Commentary: U.S. Financial Aid To Israel Supports Apartheid, Threatens World Peace

[Purveyor]

A European Commission poll of 7,500 Europeans in 15 countries once cited Israel as the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea and Iran (the U.S. came in second). With military combat power ranked at number three in the world, Israel's hair trigger war machine invades its neighbors and maintains an illegal occupation of Palestinian territories entrenching an apartheid rule that looks similar to that of the former South African regime.

Former President Jimmy Carter's new book Palestine; Peace Not Apartheid offers a fascinating perspective on the current system of apartheid "with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights," treating them as second-class citizens and prisoners in their own land. Carter has no doubt that the U.S. submissive attitude towards Israel is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the world.

Moreover, U.S. tax-payers are funding Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine with an aid package worth over $5 billion per-year, every dollar of which must be raised through U.S. government borrowing. Total U.S. aid to Israel equals approximately one-third of our foreign aid budget, yet Israel compromises .001 percent of the world's population and has one of the world's higher per capita incomes.

The financial aid received from the U.S. allows Israel to purchase tanks, Apache helicopter gun ships, F-16 planes, machine guns and bullets all used to commit atrocities against a population that has no military, no rights, and no basic protections. Furthermore; U.S. funding allows continued building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land in violation of UN resolution 242.

---end of excerpt---

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/OSH06/702130387/1189

[Tom Joad]

1. okay, better now.

Thanks for the post.

Not sure if i agree with the whole thing, though.
For example:
"Carter has no doubt that the U.S. submissive attitude towards Israel is a major source of anti-American sentiment"

The US elite don't care about Palestinian rights, they don't care about human rights anywhere around the globe, so why should Palestine be any different?

We let Suharto get away with killing a third of the people of East Timor, right?

Whatever the reason, the main point is to change US policy. on that i agree.

[furman]

2. Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

"With military combat power ranked at number three in the world, Israel's hair trigger war machine invades its neighbors ..."

Wow, number three now? I've seen Israel called number four in other Israel-bashing commentary, but never this high.
Of course a cursory fact-finding mission will yield results much lower for Israel's firepower.
For example, http://www.globalfirepower.com ranks Israel at 26.
It would be near impossible to find a credible source listing Israel's combat power ranked at number three, except in garbage propaganda like this.


"Total U.S. aid to Israel equals approximately one-third of our foreign aid budget..."

The author declines to mention that the Palestinian Authority is world's greatest recipient of aid on a per-capita basis.
And what have they done with those funds? Export more terrorism toward Israel instead of building a state.

And the $5 billion figure? I thought it was more like $3 billion.
Nevertheless, if the world stopped funding Palestinian terror then Israel wouldn't need to arm itself to the teeth to defend itself.

This article is just another antisemitic piece of filth.
The demonization of Israel is quite evident with its hyperbolic tone with respect to Israel's judicial system and
placing the blame of Islamic terrorism squarely on Israel and its U.S. support.
Not a word about the constant threat of terrorism faced by Israel on a daily basis.
The only hint to it is her use of the word "activists" in quotes, which is just a euphemism for the more accurate term "terrorists".

Apparently Ms. Suzuki is following in Mr. Carter's footsteps with her vehement bias campaign against Israel.
Carter's playing fast and loose with facts and incorrect use of the term "apartheid" has been thoroughly
pointed out in numerous articles posted in this forum.
Several Democratic party leaders have long since distanced themselves from him.
Several members of the Carter Center recently resigned because of Carter's extreme rhetoric and misrepresentation of facts.
Carter's views are highly unbalanced and do not represent reality.

It is no wonder why there has been such a rise in global antisemitism in the past few years.
Vile anti-Israel propaganda like this has become acceptable conversation in Europe and unfortunately to many here on DU and elsewhere in "progressive" circles.

[breakaleg]

4. What specifically was anti-semitic in this article? The only reference to Jews was "Jewish

settlements" which is accurate.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[furman]

8. It's not a left vs. right issue.

It is a sense of when legitimate criticism crosses a line into demonizing accusations, lies, and double standards.

breakaleg, it does not matter if the word "Jew" is mentioned or not.
Anti-Israel and anti-Zionist attacks are regularly used as a masquerade for antisemitism.

