why does israel exist?

[Elky]

give me a cohesive and legitimate argument in favor of israel's existence.

[HolyShadow]

WWII

On second thought... why does America exist?

Give me a cohesive and legitimate argument as to why America exists. (Oh, Fared would love this one...)

[killshot]

give me a cohesive and legitimate argument in favor of israel's existence.

Was it a good idea to form the country of Israel? Probably not. Is it to late to relocate everyone? Yes.

[Spoofs3]

give me a cohesive and legitimate argument in favor of israel's existence.

Israel exists basically because of that it was the sacred land promised to them in the bible as act of a covenant to God.
But enough of fairy tales, Israel exists because at the end of World War II, There was alot of Jewish Refugees, Too much. In fact, far too much for countries to take, so to solve the problem a new country was founded to house most of the Jewish refugee population (I have no clue why they did not just return to their origional countries, Maybe didn't want to after being treated in such a way or something)

But yeah, Why does any country exist?
To be honest, you can't really question the existance of any one state, It exists because of different circumstances at points in time which led to the creation (or demise) Of certain states.
Some countries COULD ust be removed and anexed, But to be honest... Would they want to?
They exist, that's it :S

[Elky]

if you support israel because it's the "jewish homeland" then you must support giving the us back to the indians.

[HolyShadow]

You never answered my question.

Why does the US exist? I say that the patriots overreacted to the British taxation. What say you?

[Apocalypse]

Israel exists as a result of the Zionist movement's efforts, since the late 19th century, to make it a homeland for the Jews (because of the biblical reason, and the reason that the Jews, wherever they were, were always considered second-grade citizens and hunted- so they needed a place of their own); as a result of the (then) British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour's Declaration from 1917 (a year before the British finally conquered then-Palestine, and 3 years before the introduction of the British Mandate of the land), that promised to make a "national home for the Jewish people"; and, also, because of the refugee problem (that also existed before the war- see the 1938 Evian conference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
(but public attention was largely drawn to it after the Holocaust).

Now let me ask you this: why question a country's existence, and claim that it was "probably not" a good idea to form that country?
(for more on that matter, check out the Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941 by Roosevelt and Churchill, that claims all peoples- including the Jews- had a right for self-determination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_charter
)

[Elky]

zionism is racism.

[darkarcher]

Israel exists as a result of the Zionist movement's efforts, since the late 19th century, to make it a homeland for the Jews (because of the biblical reason, and the reason that the Jews, wherever they were, were always considered second-grade citizens and hunted- so they needed a place of their own); as a result of the (then) British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour's Declaration from 1917 (a year before the British finally conquered then-Palestine, and 3 years before the introduction of the British Mandate of the land), that promised to make a "national home for the Jewish people"; and, also, because of the refugee problem (that also existed before the war- see the 1938 Evian conference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
(but public attention was largely drawn to it after the Holocaust).

Now let me ask you this: why question a country's existence, and claim that it was "probably not" a good idea to form that country?
(for more on that matter, check out the Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941 by Roosevelt and Churchill, that claims all peoples- including the Jews- had a right for self-determination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_charter
)

Thank you, sir, for a thorough yet concise answer. Those are rare around these parts.

EDIT:
zionism is racism.
Technically, the typical Zionist is no more racist than, say, a typical NAACP member. (I don't know if the NAACP still exists but the point still stands). It's not racist to try to get benefits for a people-group that you believe to be prejudiced against.

[OverMind]

"why does israel exist?"

Simply, the British fucked up (What else is new?).

"why does israel continue to exist?"

- The U.S. needs a strategic ally in the Middle East (They've got key allies in every continent). Their closest ally in the Middle East used to be Iran, and then Iraq. And you know how that turned out, right? After realizing that foreign states don't like to be mere puppets and, *gasp*, want to make their own decisions, the US said "Fuck it" and started planting their own people there (i.e. the largest source of immigration to Israel is the U.S.)

- Sympathy from the Western world (i.e. They sort of have this guilt trip that the Holocaust was either their fault or they could have prevented it. So now you have this weird situation in Germany where the weirdest, and grossest pornography is protected under freedom of expression laws but merely saying "The holocaust didn't happen" lands your ass in jail). This also applies to the "If you criticize Israel, you're racist" card some clever individuals thought of a while back.

- Israel is seen as the lesser evil in a seemingly evil region (i.e. The common viewpoint is that, while Israel doesn't always abide by human rights or does some questionable things, they're minor in comparison to the Palestinian terrorists they are dealing with, or their unfriendly neighbors; Iran, Saudi Arabia, former Iraq, etc). It's kind of like how the US sends captured terrorist fighters to Guantanamo Bay (or, some brutal country via extraordinary rendition) to be tortured in the name of democratic principles like human rights.

- Or, perhaps, the West finds people that are kinda like them to be more favorable than simple peasants who look different, have a completely different religion, and have even less of a bargaining position than the latter.

[Starwind]

Anyone who says Israel should exist so the United States can have a "strategic ally" in the Middle East, as compensation for the Holocaust, and because it's their "homeland", needs to get their heads out of their asses. First off, all we got from this "strategic alliance" is the USS Liberty incident, AIPAC espionage, more reasons for anti-Americanism among the Islamic nations, and billions of taxpayer's money sent yearly in spite of Israel being a developed nation. Second, if you're going to give land to the Jews as compensation for the Holocaust (the death toll is highly exaggerated, by the way), then you have to be consistent and give some land to the Armenians as compensation for the Armenian Genocide. Finally, if you are a Zionist, then you have to be consistent and believe in giving the United States back to the Native Americans.

Anyone who supports this blind loyalty to Israel is anti-America and needs to leave.

[HolyShadow]

Anyone who says Israel must exist so the United States can have a "strategic ally" in the Middle East needs to get their heads out of their asses. All we got from having this "strategic alliance" is the USS Liberty incident, AIPAC espionage, more reasons for anti-Americanism among the Islamic nations, and billions of taxpayer's money sent yearly in spite of Israel being a developed nation. Anyone who supports this blind loyalty to Israel is anti-America and needs to fucking move to Israel.
United States of America

seria

israe

So Isrea is in the spelling of United Stats of America. Ergo, those letters of Israel are American.

That means the only antiamerican aspect of israel is the L.

Are you saying that people who use the letter L should get their heads out of their asses and move to Israel?

You, sir, are a grammar nazi.

[Fat1Fared]

Ok watched this thread with mild interest, but people already put any needed answers for purposes of this thread, and to be honest, in my opinion this is a silly question to a very complex political issue, which very few poeple could really understand it well enough to go into anymore detail on it (me included)

however I have seen two posts which need some kind of proper counter points to them:-

"why does israel exist?"

