I found this interview would like to present it to you. I particularly liked this question: Q: Has Europe betrayed Israel?
Glick: I think that the root of Europe?s refusal to support Israel is Europe?s refusal to accept the true lessons of the Holocaust. The lesson that Europe took from the Holocaust is that nationalism is bad. This of course, is absurd. Nationalism is neutral. Its relative badness or goodness is a direct function of how any specific nation behaves. The true lesson of the Holocaust is that nations and individuals have a responsibility to distinguish between good and evil and to support good and fight evil.
Israel?s struggle against its neighbors, who refuse to accept it as a sovereign state just as Europeans refused to accept Jews as individuals in the 20th century, constitutes a moral challenge to Europe. And since Europe has refused to discard its moral relativism for moral choice, Europeans project their own moral blindness and weakness on Israel.
I will grant you that Britain really screwed up the world with their arbitrary lines in the sand - but you cannot deny that there was a historical Israel with roughly the borders it possesses today . . . they were simply given that historical territory by the withdrawing Brits that was traditionally Israel prior to the onslaught of the Muslim hordes as a means to deal with the displaced Jewish populations and as recompense for the horrors they have suffered throughout history at the hands of the nations they lived in. Something the UN supported at the time
The UN charter granting Israel nationhood was designed to meet the needs of both Jew and Arab by creating two states - one Palestinian and one Jewish - however, the apportionment of the territory for a Palestinian state was blocked by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
Historically and legally - Israel has the right to exist, and by fait accompli of the wars launched against them managed to add territory by defeating those who tried to destroy it (West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights)
Hasn't Israel been there since like, Jesus? I see it like this. Lets say you and tribe of 1000 people were living in the woods in a place where their were no established borders. THen lets say another tribe decided that they didnt like you and wanted to kill you, rape and or kill your women and take your land. So, like any rational person you defend yourself. After a while I'm sur you and tribe would establish some sort of border. Since you and tribe have surely have a way of life or culture and a language. Thats what a country can be defined as, borders, language, and culture. I didn't come up with that Michael Savage did.
Stupid and misleading. So many awful analogies, where to begin?
How are we fighting the same war? A Palestinian fighting for land and dignity for his people is not the same as an Al Qaeda recruit from Yemen who has traveled to Iraq to kill Americans, who is not the same as a rural Pashtun near Kandahar who wants foreigners off his soil. Aside from being Muslim, do these people have much of anything in common? Disaggregation is the way we'll defeat our real enemies, not lumping every armed Muslim in the world under the idiotic banner of "Islamofascism."
This passage was hilarious, given how completely it applies to France and Germany in regard to invading Iraq, which our little Israeli interviewee (who doubtless retains her American citizenship) was in favor of:
"I think that what is most counterproductive is embracing delusion. If the U.S. got angry at Israel for pointing out a reality, would that make Israel worse or better off than it is when it collaborates with the U.S. by basing its policies on fantasy? I think that everyone is better off when we base our strategic decisions on reality."
Nationalism is a bad thing. Patriotism is a good thing. Big difference between the two.
The Marine barracks attack in Beirut came because the U.S. was hostile to Israel? Oh wow.
Obama is hostile to Israel? His chief of staff, the most important person in his White House, is a guy who is named after a dead member of the Stern Gang. The Stern Gang, FYI, were Zionists so fanatical and fascistic that they offered to help the Nazis against the British. Yup. That Obama sure is hostile to Israel. I heard he's a Muslim too.
Just a stunning combination of blind ideology and bad history. And to think National Review used to be worth reading...
Well, historically this is how all nations are defined.
Why does interventions by other nations change anything? If they would have raised an army by themselves and taken the land, would your opinion be any different? What if they could have defended the territory in the 9th century and retained control? Same land, same people. [qutoe] People need to put down their mythology books and properly analyze reality.[/quote] What exactly is based in mythology?
I 100% agree with this. What happens in the middle east is none of business and we can't afford to be in the middle anyway. We should pull out of Iraq and Afganistan. We should be cutting off all foreign aid. We should also be closing most, if not all foreign military bases. We simply don't have the funds to continue the foreign policy both parties have set for us. This absolutly has to happen if we have any chance of avoiding insolvancy.
If someone needs our help and we are morally abliged to help, they should pay us in some way.
I actually think Isreal would benefit from us pulling out all together. Especially if we quit aiding the other side as well. Like most foreign aid, it becomes a crutch that stifles real growth.
What's funny is that the people that want us out of the middle east are the ones that need us there the most. We take away the carrot from Isreal, and the ones that don't want us there are the ones that are going to be in big big trouble. I say give them what they want. Get the fuck out and let Isreal sort it out as they see fit. Problem solved.