The American Spectator

Alan Brooks| 3.17.10 @ 5:11PM

Israel's enemies wont give up, either. An inchoate theory has been that as new generations take over the helm in the Mideast, the "passions" (hatreds) will die away. That has not been the case, at least on the part of Israel's enemies. A long row to hoe until the venom subsides.
A very long row.

poloy 444| 3.19.10 @ 1:11AM

u.s.s. Liberty.........Need I say more????????

basur| 10.27.10 @ 6:08AM

"the lord helps those that help themselves"
- my grandma [and millions like her]

its time for american jews to stop voting for democrats. in fact its past time.

saleboter| 3.17.10 @ 7:09AM

New foreign policy. Appease our enemies, condemn our friends (or former friends)

KyMouse| 3.17.10 @ 10:01AM

National Review Online today (nationalreview.com) has a half-dozen very good, and short, bits about Obama and Israel, under the heading "The Worst Crisis in 35 Years?". It's worth reading -- please take a look.

S.L. Toddard| 3.17.10 @ 7:14AM

"Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded."

- President George Washington

"Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."

- Russell Kirk

bob alou| 3.17.10 @ 11:01AM

And your point is..? We should abandon Israel because you think we are going to gain what?

S.L. Toddard| 3.17.10 @ 2:58PM

$3 billion a year, if nothing else.

bob alou| 3.17.10 @ 3:05PM

Money well spent.

S.L. Toddard| 3.17.10 @ 3:25PM

How so? What are the strategic benefits? How does our unwavering support of Israel *enhance* our national security? Does it do that at all? If so, does it enhance it enough to offset the negative effects, i.e. the intensification of the hatred of Muslims, who control vast supplies of oil which we need?

bob alou| 3.17.10 @ 3:50PM

Perhaps you've never noticed that Israel sits at the crossroads of three continents? Perhaps you would mention the other allies we have in the region that you think would accrue to our benefit if we abandon Israel. The idea that they hate us because of Israel is nonsense. Does Russia hate us because of Israel? Venezuela? How about China? North Korea? And when you say they hate us because of our one-sided support of Israel then obviously if Israel did not exist then there would be no problem. Like Stalin said, "one man, one problem. No man, no problem". Why should a small country, homeland to a people whose history stretches back five thousand years bother the Muslims so much? You make their argument why wiping Israel off the map is justified -- because that is exactly what you are advocating whether you admit it or not.

S.L. Toddard| 3.17.10 @ 3:53PM

Oh - I didn't realize you were stupid. Please forget I asked.

coal carrier| 3.17.10 @ 7:11PM

A typical liberal response. When you can’t add to the debate, reply with innuendo, name-calling or character assassination.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 5:53PM

bob, the Pentagon says our relationship with Israel harms our other relationships in the region. See my link below. Is the Pentagon fibbing?

Your use of the word "abandon" Israel is interesting. Abandoning implies that we have some sort of affirmative obligation to support them? Is our obligation to support Israel enshrined in the Constitution somewhere? What Article and section? Do we have an affirmative obligation to support the Congo for example? Why or why not? Are we "abandoning" the Congo by not showering them with as much aide as we give Israel? I would suggest that the only country the US Government can abandon is the US. And they are doing a pretty good job of it. Have been for years.

bob alou| 3.17.10 @ 6:40PM

Oh you have really offended me. You called me stupid. I am outraged. What a snappy retort. However, name me when Israel has called for the Palestinians to be wiped off the map, to be driven into the sea. The enemies of Israel hate the Jews, as, obviously, do you. There is not, nor has there ever been similar statements by an Israeli leader calling for the destruction of the Arabs, or the Persians, the Syrians or the Palestinians that are common place among those advocating the Palestinian cause. That's not stupid, that's a fact.

joe| 6.2.10 @ 2:03PM

you are just like the enemy of freedom media !! poor 'evil-is-rael' what ever channel i turn too that is whats said. who owns the 'liberal media ' stations?? who owns fox?? who owns the anti-american church channels?? the same damn people who support aipac ,and blame all the white people for everything. we are not your pets . stop acting like we are . get the hell out of our country , take your commie media with you back to evil-is-rael

Josh Brewster| 3.17.10 @ 4:09PM

The situation is similar to this: If a white American lawyer specializing in civil rights had a cross burned on his lawn by the Klan, no one in his right mind would ask that lawyer to stop supporting the rights of black people, or to distance himself...of course he should continue to support black people even if it means it puts himself at risk.