Simply, the British fucked up (What else is new?).


This is opinion/point of view, and from British political view, it was completely wrong, it was complete success:-

-They made themselves look nice, seemingly solved a lot of problems with the Jews in their own county (take that sentence how want too) such as racial tension, immigration, and several ecomonic issues

-Secondly, they were able to off load a lot of land which thought, had become all but useless to them and was getting little unstable (so basically more effort to keep than it was worth)

and at same time, did it without losing a single British Life and here is the KEY POINT, the general in charge of this mission, was under orders to do this quickly and easily, without endanging British Lives or resources.
=How do that, get crude map, draw a line across the middle, spitting the land in half and give each side, a half each, then get out of their as quick as your ships will take you.
=Then leave them to sort out the rest, I mean the British didn't care if they left it unstable, to them that just meant it was weaker and therefore easier to ignore or use.

Now can argue the ethical problems here and as a layed person I wouldn't disagree, but this wasn't a F-up, so much as getting result they wanted with lest effort put into it, and so complete success to them and any negative results weren't negative in their opinion or where no longer their problem.
=Now if we go onto modern side effects we are effecting us, you could argue strongly that comes back to Britain, however in a heartless truth and practical way, that men who did would view it, they would say that actually comes down to us getting reinvolved, and that the problems in the area are now their own and things which going on long before British ever knew they existed


"why does israel continue to exist?"

- The U.S. needs a strategic ally in the Middle East (They've got key allies in every continent). Their closest ally in the Middle East used to be Iran, and then Iraq. And you know how that turned out, right? After realizing that foreign states don't like to be mere puppets and, *gasp*, want to make their own decisions, the US said "Fuck it" and started planting their own people there (i.e. the largest source of immigration to Israel is the U.S.)


Though see your point, I don't think it is quiet so simple as this and Israel is hardly a reliable ally to US

-It would be more apt to say, it still exists because getting rid of it now, is basically impossible in practical sense and would end with probably a massive middle eastern war which would probably result in several genaersides of horrific levels. (Also it would cause the loss of lot of Oil and other valuable resources from the many countries involved)

So it is more, that US and western world will take an unbalanced, "simi"-stable county with some trading, peace and prepositional powers, than go through the "effort" of sorting it out properly in hope get some sort of almost impossible peace and balance there, to make what we wold consider true stadisation in area. (Remember ALL sides, think other is at fault and that land is theres, so will never let other side have it without a fight)


- Sympathy from the Western world (i.e. They sort of have this guilt trip that the Holocaust was either their fault or they could have prevented it. So now you have this weird situation in Germany where the weirdest, and grossest pornography is protected under freedom of expression laws but merely saying "The holocaust didn't happen" lands your ass in jail). This also applies to the "If you criticize Israel, you're racist" card some clever individuals thought of a while back.


This is wrong, not for reasons, that person above put, but for practical reasons.

The Western world wouldn't care about "hurting" places like Irasal, if wasn't for fact, there is lot that they get out of them, by appeasing them.
=Same situation as with Britain and Libra
=Iraq is little different as Sadma, wasn't playing ball even when they tried to appease him, so that is why got rid of him.
=While countries like Zimbabwe are not dealt with or appeased properly, as nothing to gain from it

-As for pornography and holocaust, well more germany considers death worst than strange sex <__<
>__>
But seriously, lets face it, you and me may not like it, but doesn't actually have real tension to it, but talking about mass genocide is little more tricky
=Second, rather than guilt, more trying to kept up their new image, germany knows that Hiltor is black mark on their history like no other, so work very hard to show that non of his idea's of left in their world, to show acceptability in world


- Israel is seen as the lesser evil in a seemingly evil region (i.e. The common viewpoint is that, while Israel doesn't always abide by human rights or does some questionable things, they're minor in comparison to the Palestinian terrorists they are dealing with, or their unfriendly neighbors; Iran, Saudi Arabia, former Iraq, etc). It's kind of like how the US sends captured terrorist fighters to Guantanamo Bay (or, some brutal country via extraordinary rendition) to be tortured in the name of democratic principles like human rights.


This I would agree with, but in different way, its more that Israel will be willing to negotiate and trade in some form while the others fighting for control will have none at all
=Trust me, there many countries which are allowed to do whatever want (many worse than the palestinian's "terrorists) as more agreeable when dealing with Western World (A county like Turkey, which though is far from worst place, is still allowed to do lot of questionable things, because it plays ball, and is now EVEN being considered for EU status, dispite having 90% of its country not in Europe and that meant to be Union about furthering peace and Human Rights as well as trade (if it gets in, whatever little faith I have in EU will be gone)) while lot of lesser evils are removed because won't play ball


- Or, perhaps, the West finds people that are kinda like them to be more favorable than simple peasants who look different, have a completely different religion, and have even less of a bargaining position than the latter.

interesting view point,

Anyone who says Israel should exist so the United States can have a "strategic ally" in the Middle East, as compensation for the Holocaust, and because it's their "homeland", needs to get their heads out of their asses. First off, all we got from this "strategic alliance" is the USS Liberty incident, AIPAC espionage, more reasons for anti-Americanism among the Islamic nations, and billions of taxpayer's money sent yearly in spite of Israel being a developed nation.


And so that you think anesxing this county will help? o_0


Second, if you're going to give land to the Jews as compensation for the Holocaust (the death toll is highly exaggerated, by the way), then you have to be consistent and give some land to the Armenians as compensation for the Armenian Genocide.


Well there are THREE fundermental differences here:-

1=Armenian's do already have their own Homeland (regained after fall of Soviet Union) so compensation would be in terms of money, making this very different situation

2=This is very small situation historically, now that doesn't make those involved probably feel better or act as justification to it, but simply won't be seen as worth dealing with, I mean though, I may disagree personally, there is STILL debate over whether this was even genocide

3=Turkey=Like I said eariler, they have good ties with west, who wouldn't bother upsetting that, to help something so small as this (harsh truth mixed with sarcasm)

-As for your opinion on Holocaust, well it shows your position, and though you have your right to that opinion, I suspect that the historians who studied this in great depth and even the ones I know personally, are more reliable sources to trust, and would disagree with you strongly (I don't believe history is fact or that historians always get it right or even always tell the truth, however this history is one which is so modern and so well recorded it hard to find any credit in those against it)


Finally, if you are a Zionist, then you have to be consistent and believe in giving the United States back to the Native Americans.