[breakaleg]

9. So what specifically were the "demonizing accusations"?

I ask because I would like to pinpoint exactly where you feel criticism of Israel crosses that line to being anti-semitism. It seems to me that the anti-semitism card is played way too often.

[furman]

11. Why this article is antisemitic

"A European Commission poll of 7,500 Europeans in 15 countries once cited Israel as the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea and Iran (the U.S. came in second). With military combat power ranked at number three in the world, Israel's hair trigger war machine invades its neighbors and maintains an illegal occupation of Palestinian territories entrenching an apartheid rule that looks similar to that of the former South African regime."

The author declined to mention that the poll caused great controversy in Europe.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/233330
"European Commission President Romano Prodi, visiting New York, says he is concerned at the findings and acknowledges they may indicate deeper anti-Semitic prejudice in Europe."

Misrepresensation of Israel's military strength.
No, I don't think that the author was referring to nuclear arsenals.
And calzone's source is questionable. That is one man's opinion with self-admitted "intangibles" used in his methodology.
Ms. Suzuki gives no attribution to her sources either.

Calling occupation "illegal" and referring to territories as "Palestinian territories".
The occupation is not illegal and the territories are disputed land, not under Palestinian sovereignty.

Apartheid is an incorrect term applied to the situation.
Several people have denounced the use of the term apartheid and the comparison to South Africa is absurd.
The word is incendiary and used to delegitimize Israel's existence.


Moreover, U.S. tax-payers are funding Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine with an aid package worth over $5 billion per-year, every dollar of which must be raised through U.S. government borrowing. Total U.S. aid to Israel equals approximately one-third of our foreign aid budget, yet Israel compromises .001 percent of the world's population and has one of the world's higher per capita incomes.

Exaggeration of US aid amount to Israel.

No mention of why aid to Israel is given.
Israel has been the victim of constant terorism and rejection since its inception.
Israel is an ally of the US, and the US supports its allies.


"The financial aid received from the U.S. allows Israel to purchase tanks, Apache helicopter gun ships, F-16 planes, machine guns and bullets all used to commit atrocities against a population that has no military, no rights, and no basic protections. Furthermore; U.S. funding allows continued building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land in violation of UN resolution 242."

Palestinians certainly have military capabilities. Fatah and Hamas are shooting at each other. There is massive arms smuggling using tunnels. Kassam rockets are regularly launched at Israel despite a "ceasefire".

UN Resolution 242 says nothing about building settlements.

Again, the land is not exclusively "Palestinian". The land is disputed pending peace negotations and agreement of final borders.


"Any word against the occupation by a Palestinian will bring swift retribution in the form of torture, imprisonment, and sometimes death. Family members of so called "activists" may have their homes bulldozed to the ground; their crops destroyed or may be imprisoned and sentenced by military courts that rarely meet the standards of international law. Palestinian children are tried and sentenced at the age of 12 and a child can receive 6-months in prison for throwing a stone. At the age of 14 Palestinian children are tried as adults, another violation of international law."

This paragraph demonizes Israel's judicial system and democracy. Israel has one of the most vibrant forms of democratic government in the world.

Double standards are applied by singling out Israel for violence and judicial system.
No mention of recent Palestinian violence that has claimed the lives of several children.
No mention of the consequences for dissent in other countries in the region.
No mention of human rights records in other countries in the region.

The word "activist" is used as a euphanism for "terrorist".

No examples of "international law" are given. The reader is left with the impression that Israel is a horror show.
One-sided rhetoric like this demonizes and delegitimizes Israel's existence.


"Illegal Jewish settlements are carved from the choicest land leaving Palestinians destitute within small fragmented sections of land divided by an ever-growing wall being built to create a barrier and force the separation of the two peoples. When finished the wall is projected to be three and one-half times as long as Israel's border. Carter's book explains how the wall already "cuts directly through Palestinian villages, divides family from their gardens and farmlands" causing economic and social hardships. The International Court of Justice (the judicial arm of the UN) has called upon Israel to cease construction, dismantle what has already been erected, and compensate those who have suffered losses, but construction continues."

Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. That territory is contiguous.
No mention of why the security fence is really being constructed. The reason is to protect Israelis from terrorist attacks, and it has been very successful.
What is more important, the lives of Israelis or the temporary hardship of those who are affected by the fence's construction?
The length of the fence being "three and one-half times as long as Israel's border" is because the fence is being constructed in order to maximize the number of Israelis and minimize the number of Palestinians inside the fence.
Also, the "border" that the author mentions is not actually a border; it is an armistice line. Final borders will be negotiated as part of a final settlement per UN Res. 242.


"It's no wonder that U.S. support and funding of Israel has created a growing Arab hostility toward the United States and we are now less secure than ever from the threat of terrorism at home and against our interests abroad. Perhaps we should consider what the Europeans and Arabs already know, that fundamentalist Islam is not the cause of terrorism. From Pogo; "We have met the enemy, and he is us"."

The author is demonizing Israel and delegitimizing its existence by claiming that Israel is a root cause of terrorism, and not Islamic fundamentalism.
Of course the reality is much more complicated than this.
Islamic extremism and antisemitism has been around for hundreds of years.

[Tom Joad]

12. Geneva Convention. Its not only a good idea, it's the law.

Article 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

(snip)

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

[furman]

14. Israel disputes that the Geneva Convention applies here

The Fourth Geneva Convention was established soon after the Holocaust.
The transfers and deportations referred to are for forced population movements such as what the Nazis did to the Jews and other persecuted peoples.
Israel is not forcibly deporting or transferring anyone. People come at their own free will.

As for law, how about speaking out against continued Palestinian terrorism?
Last time I checked, every Kassam rocket attack is a violation of law as well as an act of war.

[Tom Joad]

15. Yes it does dispute that. It is the only nation to do so. Correcting factual errors

"Israel is not forcibly deporting or transferring anyone. People come at their own free will."

That is not true, of course. First, people are not allowed into the West Bank of "their own free will".
Example, a Palestinian man who wants to live with his European wife in the West Bank will not be allowed to do so, because Israel has decided this. http://www.righttoenter.ps/moreInfo.php?pid=10

Secondly, there have been forced deportations.
Example:

Born in Palestine in 1943, Dr. Mubarak E. Awad was educated in the United States and is a licensed child psychologist. His extensive interest in counseling youth with psychological and emotional problems led to his founding of the Palestinian Counseling Center, in East Jerusalem in 1983.

Soon thereafter, Awad opened the Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence, in East Jerusalem, to educate communities on nonviolent solutions to conflict in the Middle East. In June 1988, he was deported by the Israeli government, despite strong support from the U.S. Administration and Secretary of State, which advocated Dr. Awad's right to stay in Palestine and petitioned the Israeli government to reverse the deportation order. Despite their efforts, he was forcibly expelled.

[oberliner]

16. speaking of factual errors

You fail to mention that Dr. Awad was offered Israeli citizenship in 1967 but declined, electing to maintain Jordanian citizenship. (He was born in Jordanian-Occupied East Jerusalem)

You also fail to mention that Dr. Awad emigrated to the United States in 1969, soon thereafter becoming a United States citizen.

You further fail to mention that he was in Israel in 1988 on a tourist visa and was expelled many months after that visa had expired.

[breakaleg]

18. But the issue of people born in occupied territories, are being denied permanent

residency, as it their right, by Israel with various excuses. Why? The fact that a person gained US or other citizenship doesn't mean they give up their rights as Palestinians. Israel is currently engaging in a campaign to rid the West Bank of any who holds a second passport. Why? So they can roll more easily over the remaining residents who remain.

I'm really surprised to see anyone defend this kind of thing.

[oberliner]

24. territories occupied by Jordan

He was born in territories occupied by Jordan. He was a Jordanian citizen who emigrated to the United States and became a US citizen. He never held an Israeli passport and was in Israel on a tourist visa.

