Why Should I Support Israel?

[shuamort]

My partner is Jewish and we take the kids to Sunday School and Hebrew School, I've been to services at the temple a couple times and have heard the Rabbi ask for protection of Israel too. However my partner, who's even been to Israel a couple times, thinks the idea of it is rather...well... stupid. "Why not move 'em all to Arizona?" he's stated many times now.

So, hearing that from him as well, I don't understand the fierce support for the country. I can understand the practical implications, (oil, military) and that the government there is fairly liberal and democratic for the region, but I don't see the justification for the state. It appears to me that it was basically formed without the consent of half the people living there, and we've backed them ever since.

Keeping support for the country seems tantamount to keeping a never ending religious war alive as well. As an atheist, I think the turf battles about the dome on the rock and the wailing wall and that is a bit silly. So, supporting a country's religion won't make sense to me as an argument. (That's not to say that people shouldn't be able to worship freely as they see fit).

So what am I missing?

 

[Renae]

I think you should not support Israel. After all, if enough people do, Israel will lose and there will be peace.

Of course, that means no more Israel, but hey, there WILL be peace.

 

[bhkad]

Various reasons.

"The relentless animosities of sectors of the Arab world are not merely political causes but are driven by spiritual powers that will not be satisfied until Israel ceases to exist."

"The same spirit driving these animosities is equally opposed to Christians as to Jews and in time will eventually bring persecution to both."

"Terrorism anywhere is a threat to free people everywhere."

"Israel’s present conflict is neither by their initiative nor perpetuated by expansionism or racism on their part."

"To stand with Israel is not to oppose Arab peoples as an entity or to oppose the rights of Arabs living in Israel to a peaceful, politically secure, and prosperous life."

 

[Iriemon]

My partner is Jewish and we take the kids to Sunday School and Hebrew School, I've been to services at the temple a couple times and have heard the Rabbi ask for protection of Israel too. However my partner, who's even been to Israel a couple times, thinks the idea of it is rather...well... stupid. "Why not move 'em all to Arizona?" he's stated many times now.

So, hearing that from him as well, I don't understand the fierce support for the country. I can understand the practical implications, (oil, military) and that the government there is fairly liberal and democratic for the region, but I don't see the justification for the state. It appears to me that it was basically formed without the consent of half the people living there, and we've backed them ever since.

Keeping support for the country seems tantamount to keeping a never ending religious war alive as well. As an atheist, I think the turf battles about the dome on the rock and the wailing wall and that is a bit silly. So, supporting a country's religion won't make sense to me as an argument. (That's not to say that people shouldn't be able to worship freely as they see fit).

So what am I missing?

I think the fierce support for Israel comes largely from religious factors. Jews who feel an affinity for the only Jewish state, Christians who believe that Israel is the fulfillment of some biblical prophecy, and others who have a disposition against Muslims and Islam (see post above). I'm obviously generalizing here.

From a national standpoint, Israel is at least more democratic that other states in the region, and as a general rule I think it is a good policy to support democracies. And there is nothing wrong with the US intervening on behalf of a nation that has been wrongfully invaded, as we did in Kuwait, for example.

On the other hand, Israel is not a state, and IMO it does not serve the US, or ultimately Israel's interest for the US to have an obvious pro-Israel bias in its foreign policy.

Finally, it seems a bit incongruent for the US to be promoting the doctrine of religious freedom, on the one hand, and to be fiercely supporting a non-secular religious state that explicitly discriminates on the basis of religion, on the other.

 

[Tashah]

Why must I support Palestine?

 

[shuamort]

Why must I support Palestine?

Unfortunately, the binary quotient of the question doesn't function as such.

Support for Israel=Support for Israel
No Support for Israel=No Support for Israel
No support for Israel ≠ Support for Palestine
No support for Palestine ≠ support for Israel

 

[Tashah]

Unfortunately, the binary quotient of the question doesn't function as such.

Support for Israel=Support for Israel
No Support for Israel=No Support for Israel
No support for Israel ≠ Support for Palestine
No support for Palestine ≠ support for Israel

Too bad. You should have phrased it better.

 

[Tucker Case]

Why must I support Palestine?

That's an interesting response. I'm inclined to ask why we should "support" either group? (Israeli or Palestinian)

I can understand the perspective of both sides of the issue. I cannot say I "support" either group based on what I see because both groups show a will to use violence beyond what I find tollerable.