-Some do, but that won't happen as USA is strong ^_-
=Also on serious note, just because someone does something wrong, doesn't act as justification for everyone one else to do it, (something poeple from USA really need to learn)


Anyone who supports this blind loyalty to Israel is anti-America and needs to leave.

Now this is just sad thing to read, and wrong in so many ways, I don't know where to start, and as running out of time, just say
=I'm niether loyal to USA or Israel and just accept that it is a cold and practical world we live in

Do I think that Jewish poeple having homeland is right, well not in position to make fully informed opinion, but would say yes

Do I think that my County had its properties right when did it, probably not

Do I think it was handled well=No

Do I think we have good result=Not in Million years

Do I think those who set it up in this way or help to continue it running in this way, really care=Not as long as can keep using it

-My point, the world is far from Black and White

[OverMind]

This is opinion/point of view, and from British political view, it was completely wrong, it was complete success:-

-They made themselves look nice, seemingly solved a lot of problems with the Jews in their own county (take that sentence how want too) such as racial tension, immigration, and several ecomonic issues

-Secondly, they were able to off load a lot of land which thought, had become all but useless to them and was getting little unstable (so basically more effort to keep than it was worth)

and at same time, did it without losing a single British Life and here is the KEY POINT, the general in charge of this mission, was under orders to do this quickly and easily, without endanging British Lives or resources.
=How do that, get crude map, draw a line across the middle, spitting the land in half and give each side, a half each, then get out of their as quick as your ships will take you.
=Then leave them to sort out the rest, I mean the British didn't care if they left it unstable, to them that just meant it was weaker and therefore easier to ignore or use.

Now can argue the ethical problems here and as a layed person I wouldn't disagree, but this wasn't a F-up, so much as getting result they wanted with lest effort put into it, and so complete success to them and any negative results weren't negative in their opinion or where no longer their problem.
=Now if we go onto modern side effects we are effecting us, you could argue strongly that comes back to Britain, however in a heartless truth and practical way, that men who did would view it, they would say that actually comes down to us getting reinvolved, and that the problems in the area are now their own and things which going on long before British ever knew they existed

Here's the problem I find with your argument; the British took it upon themselves to be the Policeman of the world. Being "civilized", naturally, they felt it was a moral imperative to teach the world the "proper" way to do things.

No one asked them to do it. So, presumably, when they took over the Palestinian mandate, one would have hoped they would not botch the livelihood of millions of people.

But, it's the British of course, so instead of manning up and coming up with some sort of permanent solution (regardless of who got what, but something that would have ended the fighting), they gave up and handed the mandate to the UN who can't accomplish anything. Not a goddamn thing.

You should be ashamed of using the egoistic argument that the British did not fuck up, since they somehow benefited. That is like the worse viewpoint ever. It was a mandate, not a colony, the British weren't meant to benefit from it. Being the policeman of the world at the time, the whole point of the mandate was to bring stability to the region (i.e. kind of like how the current policeman of the world is trying to do in Iraq - and failing). Yet, they failed, and the region is anything but stable.


Though see your point, I don't think it is quiet so simple as this and Israel is hardly a reliable ally to US

Israel's closest ally is the US. The US's closest ally in the region is Israel.

I don't see any unreliability between them.


This is wrong, not for reasons, that person above put, but for practical reasons.

The Western world wouldn't care about "hurting" places like Irasal, if wasn't for fact, there is lot that they get out of them, by appeasing them.
=Same situation as with Britain and Libra
=Iraq is little different as Sadma, wasn't playing ball even when they tried to appease him, so that is why got rid of him.
=While countries like Zimbabwe are not dealt with or appeased properly, as nothing to gain from it

I'm quite sure the sympathy card is somewhere down the list for reasons why people support Israel (i.e. Go ask anyone uninformed on the issue, and they'll automatically take the Israeli side).


-As for pornography and holocaust, well more germany considers death worst than strange sex <__<
>__>
But seriously, lets face it, you and me may not like it, but doesn't actually have real tension to it, but talking about mass genocide is little more tricky
=Second, rather than guilt, more trying to kept up their new image, germany knows that Hiltor is black mark on their history like no other, so work very hard to show that non of his idea's of left in their world, to show acceptability in world

My point still stands. If you are going to enable as much freedom through expression as to allow for certain forms pornographic media that people will obviously morally object to, then why is there a double-standard against some racist nut who prints a book painting historical lies (which others will morally object to) that doesn't even sell well?

The only plausible explanation I can think of is the sympathy towards the Jewish cause.


This I would agree with, but in different way, its more that Israel will be willing to negotiate and trade in some form while the others fighting for control will have none at all
=Trust me, there many countries which are allowed to do whatever want (many worse than the palestinian's "terrorists) as more agreeable when dealing with Western World (A county like Turkey, which though is far from worst place, is still allowed to do lot of questionable things, because it plays ball, and is now EVEN being considered for EU status, dispite having 90% of its country not in Europe and that meant to be Union about furthering peace and Human Rights as well as trade (if it gets in, whatever little faith I have in EU will be gone)) while lot of lesser evils are removed because won't play ball

Evil is evil, regardless of how much of it you have.

[Apocalypse]

My point still stands. If you are going to enable as much freedom through expression as to allow for certain forms pornographic media that people will obviously morally object to, then why is there a double-standard against some racist nut who prints a book painting historical lies (which others will morally object to) that doesn't even sell well?

Think about it this way. If a large amount of people would view, like and spread that (highly objectionable) pornographic media, no deaths would be caused, no (undesired by users) pain, and you won't have to join in- physically, nothing bad would happen (morally, perhaps, but not physically). However, if (though nowadays it's because) a large amount of people would listen to that 'racist nut', they would accept his version- the historical lies- as true, believe the Holocaust didn't exist or was highly exaggerated, and as a result, one day there may be a new crazy guy that says "Hey, I don't like the Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Jamaicans/name your race, let's kill them!" and the world won't act as strongly as it should against it.
Spreading hatred, towards anyone, regardless of race, political view, gender, etc. Hatred that leads, eventually, to actions, is absolutely wrong, and (at least in my opinion) much worse than some wackos doing crazy sh*t in bed (or in other places). Spreading those historic lies, so that people can listen to them and believing in them, is an action of spreading hatred, and thus it is wrong.

I'm quite sure the sympathy card is somewhere down the list for reasons why people support Israel (i.e. Go ask anyone uninformed on the issue, and they'll automatically take the Israeli side).

That is true only in some places, not in others. There are more and more places where people uninformed on the issue take the Palestinian side; the 'sympathy card' works less and less.

No one asked them (the British) to do it.