I do hope that someday soon there is a Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel and such a state could offer Palestinian citizenship to those who lived in areas previously occupied by Jordan.

[breakaleg]

31. That is just one more way in which Israel makes up laws to suit its needs.

One more way to force the Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem out so they can permanently take it over.

[Tom Joad]

20. yet he was born in Jerusalem. Why is he forced out of his homeland?

Why must he take Israeli citizenship or leave?

And what are your thoughts regarding the fact that many Palestinian couples, living peacefully in the West Bank, are being forced to leave or seperate?

[oberliner]

22. He wasn't forced out of his homeland

He emigrated to the US in 1969 and became a US citizen. I feel you've presented an incomplete picture of the circumstances surrounding Mubarak Awad.

As to your other question, I do not think that Palestinian couples living peacefully in the West Bank should be forced to leave or separate.

[Tom Joad]

38. What rational person does believe that Palestinians should be forced out of their

homeland? Or their guests/spouses can be forced out, at the whim of the Israeli government. How can we change that?

It is odd that their are many Jewish Israelis who are free to wreak havoc in Hebron, for example, using extreme violence, fomenting terror and advocating genocide openly, and yet they also have US passports.
Some were born in New Jersey or New York.

We don't see them being forced out of the Occupied West Bank, now do we?
Nor are they forced out of Israel.

Only Palestinians are forced out of their homeland, where they were born and where their parents were born, and where their great-great- grandparents were born.

The message of the Israeli regime is clear for Palestinians-- this land is not yours.

[breakaleg]

39. That is a very good point. US citizens are allowed to wreck havoc in the occupied territories,

but US citizens trying to help Palestinians are not welcome.

I find it really disingenuous to see people defend such actions by saying that it's the law, when it's clear that many of these "laws" have been passed to specifically discriminate against Arabs and to force them out in an effort to limit the population of Arabs both in Israel and the occupied territories.

[Tom Joad]

21. I failed to mention the Nakba, when in 1948 700,000 were forced from their homes

Not allowed to return.
and more were forced from their homes in '67

[oberliner]

23. Except that Mubarak Awad was not one of those people

As he lived in the portion of East Jerusalem that was annexed by Jordan.

[Tom Joad]

32. But the reason for the post was to refute the silly idea that Israel has never

forced anyone into exile.
That is simply not true.

[msmcghee]

34. Modern warfare creates many refugees.

In 1948 Israel was attacked by the combined Arab armies. It makes little difference whether Arabs in Israel were told to leave their homes by the IDF as part of Israel's defensive measures - or if they were told by invading Arabs to leave their homes to make the conquest of Israel easier to achieve or for some political reasons.

They became refugees because of a war that was not started by Israel. For that reason it is disingenuous to claim that Israel "forced them into exile". Their exile was caused by the Arab states who went to war with Israel - for the simple and logical reason that if Israel had not been attacked and forced to defend itself from annihilation - there would have been no Palestinian exiles.

All the dislocations as well as all the deaths and injuries that occurred on both sides of the conflict were the result of the war that was electively brought by Arab states against Israel with the intent to destroy it. It is those Arab states that created the refugees and are responsible for them.

Perhaps you could provide any other example from modern world history where a state that is attacked and forced to defend itself from destruction is blamed for the refugees that are created in that war.

[Tom Joad]

35. Refugees never allowed to return, as required by international law.

absolutely criminal.

[msmcghee]

36. The statement you made was . .

"But the reason for the post was to refute the silly idea that Israel has never forced anyone into exile. That is simply not true."

This followed your previous post that used the 1948 War of Independence as an example where 700,000 refugees were created.

Once refugees are created, the question of their return is a separate matter (one that would be more interesting to argue perhaps) - but has nothing to do with forcing someone into exile to start with - which is what your post claimed.

If I made such a mistake I would admit it. Will you?

[Tom Joad]

37. I acknowledge that Israel forced many tens of thousands out of their homes in 1948.

I acknowledge it was a mistake for Israel to do that.