I have profound sympathies for all of the civilians involved, on both sides.

They are being made victims by their own people as well as the enemy in a huge attempt to gain propeganda supremecy.

I can also understand why a person subjected to that as a child would choose to take up arms in the conflict, again, on both sides.

What I cannot do is "support" that decision. I can understand it, but never support it.

There is no doubt that I feel that Hamas is a terrible orginazation. I am especially bothered by seeing video of them shooting mortars at Israel from a school. That is something I cannot even understand. I find it despicable to the highest degree, and in that I'm sure most people can agree with me on that.

But I cannot "support" the response of firing a bomb at that school knowing that Hamas is guilty of the heinous act of using human sheilds.

My issue is that knowing they do it means that you can be fairly certain the bomb will kill civilians, and likely children. This means making the decision to use that kind of devastating weapon in response to a somewhat uncontrolled and ineffective weapon is not worth the collateral damage it will surely cause, IMO.

But again, to a degree, I can understand why it was done. There is a lot of anger within people who deal with a constant barrage of attacks from a despicable group such as Hamas. Their equation regarding the collateral damage is probably not the same as mine because of that anger and the pure desire to prevent those attacks that have caused the anger.

So like I said, I can understand it, but I cannot support it.

 

[Tashah]

So like I said, I can understand it, but I cannot support it.

The equation is simple. No Hamas rocket attacks for months on end against Israeli citizens would yield no civilian casualties in Gaza.

Don't blame Israel because Hamas placed it in an impossible position...

ie. We can attack your civilians with impunity because we both know you will have to kill Palestinian civilians to stop these attacks.

 

[WI Crippler]

My issue is that knowing they do it means that you can be fairly certain the bomb will kill civilians, and likely children. This means making the decision to use that kind of devastating weapon in response to a somewhat uncontrolled and ineffective weapon is not worth the collateral damage it will surely cause, IMO.

Thus, the necessity of a ground offensive....

 

[Tucker Case]

Thus, the necessity of a ground offensive....

Which I actually think was a great plan. for exactly that reason.

 

[Tucker Case]

The equation is simple. No Hamas rocket attacks for months on end against Israeli citizens would yield no civilian casualties in Gaza.

Don't blame Israel because Hamas placed it in an impossible position...

ie. We can attack your civilians with impunity because we both know you will have to kill Palestinian civilians to stop these attacks.

I said I understand it. I'm not "blaming" Israel, I'm saying I cannot "support" them even though I understand.

There's a huge difference blaming and not "supporting".

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

However my partner, who's even been to Israel a couple times, thinks the idea of it is rather...well... stupid. "Why not move 'em all to Arizona?" he's stated many times now.

Because Arizona isn't their homeland. If your homeland were at war and your enemies were trying to drive you from it, would you rather destroy them or go live in Sweden?

It's not a matter of whether or not anyone else would take them. Personally, I would be happy for the United States to do so, even if it involved giving them some territory. It's a matter of whether or not they should abandon what belongs to them.

So, hearing that from him as well, I don't understand the fierce support for the country. I can understand the practical implications, (oil, military) and that the government there is fairly liberal and democratic for the region, but I don't see the justification for the state.

It's a simple enough matter. Which nation do you prefer? Which would you rather have as your neighbor? If your daughter were to marry a member of either nation, which one would you rather she marry into?

As far as I am concerned, that is all the justification that is required.

 

[Tucker Case]

It's a simple enough matter. Which nation do you prefer? Which would you rather have as your neighbor? If your daughter were to marry a member of either nation, which one would you rather she marry into?

I wouldn't judge the guy based on his country of origin, I'd judge him based on his own merits.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I wouldn't judge the guy based on his country of origin, I'd judge him based on his own merits.

As would I, once there is an actual individual man in question. But before that, one can still ask the question-- if she were to pick either an average or a random member of either nation, which would you prefer?

Keep in mind there is more to this matter than just one man. There is also his family and his culture to consider.

 

[Iriemon]

As would I, once there is an actual individual man in question. But before that, one can still ask the question-- if she were to pick either an average or a random member of either nation, which would you prefer?

Keep in mind there is more to this matter than just one man. There is also his family and his culture to consider.

Is this supposed to be the basis of US policy?

 

[Jenin]

Because Arizona isn't their homeland.

Neither was palestine. They were Europeans.