Wrong. After conquering then-Palestine from the Ottoman Empire in the first World War, the League of Nations gave the British- of their own will (and logic, since they already ruled there)- the mandate to Palestine in 1922 (after discussing that in the San-Remo Conference: San Remo conference, from Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference).)

(i.e. the largest source of immigration to Israel is the U.S.)
Wrong throughout the decades. When the country was just formed, the largest source of immigration to it was Europe, the Arab states in the middle east and Asia (mostly Iraq and Yemen) and the former north-African colonies (Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, etc.) where hatred for the Jews was growing fast, due to the country's forming. That status remained throughout the 50's-80's, when most of the immigrants came from those lands, and few were Zionist Jews from the United States (and if you're not a Jew, immigration to Israel is pretty hard, so you might wanna stay there). Since the 1990's, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a large immigration of Jews from the former USSR to Israel in hopes of a better life, a better job and such- still no large American immigration.

Also: the U.S. has the largest amount of Jews in 1 country in the world, aside from Israel- about 5-5.5 million, give or take. Sadly (and 'thanks' to Hitler), there are not that many Jews around in the world today so that there would be a large-scale immigration from the U.S. to Israel, and the U.S. would still have such a large amount of Jews.

But, it's the British of course, so instead of manning up and coming up with some sort of permanent solution (regardless of who got what, but something that would have ended the fighting), they gave up and handed the mandate to the UN who can't accomplish anything. Not a goddamn thing.

Still wrong. Even after WWII (and before, but on a smaller scale), the British have tried to solve the conflict themselves: see the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine from 1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_Committee_of_Inquiry).

-My point, the world is far from Black and White

To that I agree.

I would have expanded more, but I must go now.

[Fat1Fared]

Mr Overmind, you have 3 mistakes or misinterpretations here, which have lead you to misunderstand my Point.

1=You mistaken, someone understanding another's reasoning, to equal them validating and/or believing in that reasoning. I didn't say this was my view or that I believe it was right, in fact, I concur that the moral arguments against the british here, were/are very strong, but that doesn't change the fact, that in the eyes of the men who did it, it wasn't wrong course of action (The general (who's name still escapes me) who did it was national hero for it, says it all.)

Here's the problem I find with your argument; the British took it upon themselves to be the Policeman of the world. Being "civilized", naturally, they felt it was a moral imperative to teach the world the "proper" way to do things.


2=That the British didn't want to police the world (thats the US job ^_^) the British wanted two things when they made their Empire:-
A=To live up to the ideals and greatness of their Roman Fathers and enjoy the power that it afforded them and once they attained this, it moved onto keeping that power. (Ironically all this left Britain a very weak county, when finally went sour, but that is different debate altogether)
B=To Civilise the world, which is different from Policing. They felt that world was savage and Premtive place and so like all Empires, when they took land they told it how to act like a real human. They wanted to build what saw as ideal world (take to long to get into that, but basically one governed on HR's (different our ideals of these today though) science, invention, cities and civil society.
=Civilising the world is taking it and making it your own idea of right and Wrong as building it in own image
=Policing the world is making everyone get along and not break the tentative peace it holds, the main different being, you don't need to change core ideals, just those making them and don't take over other countries, just force them fall in line and stop fighting (by starting war ^_^)

-However, another problem here is, that this was when Britian was at height of its power, by time we get to events we are on about, Britain is more interested in keeping what little power it has left in orderer to rebuild its own county


No one asked them to do it. So, presumably, when they took over the Palestinian mandate, one would have hoped they would not botch the livelihood of millions of people.



But, it's the British of course, so instead of manning up and coming up with some sort of permanent solution (regardless of who got what, but something that would have ended the fighting), they gave up and handed the mandate to the UN who can't accomplish anything. Not a goddamn thing.


Well, actually lot of time we were called into the conflicts at this time (aspecially post-ww1 pre-ww2 time) as poeple knew own military weren't strong enough or well trained enough to handle lot of problems, but at sametime, we were arrogant in our self-belief's of high-grounds
(and Person above went into detail on part about actual handling of it so I won't, I will just go into my 3rd point)

3=you have naively asummed that morals govern this world and that because you see/intepretete an outcome as bad, it is therefore actaully bad result.

(now this may come from being Canadian and from what I can tell, the Canadians are one of those rare rich countries, which ain't actually interested in their own selfish gain all time and while don't act on big stage a lot, they do actually have some integrity, however this isn't Canadian we are on about, its Britian and though not the worse county, far from good.)


You should be ashamed of using the egoistic argument that the British did not fuck up, since they somehow benefited. That is like the worse viewpoint ever. It was a mandate, not a colony, the British weren't meant to benefit from it. Being the policeman of the world at the time, the whole point of the mandate was to bring stability to the region (i.e. kind of like how the current policeman of the world is trying to do in Iraq - and failing). Yet, they failed, and the region is anything but stable.


=So back to my point, Something isn't messed up or failure, if get what wanted from it, even if it is WRONG in many poeples eyes (trust me, I would rather believe my county was incompetent than what I view almost evil, but I won't turn away from the truth, to make self feel better.)

The result wasn't to make stable area, it was to off load troublesome land and forfil few political agenda's


Israel's closest ally is the US. The US's closest ally in the region is Israel.

I don't see any unreliability between them.


Being US's closest Ally in Middles east is like being first in a beauty contest, were all other contestants are mutants, sorry for somewhat poor analogy, but still, it shows my point

-I mean they wouldn't even down scale troop numbers in different areas


I'm quite sure the sympathy card is somewhere down the list for reasons why people support Israel (i.e. Go ask anyone uninformed on the issue, and they'll automatically take the Israeli side).


Ok, this may have been me misunderstanding you, I thought we were on about the "poeple, who's opinions matters" (AKA political classes) but yes if on about the uneducated masses, then yer sympathy maybe on there in some areas, but even then isn't biggest force and doesn't actually make much difference to actions of leaders, other than being another tool they abuse to make us support their ideas


My point still stands. If you are going to enable as much freedom through expression as to allow for certain forms pornographic media that people will obviously morally object to, then why is there a double-standard against some racist nut who prints a book painting historical lies (which others will morally object to) that doesn't even sell well?



The only plausible explanation I can think of is the sympathy towards the Jewish cause.


well, there are subtle differences in my opinion (and subtle difference, doesn't mean unimportant,) however on other hand, I can see why you would draw this conclusion (even if don't agree at all,) however to go into it properly, will be to far from point of this thread and person above made good points as to it.

So just go back to point, maybe a normal german person may feel guilt, but political member, would be more interested in keeping up appearances, in order to keep up their good relations, trading deals....etc


Evil is evil, regardless of how much of it you have.