Dr. Awad was forced out in 1988, despite the pleadings of many, even among US officials.
Why he was considered only a "visitor" in his own homeland is beyond me.
Dr. Awad was not forced out in '48 during the original Nakba. I don't know how anyone could have misconstrued me saying anything else, but if somehow I gave the wrong impression, then i apologize.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Hmmm, I just noticed something...

There were a busload of factual errors in post#11 where a poster falsely claimed that things were antisemitic which were clearly criticism of Israel and not antisemitism. Yet I didn't see you address that post and point out to them that error...

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Kick for Oberliner n/t

[oberliner]

41. if you find a post with a busload of factual errors why not correct them yourself?

Why ask me to do it?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Because you ignored that one and went straight to another post...

And I wasn't asking you to do it, but noting that the concern with factual errors is a bit selective...

[Violet_Crumble]

26. The international community states that it does apply to the Occupied Territories...

No, the Article of the Fourth Geneva Convention I quoted in my reply to yr post where you accused the article of being antisemitism is not restricted to extreme cases such as the Nazis forced movement of populations during WWII. Israel has been responsible for moving its citizens into occupied territory because the Israeli govt supplies the infrastructure for the settlements. Long ago there was a very informative thread in this forum where a 'supporter' of Israel tried to argue what you are and was totally and utterly rebutted by Jack Rabbit and a pro-Israeli DUer. If you insist that you are still correct, I'll go digging through the old DU archives and find the thread for you to read...

As for law, how about speaking out against continued Palestinian terrorism?
Last time I checked, every Kassam rocket attack is a violation of law as well as an act of war.

I do, but unlike you, I also speak out against violence committed by Israel that are violations of international law :)

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Here's the thread that discussed the transferring of populations into occupied territory...

I hope you read this discussion on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, furman, though even if you don't I think many other DUers who weren't round in 2002 will enjoy what was imo one of the better discussions I've seen in the I/P forum. The discussion starts at post #13...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2918&forum=DCForumID30&archive=yes#13

[breakaleg]

13. Ok. You lost me with ths :

"Calling occupation "illegal" and referring to territories as "Palestinian territories"."

They are illegal under international law. The only people who dispute who that land belongs to, is Israel, because they want it for themselves. Wanting it, I'm afraid, is not reason enough to claim it as your own. Israel needs to learn that lesson.

I won't bother to read any further.

[Tom Joad]

17. Where is the West Bank not referred to as the Palestinian territories?

Only in Israel are they called "Judea and Samaria". It does not matter to Israel that Palestinian Arabs have lived in this land for centuries.
It is now "disputed".

[breakaleg]

19. It's so funny for someone to claim that a soucre is biased, and then go on to

refer to the occupied territories as "disputed" or quote sources with also use this term. Clearly any person or reference who use this term is also biased towards Israel, and no more credible than any other source.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Why yr post is an excellent example of calling legitimate criticism of Israel antisemitism...

Though I'm sure in a few threads someone will pop up and claim it never happens here at DU....

None of the things you listed are examples of antisemitism, so let's go by them one by one, as yr repeating things that have already been rebutted well and truly in past threads:

The author declined to mention that the poll caused great controversy in Europe.

Apart from the fact that the great controversy caused was by US 'supporters' of Israel, there was nothing of an antisemitic nature about the author of this article mentioning the poll findings. Or do you think the US coming in at #2 is an indication of bigotry against the American people? Just because you disagree with something does not make it antisemitic...


Misrepresensation of Israel's military strength.

Again, just because you disagree with something does not make it antisemitic. If there was something incorrect about Israel's military strength, first you'd have to prove that every time something incorrect is said that it's an intentional misrepresentation. Then yr going to have to explain how even a deliberate misrepresentation of Israel's military strength is antisemitic....

Calling occupation "illegal" and referring to territories as "Palestinian territories".

You do realise yr clumsily labelling many DUers as antisemitic when you say that?