Similarly, Israel is subject to racist Jihadist terror and you want to wash your hands of your inconvenient friend, the Jew. America is the "white lawyer" in my example, obviously.

America is right to support Israel. Most of the world is wrong to reject Israel. Only the most cowardly American would refuse to stand by a friend. Thankfully most Americans support Israel, unlike yourself.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 6:11PM

Mr. Brewster, you have stumbled onto the truth. Whether America should continue to support Israel in spite of the fact that it hurts our relationship with other countries in the region is a separate question. But that it does is a fact that borders on self-evident. Would anyone in the scenario you supplied above deny that the lawyer’s work was the very likely reason his yard was singled out for cross burning? Would anyone assert that the backwards cross-burners weren't really upset about his work but were really just envious of his wealth and success?

But this sort of blind denial of the obvious takes place in every thread of this sort. In fact, to assert the obvious fact that our closeness with Israel causes us problems with their Arab neighbors is often label anti-Semitic and a sure sign that whoever stated it wants all the Jews to die. This is thoughtless and utterly silly hyperbole. Do the people who say it realize how silly they sound?

If you think we should support Israel in spite of the problems it causes us then make that argument. But you need to tell your brain dead co-belligerents that denying the obvious fact that it does makes them look foolish.

Alan Brooks| 3.17.10 @ 7:48PM

Israel's enemies are masochists; if they would read what happened to Prussia in 1945 they wouldn't change their minds on jihad, but they would know that their quest for Israel's destruction will result merely in losers, no winners--
only the the dead and survivors.

Josh Brewster| 3.22.10 @ 12:39PM

"Problems" with Arab neighbors caused by our friendliness toward the Jews is not our problem, Mr. Phillips. It is the Arab world's cross to bear.

We are in support of people who want to live freely and we have done extraordinary work, our United States, in trying to foster peace. It is not the Jews' fault that the Arabs nations are institutionally racist, and to worry about "problems" that are caused by our "dirtying" our hands with Jewish friends is nonsense. We've done wonders for the Arab world. There is no end to the money we've paid for oil. What they do with the money, what they do to their own people, and the fact that they cannot tolerate the presence of a small population of Jews NOT LIVING UNDER THEIR THUMBS ... is their problem. Not ours. You'll get your oil from them, don't worry. Worry about Islamofascism.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 4:00PM

Ah, Toddard.

Always so obsessed with how much we give Israel, but doesn't care how much we give to all the other countries of the world. Why is that?

Our aid to Israel has been going down the last 10 years, by the way. And, Israel only accounts for about 12% of all our foreign aid.

Josh Brewster| 3.17.10 @ 4:12PM

I'm sure that Mr. Toddard has no clue how much aid goes to Arab countries. Whatever, take the f'ing aid back to appease our anti-Semite coward here...$3Bil? Don't worry, Israeli ingenuity can make it back via the sciences or elsewhere.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 6:14PM

I actually suspect he does. Mr. Toddard is a pretty well informed guy. If I'm not mistaken our second highest amount of foreign aid goes to Egypt. So we are essentially buying off peace.

