josh? Grace? You listening?) Support these organizations or others like them.

It’s a disservice to the Palestinians to make every problem in the world related to their just cause and legitimate gripe. But just as the road to Jerusalem does not go through Baghdad, neither does the road to Riyadh, Damascus, and Beirut go through Jerusalem. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a problem that deserves to be solved on its own, for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians. Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon, all represent problems that deserve to be solved for their own peoples’ sakes as well, not held hostage to the Israeli-Palestinian entanglement.

But let’s get serious about it.

Now, on to the Israeli-Zionist-Jewish-cabal-has-hijacked-the-US-govt side of the story.

As several posters to this thread have correctly pointed out, there are several well-funded, well-organized lobby groups who advocate their view of Mideast politics and US-Israeli relations. The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC (see http://www.aipac.org) is one of the most prominent of these, and they take a hawkish stance on such issues as territorial compromise by Israel, the US stance toward Iraq, Iran, and Syria, etc. In a democracy this is their right, and there are also Arab lobby groups pushing their agenda, and of course millions of Saudi dollars going to into various Arab and Muslim advocacy organizations in the U.S. But American Jews, like most other ethnic/religious communities are quite diverse, and in a previous post I pointed out all the “peacenik” organizations who advocate for peaceful compromise in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, opposed the invasion of Iraq, etc. For those who missed it, some examples:

http://www.btvshalom.org

http://www.tikkun.org

http://www.peacenow.org/

These groups also lobby, and are entitled to their position too. I happen to agree with them and support them, and that’s my right. Many others disagree with me and that’s their right too.

So this notion of “_the_ Jews…” seems to need re-thinking. Because if you want to take that line there are several issues to consider. Several prominent Jews in the (George W.) Bush Administration have indeed taken a hawkish line on the US stance toward the Mideast, notably Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith (of these only Wolfowitz is still in the Bush Admin.) Is Israel part of the Bush Admin’s motivation? Of course it is.

But if you want to take the Jews-have-taken-over-the-USA line, you will have to explain why the Clinton Administration, which was chockful of Jews in top-ranking Cabinet positions, including Secretary of State Albright, Secy. of Defense Cohen, Secy. of Treasury Rubin, Secy. of Labor Reich, and National Security Advisor Berger, did not invade Iraq, went further than any other recent US administration in pushing for an Israel-Palestine deal (we could get into a pissing contest about whether Arafat was offered 90%, 95%, or 97% of the West Bank and Gaza. Or whether he was offered the bottom half or the top half of the Temple Mount), made PLO Chairman Arafat a frequent guest in the White House, and used US force to try to defend Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. (The Bush Admin. has no Jews in Cabinet-level positions by the way).

And the Clinton Administration did all this with the support of prominent Jewish Senators and Congressmen as well (want me to start naming them?).

Explain why most Jews (about 75% this time around) overwhelmingly did NOT vote for Bush, as they had not voted for Bush Sr., or Dole. Sure, Bush peeled off a few Jewish votes, but not many and mostly among the Orthodox (they like his religious take on US domestic issues as well as his hawkish stance on Israel). So as Josh points out correctly, Bush did indeed TRY to get the Jewish vote. But it didn’t work, did it? Hmmm… what do we make of that? Could it be that Jews didn’t buy what Bush was selling?

Grace makes a good point about the Christian “Zionists.” Christian evangelist groups put bags of money, and certainly more votes into Bush’s re-election than Jews did. They have a particular apocalyptic view of Israel’s role in the fulfilment of their prophecies, and as she correctly points out, things don’t end well for the Jews in the great Rapture. So I do agree it’s a mistake for any Jews or Israelis to get into bed with these Christian groups.

And let’s talk about that other old chestnut, Jewish money. Jews put a lot of money toward support for the Democrats, who actually raised more money in 2004 than the Republicans. Jewish multibillionaire George Soros put millions into his personal quest to remove George W. Bush from the White House, so vehement was Soros’ opposition to Bush, especially over Iraq.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, though American Jews were nearly as divided over the Iraq war as the nation as a whole, they were more likely than other American groups to identify themselves as against the Iraq invasion (I personally think the invasion was a blunder – there were many other ways to put the squeeze on Saddam short of an outright invasion). Indeed many major Jewish organizations in the US did not take a position on the Iraq war because they could not find consensus among their own members and leaders. (I’m happy come back with sources for these points – they are well-documented enough – lest you think this is another invention of the Jewish-Zionist-controlled media?)

Even Israeli military analysts ranked Iran and Syria higher than Iraq as security threats, because of Iran’s and Syria’s support for Hezbollah and other ambitious groups committed to Israel’s elimination, and Iran’s nuclear weapons program. By the way, Iran is the only nation I’m aware of which has as an explicit policy the eradication of another sovereign nation (you-know-who), and when they rolled out their new medium-range missiles a few years back slogans like “Death to Israel” were emblazoned on the sides. So despite Saddam Hussein’s open and public offer of blood money (I seem to recall it was around $20K, right?) to the families of bombers who were willing to blow themselves up and take some Israelis with them (in such disputed territories as Haifa, Netanya, and Tel Aviv), the Israeli were actually more worried about Iran. Sounds fairly prescient now doesn't it?

Were the Israelis glad to see Saddam knocked over? You bet. Did they support the US-British-Australian military action to do so? Yes (interestingly there was opposition even in Israel). But apparently it was not their highest priority.

Howard....
just a small point.
The conservative evangelical support and its eschatological view, .."does not end well for the Jews". ?????

I think you need to brush up on the view itself as u have obviously gained a comprehensive appreciation of most of the issues.

The Jews will end, as they themselves CHOOSE in the Christian view.

We have no desire to see anyone abandoned by God, our view involves the return of the Messiah. Any Jew who cannot or does not recognize Him THIS...time will have nobody to blame but him/herself.

And one more important thing. In reality, we can do nothing to advance or hinder Christs return, anyone who thinks they can is probably relying on a rather shakey biblical interpretation. Be that as it may, they are entitled to assist the Jews with such a goal in mind if they wish. Evengelicals want a strong secure and stable Israel.

Of FAR greater importance for middle eastern affairs, is this. IF.... the Jews decide (under pressure from their religious right)to rebuild the TEMPLE.. we had all better get up to speed on the prophetic aspect and our relationship with God. But no matter WHAT happens.. 3 things must always be borne in mind.

1/ God is the "inviter" not the "offer u cannot refuse" mafia type.
2/ Whatever 'end' there is, will be one of personal choice.
3/ If the temple is rebuilt, don't ever say "u were not warned".

Aside from the spiritual aspect. I'm surprised you have such a grasp of the issues, yet seem not to offer a solution ??? Or did I miss that.

Boaz_David writes:

"The conservative evangelical support and its eschatological view, .."does not end well for the Jews". ?????
The Jews will end, as they themselves CHOOSE in the Christian view."

Well I don't pretend to be an expert on the prophetic visions of the Christian fundamentalist groups but my understanding is that in their view Jews must either die in the final battle of Armageddon or be converted to Christianity. Choosing conversion to Christianity may be a "good ending" for some Jews, but they could no longer be Jews. That was what I meant by "does not end well...."

I'd be happy to stand corrected on that one.