Desmond Tutu - Apartheid in the Holy Land

Many aspects of the Israeli occupation is illegal, eg the settlements and the refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions when it comes to Palestinian civilians. And the occupied territories is Palestinian territory. Saying so is not antisemitic at all. As you've been told in earlier threads, claiming that the occupied territories are 'disputed' and that Israel has some sort of equal claim on the territory is the language of the Right Wing, as well as being totally incorrect. East Timor was occupied by Indonesia for many years, and the only ones who claimed Indonesia had any claim on the territory was the sort of Indonesians who cheered on the genocide that happened there a few years back. There are many things that are antisemitic, but labelling anyone as antisemitic who refuses to use the RW language of 'disputed territory' and who refuses to agree with you that Israel has a right to that territory does not make it antisemitic...

Apartheid is an incorrect term applied to the situation.

So, Desmond Tutu is an antisemite according to you? Someone like him who lived through Apartheid is far more equipped than anonymous posters on an internet discussion forum to say what is and isn't reminding him of apartheid. And I've said many times that the system in the West Bank is a system reminiscent of apartheid. Even if apartheid were an incorrect term to be applied to the situation, that's a far cry from it being antisemitic...

Exaggeration of US aid amount to Israel.

Even if it were exaggerated, that doesn't make it antisemitic. And my apologies for guwaffing at yr ridiculous comment to justify such huge amounts of aid: 'Israel is an ally of the US, and the US supports its allies.' Here's reality for you. Australia is a close ally and has been so for much longer than Israel, and the US doesn't fork out any aid to us...

Palestinians certainly have military capabilities. Fatah and Hamas are shooting at each other. There is massive arms smuggling using tunnels. Kassam rockets are regularly launched at Israel despite a "ceasefire".

Again, pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that the Palestinians do not have the ability to purchase tanks, Apache helicopter gun ships, F-16 planes, machine guns and bullets is not antisemitic. What was pointed out is actually correct and it's laughable that you'd claim that Qassams are a match for Israel's firepower...

UN Resolution 242 says nothing about building settlements.

It's Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that covers that: 'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

What 242 says in the preamble is: 'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...' I'm not seeing how this can be read as saying Israel has a right to claim the territory....

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/242%20(1967)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION

Also, as Israel agreed to Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, to turn around and say that Resolution 181 carries no weight is then saying that the partition which created Israel was invalid...

Again you are calling something antisemitic because you disagree with it...


This paragraph demonizes Israel's judicial system and democracy. Israel has one of the most vibrant forms of democratic government in the world.

Learn to distinguish between legitimate criticism and demonisation. Israel deserves criticism for its treatment of Palestinians and labelling criticism as antisemitic is just a clumsy tactic to try to shame people who don't shower lavish praise over Israel 24/7...

No examples of "international law" are given. The reader is left with the impression that Israel is a horror show.

I've read plenty of articles here at DU about the US in Iraq that don't give examples of international law. Does that mean you also think it's bigotry against the American people and that us DUers are being given the impression that the US is a horror show? Also, I notice you try to deny that international law is a legitimate thing. So I have to ask why in that case it'd bother you one way or the other if international law was quoted, seeing as you've made it clear you think it's invalid....

Again, not quoting international law and daring to criticise Israel are not examples of antisemitism...


Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. That territory is contiguous.

There's this much larger chunk of occupied territory called the West Bank. Palestinian territory is not contiguous in the West Bank, which is the territory the author was talking about.

Again, you claim something is antisemitic because you disagree with it....

The author is demonizing Israel and delegitimizing its existence by claiming that Israel is a root cause of terrorism, and not Islamic fundamentalism.

I guess to anyone who can't bear to see a single word of criticism aimed at Israel, the accusation of 'demonising Israel blah blah' would be used to the point of dull repetition. What the author said in this case is true. US support for Israel is indeed creating a lot of hostility, and that hostility and contempt is not just in the middle east, but around the globe. And for you to claim that fundamentalist Islam is the root cause of terrorism is simplistic, incorrect, and using yr own form of logic anti-Muslim. Not that I agree for a second with yr form of logic. The root causes of terrorism are multiple and complex, and as with the use of terrorism by religious extremists around the world, terrorism is a tool used by them and they're not the root cause of why the terrorism happens...