Though this is nice saying and in some terms, even right, i have another saying by Uly Othof (not spelt right)

"Some poeple say Evil prevails when good men fail to act, I say Evil Prevails"

Point here is that, even if we ignore my view point that isn't any such thing as true evil, as evil is too ill-defined, subjective and based on completely interpretation, "good" results rarely happen for the wider world.
This is because those with power to make it happen, don't want these results as it rarely has any gain for them, needs them to do right thing, which normally takes a lot of effort on their part and may even lose them things, they don't wish to lose.
So instead the world takes on this hypocritical and unbalanced air of half-right things being done for completely wrong reasons, which results normally has results just as bad for the wider world as if they had just done wrong thing anyway, "but lest lest strong minority get what want".

Not saying, this is good thing, but at sametime, doesn't mean it isn't true and worse bit is, most of us may sit here judging it, but in truth we are as much to blame as those who rule us and we allow them to do it, because in end we are same as them, and know that though we may publically say it is wrong, in our heart of hearts we know that right result isn't best one for us personally, and so allow these "evils" to exist. (in many cases vindicating ourselves with idea's that its better than other results or that its for there own good IE sweat shops are good example of this, poeple are meant to hate them, yet still more than willing to buy cheap shops made by them)

But best Case in Point is:-

Britain allows oil prices to go up, we have riots and protests so strong, that our countries main roads are blocked and our industries grind to a stand still

Britain enters a completely illegal and emoral war and we have few hippies and students outside Big-Ben with crudely made bill-boards

And I use this example not because Britain is worse, but because I know Britain personally, however most of strong countries in this world are exactly same

Anyway, I will finish here as getting off topic (again) and preachy

[OverMind]

Think about it this way. If a large amount of people would view, like and spread that (highly objectionable) pornographic media, no deaths would be caused, no (undesired by users) pain, and you won't have to join in- physically, nothing bad would happen (morally, perhaps, but not physically). However, if (though nowadays it's because) a large amount of people would listen to that 'racist nut', they would accept his version- the historical lies- as true, believe the Holocaust didn't exist or was highly exaggerated, and as a result, one day there may be a new crazy guy that says "Hey, I don't like the Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Jamaicans/name your race, let's kill them!" and the world won't act as strongly as it should against it.
Spreading hatred, towards anyone, regardless of race, political view, gender, etc. Hatred that leads, eventually, to actions, is absolutely wrong, and (at least in my opinion) much worse than some wackos doing crazy sh*t in bed (or in other places). Spreading those historic lies, so that people can listen to them and believing in them, is an action of spreading hatred, and thus it is wrong.

Who said anything about hatred? When did simply believing in an alternate version of historical events (regardless of whether they actually happened) constitute hatred? Oh, just because the Jews were involved, we suddenly default to the racist card?

I'm not looking at it from the racial point of view, I'm looking at it purely from the freedom of expression point of view.

For instance, I've met a conspiracy theorist or two who would claim that the JFK assassination was perpetrated by the very government JFK dedicated his final years to. And there's been books written on it. Of course, it's an alternate recounting of events, differing greatly from accepted version of events, which offends many people. Yet, you wouldn't see any of these writers get thrown in jail for spreading lies. Why? Because of the freedom of expression that is inherent to the free, developed world protects them.

I'm just saying that if we are to have completely free freedom of expression, the same principle should apply everywhere and not tailor to specific ethnic groups that get offended easily.


That is true only in some places, not in others. There are more and more places where people uninformed on the issue take the Palestinian side; the 'sympathy card' works less and less.

I'm talking about the developed world, you know, citizens of the countries who are avid supporters of Israel. But, yes, it is true that there are a block of nations, mostly undeveloped, that default to the Palestinian side because they can "relate" to them.

Both sides are, of course, wrong since that is the worst way to side with someone in a conflict you are totally uninvolved with.


Wrong. After conquering then-Palestine from the Ottoman Empire in the first World War, the League of Nations gave the British- of their own will (and logic, since they already ruled there)- the mandate to Palestine in 1922 (after discussing that in the San-Remo Conference: San Remo conference, from Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference).)

Oh, so they already ruled there? Did the Palestinians ask to be conquered by the British in the first place? You make it sound as if the British were somehow coerced into conquering a territory against their will (i.e. As if "Someone asked them to do it", the position you are taking by rebutting my original quote).

Please read the details of the article you linked to me. The British had an administrative position at the San Remo Conference, and were basically in charge of delegating who gets what. No one "assigned" Palestine to them; since they were in charge of the territory already, it made sense to delegate it to themselves.


Wrong throughout the decades. When the country was just formed, the largest source of immigration to it was Europe, the Arab states in the middle east and Asia (mostly Iraq and Yemen) and the former north-African colonies (Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, etc.) where hatred for the Jews was growing fast, due to the country's forming. That status remained throughout the 50's-80's, when most of the immigrants came from those lands, and few were Zionist Jews from the United States (and if you're not a Jew, immigration to Israel is pretty hard, so you might wanna stay there). Since the 1990's, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a large immigration of Jews from the former USSR to Israel in hopes of a better life, a better job and such- still no large American immigration.

I concede that I made a mix-up. There's more immigration to the US from Israel than the other way around.


Still wrong. Even after WWII (and before, but on a smaller scale), the British have tried to solve the conflict themselves: see the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine from 1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_Committee_of_Inquiry).

Right, you're referencing an attempt by the British to solve the problem 2 years before Israel was even formed (1948), which then lead to the first Israeli-Arab War.

Top-notch job by the good ol' British, wouldn't you say?

Rather than resolve the issue like they did in India with the formation of Pakistan (i.e. Two seemingly differing groups in conflict, fighting over land), they didn't do anything. Honestly, read the article you linked to me, specifically the last section detailing "Effects of the Committee". You honestly call that "manning up"?

[Apocalypse]

Right, you're referencing an attempt by the British to solve the problem 2 years before Israel was even formed (1948), which then lead to the first Israeli-Arab War.

I thought the following-
But, it's the British of course, so instead of manning up and coming up with some sort of permanent solution (regardless of who got what, but something that would have ended the fighting), they gave up and handed the mandate to the UN who can't accomplish anything. Not a goddamn thing.

addressed the problem before the forming of Israel, as it referred to the handing of the mandate over to the UN; thus I referenced that particular committee.

And I don't call it manning up; I call it trying to do something to end the fighting.

(though, I agree with that part about the UN).


I'm talking about the developed world, you know, citizens of the countries who are avid supporters of Israel. But, yes, it is true that there are a block of nations, mostly undeveloped, that default to the Palestinian side because they can "relate" to them.