 

[Tucker Case]

As would I, once there is an actual individual man in question. But before that, one can still ask the question-- if she were to pick either an average or a random member of either nation, which would you prefer?

Keep in mind there is more to this matter than just one man. There is also his family and his culture to consider.

I have to say that I cannot answer the generality in any honest fashion. I have no particular preference one way or the other based on the person's ethnicity or culture.

It is like asking "Would you ratehr your daughter marry a black man or a white man? Keep in mind there is more to this matter than just one man. There is also his family and his culture to consider."

There is no more than just one man going to marry my daughter unless she were into some freaky ****.

I would want her to be with the man who made her happy and treated her right, and all other trivial matters would be just that, trivial.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Is this supposed to be the basis of US policy?

When you take a step back from my individual preferences to the general consensus of the American people, I can see no reason why not. Why shouldn't a nation play favorites, and choose its allies on the grounds of which other cultures it would rather be neighbors with?

 

[shuamort]

Because Arizona isn't their homeland. If your homeland were at war and your enemies were trying to drive you from it, would you rather destroy them or go live in Sweden?

You're using homeland in a very loose sense. Look at the aliyahs (aliyot?) over the course of history.

It's not a matter of whether or not anyone else would take them. Personally, I would be happy for the United States to do so, even if it involved giving them some territory. It's a matter of whether or not they should abandon what belongs to them.

Since when? I mean, yes, 60 years ago, sure. But what makes one's claims more legitimate than others?

It's a simple enough matter. Which nation do you prefer? Which would you rather have as your neighbor? If your daughter were to marry a member of either nation, which one would you rather she marry into?

As far as I am concerned, that is all the justification that is required.

Which nation would I prefer? Neither.
If our daughter were to marry one, I'd just hope for her happiness.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Since when? I mean, yes, 60 years ago, sure. But what makes one's claims more legitimate than others?

Nothing, which is why there is no reason that either side should yield, and no reason why we should support either side-- except that we might prefer one nation to the other, and might prefer that our favorite be victorious.

Which nation would I prefer? Neither.
If our daughter were to marry one, I'd just hope for her happiness.

And yet surely you must think that one side offers better chances of that than the other.

I am not looking for an answer here. I am only encouraging you to ask yourself the question-- because if you are willing to accept my reasoning, the answer to that question is all the justification you need to support Israel, to support Palestine, or to support neither.

 

[donsutherland1]

Neither was palestine. They were Europeans.

Incorrect.

Jewish people have historic legitimacy in the region that is equal to that of the Arab inhabitants. There was a continual Jewish presence. Jewish immigrants were legal immigrants.

UNSCOP correctly explained, "It is a fact that both of these peoples have their historic roots in Palestine." There is abundant archaeological evidence that highlights the Jewish people's historic presence. Research studying DNA has also corroborated Middle Eastern origins for Jewish people.

The claim that Jewish people lack historical legitimacy in the region is as inaccurate as a claim that Arabs lack historical legitimacy. The sooner false rejectionist narratives that seek to deny the Jewish people's historical legitimacy are abandoned, the sooner more realistic prospects for coexistence will emerge.

 

[Degreez]

Jewish people have historic legitimacy in the region that is equal to that of the Arab inhabitants. There was a continual Jewish presence. Jewish immigrants were legal immigrants.

And how big of Jewish presence was there a year before they got there own nation?

 

[mikeey]

Shuamort, America owns Israel,looks like it to me,take down there flag once and for all and stop the kidding.Put up the stars and stripes and get on with it,
at least in stead of pulling the wool over our eyes.

kind regards

mikeey

 

[DivineComedy]

I don't understand the fierce support for the country.

So what am I missing?

Our word.

You should at least support Israel as a Member State of the United Nations, if your Member Nation has a word worth keeping, especially if you want a Palestinian State to be a member. Otherwise, unless your nation is attacked by a side, or threatened by a side, or you are a so-called “Palestinian” or an Israeli, who wins should be none of your business.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.” (George Washington) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

For the U.S. to remain in the United Nations, requires us to fulfill our word. To abandon Israel’s right to exist, while we remain a member and benefit from the United Nations, would make the U.S. an untrustworthy nation no other nation could ever trust. For us to leave the United Nations, for the purpose of abandoning Israel to her enemies, would be the very height of perfidy; you can find a host of Israel hating treacherous dogs in the non-aligned movement.