And as with every other claim you made of antisemitism in the OP, yet again this wasn't an example of antisemitism...

One thing you said was correct, however. Antisemitism has been round for many hundreds of years. That's why I think it's highly irresponsible of some 'supporters' of Israel to throw out accusations of antisemitism at legitimate criticism of Israel, especially when it's important that people be aware of real instances of antisemitism. My fear is that like the boy who cried wolf, everyone will eventually dismiss incidents of real antisemitism because they're so used to seeing some 'supporters' of Israel deliberately abusing the term....

[Violet_Crumble]

28. 'garbage propaganda '

Heh heh. That's hilarious considering the array of heavily biased pro-Israeli propaganda you've used in yr posts at DU :)

[Tom Joad]

3. Israel likely has the third largest number of nuclear warheads.

Due to truth-tellers like Mordechai Vanunu, we know this.

It is small in comparison to the u.s. (the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war) but it is a very powerful arsenal.

However, having a nuclear arsenal is no guarantee that things won't change drastically.
See, for example, the Soviet Union. Or South Africa.

[furman]

5. Got any proof of that claim?

All the data vary somewhat, but in none of them was Israel rated number 3.

Most websites I just checked estimate that France, China, and the UK seem to have more than Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
http://www.nukestrat.com/nukestatus.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/4256599.stm#map

[Tom Joad]

6. It may be only 5th or 6th largest, no way of knowing for sure.

No weapons inspectors.
Has not even acknowledged its arsenal.

Because it is not a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty, and is in possession of nuclear weapons, us military aid to israel is illegal under US law.

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html

[calzone]

10. Here are the hard facts

That was some rant furman.
You should debate with your head, not your emotions.
And sticking to the FACTS, while negotiating down from them, is always a more compelling method for making ones case.

Israel is ranked 3rd in overall military might.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004617.asp

In this report, Israel ranked 6th 21 years ago.

200 nuclear bombs
....a nuclear technician who leaked the existence of the program to the London Times in 1986 (which landed the 31-year-old in prison for 18 years) and the 1998 book "Israel and the Bomb" by Israeli scholar Avner Cohen.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/military/proliferation/countries/israel.html

I've observed the level of sheer, volcanic HATRED many zionists have for this man, who did nothing wrong. It's frightening. Incredible and frightening to the point of freezing one's blood.

Pakistan...about 40

India...about 70

China ....400

France....350

Israel....200+

The U.S. and Russia possess 26,000 of the world's 27,000 nuclear weapons.
http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/board-statements.html

.......Center for defense information

This makes Israel the 4th most powerful nation in terms of nuclear weapons.

Israel sought nuclear weapons the very first year it was established.

Israel exported nuclear weapon technology and material to the racist, apartheid state of South Africa in the '70's.

"Mordechai Vanunu's testimony, which has been checked with leading nuclear experts on both sides of the Atlantic, shows that one of the world's worst kept secrets is, in fact, one of the best kept confidences of the century," The Times wrote. "Far from being a nuclear Pygmy, the evidence is that Israel must now be regarded a major nuclear power, ranking sixth in the atomic league table, with a stockpile of at least 100 nuclear weapons (this was 20 tears ago) and with the components and ability to build atomic, neutron and hydrogen bombs."

Within weeks Vanunu was arrested and charged with reveling state secrets. Widely viewed by Israelis as a traitor, Vanunu would spend 18 years in prison, but the world's assessment of Israel's military capability was forever changed.

"The main points were: one, the amount of Israel's nuclear weapons, how many Israel had, that no one could predict or know, including the CIA. They were thinking about a number like 10 or 15. But I came out with a number between 150 to 200," Vanunu told Amy Goodman in his first interview with an American broadcaster in August 2004. "Second point is no one here could predict or know that Israel was involved or started producing the hydrogen bomb -- the most advanced and powerful atomic bomb that can kill millions of people. And that has no justification -- no need for Israel's existence. They don't need hydrogen bomb."
....................Vanunu

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/military/proliferation/countries/israel.html

Israel ranks 8th in size of armed forces troops, but that counts only active-duty.