Perhaps so, but this doesn't sound so convincing after seeing 19,400,000 results on google for the keywords "ban Israel", and hearing more and more about groups- whether they are academic groups or just work unions- wishing to ban Israel, not only in the undeveloped countries (where banning Israel has become so scarce, it needn't be mentioned).

Both sides are, of course, wrong since that is the worst way to side with someone in a conflict you are totally uninvolved with.

Agreed. :smile:

Oh, so they already ruled there? Did the Palestinians ask to be conquered by the British in the first place? You make it sound as if the British were somehow coerced into conquering a territory against their will (i.e. As if "Someone asked them to do it", the position you are taking by rebutting my original quote).


If they hadn't ruled there (which would have been illogical, as they were already there, and thus in a perfect stance to rule), a different nation (France or Italy) would have. The Palestinians didn't ask to be conquered by the British, nor by the Ottoman Empire, nor by the Byzantine empire; they just were conquered, and I don't see any other rule treat them differently.
(I believe-and I might be a fool about that one- that the British were- somewhat - coerced into conquering the territory, as part of the active role they took in fighting the Ottomans)

Who said anything about hatred? When did simply believing in an alternate version of historical events (regardless of whether they actually happened) constitute hatred? Oh, just because the Jews were involved, we suddenly default to the racist card?


Believing in the alternate version of historical events does not constitute hatred. Spreading that alternate version, which in itself contains hatred or leads to hatred, does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the law in Germany does not prohibit you from thinking that alternate version of historical events, only from speaking about it in public and spreading it. You have free right to enter as many "Holocaust revision" websites as you'd like.

(I won't get into the freedom of expression debate- that would just take too much time and be irrelevant to the topic. (Also I'm quite tired, so I might end up writing rubbish. :wink:) )

[Kochiha]

The Israelis have some damn good tanks. Additionally, the country as we know it exists because of a bunch of Christians chopping up the Mideast as they pleased in order to give the Jews their own personal homeland at the expense of the Muslim populace of the area. The Jews didn't have much of a say in the matter. Overmind's right: it was just the British fucking up, as usual, and now their existance is prolonged because the US was using it as a proxy force against the Soviet Union's proxies in the numerous Arab-Isreali wars. In fact, that's why everything's still messed up over there; tensions left over from the superpowers exploiting them so that their own egos could be swelled. In the end, the Isrealis were the ones with the better mind for tactics, although their own cockiness almost defeated them in the Yom Kippur War.

It's a mental dump; this topic is so done to death I don't need to come out with some kind of well-written post.

[Bubbles]

That really depends if the question is "why it came to be in the first place" or "why does it still exist today" (because no one hate Jews now, it's such an old fashioned concept. Antisemitism is such a strong word. Racism is a so not hot, Paris Hilton said so herself!)

Most nations want a country of their own, why not the Jews? Also, if you try to take people born and raised in Israel, like me, and stick them anywhere else, you'll have troubles in no time, if only because we don't do the whole Mr/Ms, Dr/Prof/Teacher thing and find it quite funny in general (calling people by their first name is much simpler) so I can see a lot of "learn some respect bitches" going on.

By the way, most of our battles were won by a combination of poor strategy that got ignored in favor of good tactic, some pretty kick ass action on the personal soldiers level, and luck (a fair amount of it too). Intelligence is the thing most battles lack the most, and Israeli in general lack. The stupid, it burns.

[Kochiha]

I dunno, if battles lack any intelligence, then why don't we see many repetitions of the charge of the Light Brigade? Additionally, racism might not be hot, but everybody's a little bit racist. (Besides, if Paris Hilton is declaring racism as being bad, it might just be a good thing...I kid.)

[Bubbles]

Well, intelligence sometime can give you the wrong idea. Just because the enemy CAN do something, won't mean he will, and it's not a good idea to base your entire stratefy based on the concept he MIGHT. Generally, our army seems to suck in long-term strategy because it makes too many assumptions based on the intelligence and to little based on what ACTUALLY GOES ON.

And of course everyone a bit racist, but ya know, there's ways to go around it. And calling some countries useless isn't it. But hey, it's the internet, and people suck, it's nothing new.

Also I dunno if Paris Hilton actually said that, but she might as well - nobody ever listens to her anyway unless it's about sex, fashion and more sex. Also her boobs are kinda pointy.

EDIT: Damn, I had enough typos to be confused for Tara Gilesbie

[Kochiha]

Oh, you've noticed that, too?

And yes, it's the internet, and we love it. (Fuck, shit, titty, cock.)

Also, I think your a little confused as to what I mean by intelligence. I'm not talking strictly in military terms (in which intelligence is a bunch of information that one must make assumptions on, which you're absolutely right in terms of how bad it is to rely on such so much), but also in terms of how much one knows in general. By combining their intelligence with the military intelligence they receive from whatever they use to obtain it, commanders are able to make decisions based on what would be the most logical thing for the enemy to do, then act on those decisions by covering all the necessary points while keeping such information from the enemy. Now from my study of history, I've noted that the Isrealis were definitely very good at doing that sort of thing, especially in the Six Day War, where the Syrians were so overwhelmed the Isrealis could've driven straight on to Damascus if they wanted to. That situation was caused by the Isreali commanders identifying the weaknesses in the Syrian strategy, then exploiting them. During the Yom Kippur War, however, many of the weaknesses you pointed out came into play; the Isreali forces were so confident in their ability to control the field with their tanks that they failed to do anything that would halt the invasion quicker than how things worked out. It's true, military intelligence can give a commander the wrong idea, but that's the risk of war, and this can be lessened simply by taking all variables on the battlefield into account, knowing what would be the safest thing for the enemy to do, expecting the enemy to make the best move possible (and laughing at them when they don't), and most importantly: knowing your history.

[Bluetune]

Well to be fair there even some orthodox jews that are confused about the existence of Israel. The people at NKUSA (http://www.nkusa.org/) say that their torah says that they've been exiled from the holy land. They also say that they feel embarrassed that wars are being committed in their religion's name. They also claim that "Israel was created by Atheists pretending to be jews".

These are the same Orthodox jews who say that "Ahmedinijad loves Jewish people".

I don't know if Israel should be relocated, abolished or whatever though. All I know is that out of all the countries in the UN there are only two that support Israel's actions. The United States and Micronesia.

[Apocalypse]

Well to be fair there even some orthodox jews that are confused about the existence of Israel. The people at NKUSA (http://www.nkusa.org/) say that their torah says that they've been exiled from the holy land. They also say that they feel embarrassed that wars are being committed in their religion's name. They also claim that "Israel was created by Atheists pretending to be jews".