2.4 million individuals are available for hair-trigger speed deployment. That's larger than the U.S., the most powerful military in the world.

Additionally, it should be taken into account that since the U.S. and Israel are allies and we've sworn immediate, full military support, Israel in this regard could count as the most powerful military power in the world, even greater than the U.S.

"In 1983, the United States and Israel established a Joint Political Military Group, which convenes twice a year. Both the U.S. and Israel participate in joint military planning and combined exercises, and have collaborated on military research and weapons development. Additionally the U.S. military maintains two classified, pre-positioned War Reserve Stocks in Israel valued at $493 million. <2> Israel has the official distinction of being an American Major non-NATO ally. As a result of this, The US shares the vast majority of its security and military technology with Israel." ..wiki

"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," George W. Bush

And, it has to be considered of course that a factor in a nation's might is not just it's military but it's morale. In this regard an argument against Israel's might could be sustained.
It was b/c of a lack of morale that the U.S. lost Vietnam. We knew, even at the backs of our minds, that it was wrong.
Morale can only be high when there's a strong national conviction that the fight is justified and honorable.

Minister of Construction and Housing Affe Eitam (a former General, leader of the National Orthodox party), "there is nothing more thrilling than the sight of men going to war" (Ha'aretz, 22.3.2002).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Now for the amazing statement that in contrast to the U.S.'s foreign aid for Israel, the Palestinians receive more foreign aid per capita than Israel.
Wow.
There's 8 and a half million Palestinians, and 7 million Israelis.
Israel receives 5-6 billion a year in U.S. foreign aid, not including billions in private, uniquely exempt donations per year.
The Palestinians receive ZERO foreign aid from the U.S. and the E.U..
The U.S. and the E.U. have halted foreign aid to the Palestinian govt..
Good lord.

[Shaktimaan]

43. hard facts?

I've observed the level of sheer, volcanic HATRED many zionists have for this man, who did nothing wrong.

Well, he broke his non-disclosure agreement and revealed state secrets, eventually being convicted for treason. So, sure, many zionists do not like the man who feels that Israel's existence is unethical, openly states his animosity towards the Jewish state and then betrayed the country that took him and his family in when he comitted treason against it.

200 nuclear bombs

You mean 100, right? Maybe as many as 200 according to vanunu. Maybe 150, he's not sure.

The nuclear scientists consulted by The Sunday Times are convinced by Vanunu's evidence. They calculate that at least 100 and as many as 200 nuclear weapons of varying destructive power have been assembled - 10 times the previously estimated strength of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article830147.ece?token=null&offset=0

The Palestinians receive ZERO foreign aid from the U.S. and the E.U..

Really? So who pays for UNRWA then? The Arabs? Ha, don't make me laugh.

As of 31 October 2006, the Agency's largest contributors are the United States, the European Commission, Sweden, Norway the United Kingdom and Canada.

http://www.un.org/unrwa/finances/index.html

[TomClash]

30. This is a bit over the top

. . . though much of the article has merit and has been cited before elsewhere.

Israel does not exactly "invade its neighbors" - the situation in Southern Lebanon is a bit more complex than that. And the history of the conflict makes this statement look silly.

While AIPAC and its cousins exhibit considerable influence over US freign policy, Carter never called the US "submissive" toward Israel. Again, the '06 proxy war in Lebanon makes statements like that seem absurd.

[Tom Joad]

33. Yes, there may be similar collusion of interests among the elites of both States

so i would not say "submissive" but what should be obvious is that the real losers are common folks... especially Palestinians but also Israelis and the people of Lebanon and people in the US.

The interests of the warmakers are not the same as the interests of most everyone else.

For example, Blair and his warloving London friends may have had real interest in making war with Iraq, and following Bush's lead. It may have been inaccurate to call Blair Bush's poodle. I would not call it racism.

I would call the Bush/Blair work in the Middle East as racism and imperialism, that's pretty clear to most of us. i would not call protest of it, even protest that goes over the top, as examples of racism.