These are the same Orthodox jews who say that "Ahmedinijad loves Jewish people".

I don't know if Israel should be relocated, abolished or whatever though. All I know is that out of all the countries in the UN there are only two that support Israel's actions. The United States and Micronesia.

Ah, the old Neturei Karta arguement. The so-called "Not all Jews are Zionists" one (that, thus, desires to give legitimacy to calls to abolish Israel, the home and safe haven of the Jews). Did you know that out of about 14-15 million Jews in the entire world, the Neturei Karta and the Satmar hassidic movements- the largest 2 communities of anti-Zionist Jews (and possibly the only ones; I can't recall more) have, combined, less than 200,000 members, most of which are born in them (due to the large fertility rate)? That's somewhere between 1-2 percents of the Jewish communities; I wouldn't take them as representing any opinion of the Orthodox Jews but theirs'.

And, forgive me for asking, but from where do you get the idea that only The United States and Micronesia support Israel's actions? Let's take, for example, the recent case of anti-Israel's-actions report in the UN, the Goldstone report (or, by it's official name, the "United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict"): the subsequent UN Human Rights council (which, in itself, has a tend for anti-Israelism) resolution about the report- including criticism targeted only against Israel, without mentioning Hamas and the combatants from the other side- was adopted, eventually, but with votes in favor coming in mostly from the undeveloped countries and the countries of the Middle East and Africa, and with at least 6 openly against.
(Micronesia, by the way, was not among those against.)

[Bluetune]

Ah, the old Neturei Karta arguement. The so-called "Not all Jews are Zionists" one (that, thus, desires to give legitimacy to calls to abolish Israel, the home and safe haven of the Jews). Did you know that out of about 14-15 million Jews in the entire world, the Neturei Karta and the Satmar hassidic movements- the largest 2 communities of anti-Zionist Jews (and possibly the only ones; I can't recall more) have, combined, less than 200,000 members, most of which are born in them (due to the large fertility rate)? That's somewhere between 1-2 percents of the Jewish communities; I wouldn't take them as representing any opinion of the Orthodox Jews but theirs'.

And, forgive me for asking, but from where do you get the idea that only The United States and Micronesia support Israel's actions? Let's take, for example, the recent case of anti-Israel's-actions report in the UN, the Goldstone report (or, by it's official name, the "United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict"): the subsequent UN Human Rights council (which, in itself, has a tend for anti-Israelism) resolution about the report- including criticism targeted only against Israel, without mentioning Hamas and the combatants from the other side- was adopted, eventually, but with votes in favor coming in mostly from the undeveloped countries and the countries of the Middle East and Africa, and with at least 6 openly against.
(Micronesia, by the way, was not among those against.)


Well to be honest I have mixed feelings about Israel. I feel that everyone has the right to create their own nation. That's how every nation in the world was created.

Also if you can prove that all jews are zionists I would love that. It would help me a lot. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about Israel (9/11, central banks, etc) and if you could debunk them for me that would be a big help. I consider you my ally in that regard.

However your going to have to go through a lot of claims to prove that only Jews are Zionists.

There is quote from Joe Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUxjI8-DUHg) on shalom TV about Zionism that you might be interested in. then again Joe Biden is the same person who said that we need a 0% carbon footprint so maybe he's just an idiot...

as for where I got the part about only the United States and Micronesia support Israel. just search "Israel world records" on youtube. The video was uploaded in 2008 so some of it's information is a little outdated. Most notably the part that says that only Israel has legalized torture.

one of the most shocking world records in that video was towards the end.

And just so you know I wasn't actually arguing anything I was just showing people that not all Jews agree on the existence of Israel. There are biblical arguments for and against just about everything Israel is no exception. You can make your own decisions on what you think about it based on the opinions of all the different groups. I prefer to take the middle line rather than oppose or support something.

For most political subjects I'm a self proclaimed political non-reactionary

[Apocalypse]

Also if you can prove that all jews are zionists I would love that. It would help me a lot.

I have not claimed that all Jews are Zionists; I have claimed that an overwhelming majority of the world's Jews are Zionists (or at least not anti-Zionist, even if they don't want to immigrate to Israel themselves, which is the original meaning of the word). I do acknowledge that there is a small minority of Jews which is anti-Zionist, but there lies the emphasis: those groups of Jews are very small in comparison to all the Jews of the world. Show me a place where 1-2 percent of a people decide for the entire people (and base it on facts and reason) and I will tip my hat off to you, sir.

as for where I got the part about only the United States and Micronesia support Israel. just search "Israel world records" on youtube. The video was uploaded in 2008 so some of it's information is a little outdated. Most notably the part that says that only Israel has legalized torture.

About that YouTube video- you're going to have to show it to me (post a link), so I can address the subjects and claims in that video; a search for "Israel world records" on YouTube didn't come up with results like the video you described.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about Israel (9/11, central banks, etc) and if you could debunk them for me that would be a big help. I consider you my ally in that regard.


I am not sure about which conspiracy theories you're talking about when you're saying "central banks", so I am currently unable to debunk that one for you.
About the 9/11 one- I'm assuming you talk about the theory that claims the Jews and Israel were behind the September 11th, 2001 attacks. (The theory that claims that Jews who work in 9/11 didn't come to work that day, that Jews were partying when they heard of the bombing, that the attacks were a 'Zionist' plot, etc.) Well, I don't really know about the Jewish and Israeli workers in 9/11- I cannot check the records (which are probably non-existent or burnt down) of every company working at the then-World Trade Center to see who came to work and who didn't, and of those who came to work, who were Jewish or Israeli; but then again, the people who make that claims cannot do so as well, and it is much easier to make claims without having to prove them (or saying that 'the proof burned down in the attack').
About the Israelis and Jews partying at the time of the bombing- that is a lie you can debunk, if you want; just search for the Israeli news reports from that time.
However, I do recall seeing an MSNBC report clearly showing Palestinian Arabs celebrating the 9/11 attacks, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98H7Y1HEWwA) but that might just be me. (Oh, and by the way, I'm sorry for its title- I didn't upload it, and it shows the uploader's biased opinion clearly; but the footage inside the video is real.)

There is quote from Joe Biden on shalom TV about Zionism that you might be interested in.

You gotta take 2 things into matter when viewing this: first, it was made on a Shalom TV broadcast, a broadcast that applies to Jews in America (who, obviously, care about Israel and its well being). So, a smart politician would not go neutral/against Zionism in a network broadcast that applies to Jews, right? He would rather do the opposite.
Second, it is possible to not be Jewish and be a Zionist; Zionism is a movement that advocates the return of Jews to their homeland of the land of Israel (/Palestine). Though many Jews agree with the movement's ideals and goals, it is not a Jews-Only movement- for example, many Evangelist Christians, who believe that the return of Jews to their land is an important mark before the second coming of Christ, agree and support the Zionist movement (and Israel).

one of the most shocking world records in that video was towards the end.

Like (sorta) you said in your post, you can make your own opinion about everything, based on the opinions of the different groups. However, I would highly appreciate it if you could show me that video, and the sources for the 'records' it shows; you can't trust everything on the web these days, so you gotta take your facts from objective, neutral sources (say, Wikipedia).
(I can make a video claiming the moon is made of cheese, have it link to my website that also claims the moon is made of cheese, and thus call it fact. Is it really fact? :wink:)

[Bluetune]

Well as for the central banks thing. In the anti zionist conspiracy world the prevailing theory behind central banks is that the creators of them (the Rothschilds, Rockfellers, Warburgs, Morgans, etc) were all Jewish and therefore must have preplanned or later supported and/or funded the groups that created Israel. However to substantiate these claims they've cited statutes in some countries where jews have been either exiled for usury, or have prevented from committing usury. An example being the English Statutes of Jewry of 1275.

As for the Arabs partying in Palestine. They claim that's been debunked too. Saying, that it was actually a wedding party that just happened to be happening at a similar time.

Also here is the video. Like your video from the MSNBC this one's title shows a biased opinion too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6tABZpkl0k

there is also another video related to the one you found where a man claims the footage in that MSNBC report was from 1993.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agsHd1bSU30&NR=1

There is also a pro israel channel if you want to see that too
http://www.youtube.com/user/Israelblue50

[Bluetune]

The way I see it if we're going to investigate Israel for warcrimes we should also investigate the United states and Iran.

Iran in particular has been very open to investigation it's allowed the UN to look into it's Nuclear program (smart move). The only thing the UN found was that Iran had the data to make nukes, but contrary to Israeli/US intelligence Iran doesn't have any nukes at the moment.

I also find it interesting that only 20% of Iranians have an internet connection and yet we're supposed to believe that there is some kind of twitter revolution against the stolen election of Ahmedinijad. Even if he did steal the election Iran has a committee of Judges ( the electoral college) that decide which candidates would get on the ballot if nobody wanted Ahmedinijad he wouldn't have been there for the vote. If Iranian citizens thought he was a tyrant the committee would have probably just written him off. Plus Iran is an open Theocracy so it's only natural that the church would influence who they'd want to win.

[Apocalypse]

Thank you for giving me the link to that video. I cannot reply to all the accusations of that video; that would take too much time and achieve nothing, as there's a much simpler way to settle this- show me the facts to prove those 'records', from a neutral source (or by looking at both Israeli and Palestinian sources and combining them together to create a balanced point of view, but that would take too much time). Until you do so, I'm sorry, but I see this video as little more than baseless claims. (I'm not saying all of these are not true; sadly, I know that the one about the settlements is true, but that's a very rare case in that video.)

But most of all, this video saddens me. It saddens me because it strengthens the people who are against peace and pro-war, those who think violence is a legitimate way - the only legitimate way- to achieve what you want; and because it turns people into that way, by portraying the other side as a devil which is nothing but evil and must be destroyed. And even if you disagree with my opinion and think I am completely biased (in my constant requests for neutral sources), you must agree with me that today's world is not black and white; nothing is absolutely evil. In my opinion, the video portrays Israel as absolutely evil, and thus goes out against making peace with it, peace that will be good for both sides.

As for the Arabs partying in Palestine. They claim that's been debunked too. Saying, that it was actually a wedding party that just happened to be happening at a similar time.
May be so- and my video may show that footage, because it is obviously biased- but this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1538861.stm) from September 11th says otherwise.

Well as for the central banks thing. In the anti zionist conspiracy world the prevailing theory behind central banks is that the creators of them (the Rothschilds, Rockfellers, Warburgs, Morgans, etc) were all Jewish and therefore must have preplanned or later supported and/or funded the groups that created Israel. However to substantiate these claims they've cited statutes in some countries where jews have been either exiled for usury, or have prevented from committing usury. An example being the English Statutes of Jewry of 1275.

In order to debunk the substantiations of those claims- as the claims themselves are, pardon my language, quite rubbish themselves (as any conspiracy theory is, regardless of its perpetrators), because, as told earlier in this very topic, there is no sure connection between Judaism and Zionism- I went and searched in the Wikipedia article on Usury, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury) and I found this (quoted directly from there):

As the Jews were ostracized from most professions by local rulers, the church and the guilds, they were pushed into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending. Natural tensions between creditors and debtors were added to social, political, religious, and economic strains.

...financial oppression of Jews tended to occur in areas where they were most disliked, and if Jews reacted by concentrating on moneylending to non-Jews, the unpopularity — and so, of course, the pressure — would increase. Thus the Jews became an element in a vicious circle. The Christians, on the basis of the Biblical rulings, condemned interest-taking absolutely, and from 1179 those who practised it were excommunicated. Catholic autocrats frequently imposed the harshest financial burdens on the Jews. The Jews reacted by engaging in the one business where Christian laws actually discriminated in their favour, and became identified with the hated trade of moneylending.[13]
Peasants were forced to pay their taxes to Jews who were economically coerced into becoming the "front men" for the lords. The Jews would then be identified as the people taking their earnings. Meanwhile the peasants would remain loyal to the lords.



(citation 13 redirects to Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews, published by New York: HarperCollins in 1987, and specifically to page 174.)

Oh, and last thing:
There is also a pro israel channel if you want to see that too
http://www.youtube.com/user/Israelblue50

Redirecting to an Israeli extreme-right-wing YouTube channel, forgive me for saying this, isn't really fair play. You could have easily found a 'saner' channel.
(Any YouTube channel referencing Meir Kahane- a man who highly favored the idea of Israel annexing the West Bank and Gaza and forcefully removing the Palestinians who would not move away, a man whose political party was considered racist in Israel because of how it treats Arabs, a man advocating for Israel's democracy to be replaced by an near-fascist, theocratic rule of Judaism in all forms of life, and I can carry on- is, at least in my opinion, considered extreme right-wing. Sadly, as extremists grow stronger on both sides, those opinions, too, spread every day.)

[Aninamar]

That means the only antiamerican aspect of israel is the L.
http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7927580008/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/03/22/death_note.jpg
I think you're screwed, America. :P


give me a cohesive and legitimate argument in favor of israel's existence.

Because shut up.