Alan Brooks| 3.17.10 @ 7:52PM

"If you think we should support Israel in spite of the problems it causes us then make that argument. But you need to tell your brain dead co-belligerents"

Calling someone brain dead is hyperbole, too, confederate boy. But you will have your carefully hidden wish rewarded, Israel will be destroyed someday. But as the Confederacy fought well, killed thousands but lost the war, so too will Israel's enemies be destroyed.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 10:14PM

I'm not sure what the Confederacy has to do with this thread, but do you deny that the South was the conservative side in that conflict? And this is supposed to be a conservative blog, right?

pilot 444| 3.19.10 @ 1:21AM

Israel has the highest rate in the world taking foreign vacations. Why should we be subsidizing a country with that kind of living standards

Joe Hamilton| 3.17.10 @ 6:35PM

S.L. Toadstool;

You know nothing about the middle East. Israel has contributed far more to the US than it has received.
1. US doesn't give aid , it gives credits only to be spent on US made weapons.
2. This alleged aid, has allowed the US to demand Israel not compete in fair competitions for weapons contracts for such countries as India , costing Israel possibly billions.
3. US corporations have made billions in profits from routers , computer chips and other developments made in Israel by Microsoft Israel, Cisco Israel and many others.
4. Israel was supplying China with weapons and were negotiating contracts worth triple the amount of CREDITS the US gave to Israel yearly. Therefore, Israel has been losing billions per year to have the privilege of subsidizing the jobs of American workers when in many cases , Israel could have manufactured weapons of similar quality.
5. Israel takes the 100 smartest 18 year old males entering the army each year. It spends immense amounts training them in high technology while they work of military technology projects while earning a bachelors and master's degree in a 9 year program. The majority of the graduates are currently working for top US companies with some holding faculty positions at top US universities.
6. Israel did receive economic aid beginning with the Carter presidency Why? Because they gave up , captured oil fields which today would be worth $1 billion , so the US could have more influence with countries like Egypt. They also were compensated for removing bases from the Sinai which cost Israel billions.

If you removed your head out of your ass, you might learn something.

Alan Brooks| 3.17.10 @ 7:57PM

"Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.
Russell Kirk "

Why don't you quote Sobran or Buchanan as well, Turdderd

Red Phillips| 3.18.10 @ 8:39AM

Do you have a problem with Kirk, the father of modern American conservatism? Please elaborate.

ggoblue| 3.17.10 @ 7:21AM

"the lord helps those that help themselves"
- my grandma [and millions like her]

its time for american jews to stop voting for democrats. in fact its past time.

Jim O'Brien| 3.17.10 @ 7:21AM

A sampling of terrorist groups with Palestinian connections: 1) Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; 2) Asbat al-Ansar; 3) Hamas; 4) Hezbollah; 5) Kahane Chai (Kach); 6) Palestine Liberation Front; 7) Palestine Islamic Jihad; 8) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; and 9) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

In 2006 Hamas won Palestinian Legislative Council elections and took control of significant Palestinian Authority functions, including the Ministry of the Interior.

Obama and his people continue to blame Israel for obstructing the bogus "peace process", when in fact the goals of the Palestinians and the terrorists are the same: to destroy Israel. Israel should not appease the terrorists, or appease the terrorists' ally in the White House. Israel should tell Obama to go to hell.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 7:42AM

Mr. O'Brien,

Great comment, sir.

And why do liberals support the so-called "Palestinians"?

Because the Soviets trained the PLO in terrorist tactics, so they could attack Israel. Because Israel was our ally. Liberals, the Useful Idiots that they are, backed anyone the Kremlin wanted them to champion.

Today, they don't even know why they support the Arabs.

Josh Brewster| 3.17.10 @ 1:52PM

Well put, Nick. Useful Idiots indeed.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 5:47PM

Thanks, Mr. Brewster!

John Roberts| 3.17.10 @ 2:13PM

They just did... :)

Ret. Marine| 3.17.10 @ 7:59AM

News flash people. There has been a hugh increase of assests brought to the Israeli borders by this administration. I can only conclude one purpose for this action by Obummer, he wants to see to it that the Israeli's cannot defend themselves in the event of an attack by Iran, or, he's planning for the destruction of the Israeli state, you decide.
Care to guess who's side this administration is on, it sure as hell isn't the Israelis.
On one issue I am sure of, this supposed "peace process" has nothing to do with peace, the process is going to go very bad for the middle East and very soon. Am I the only one who finds it strange that this Admin, is pissed by an announcement of settlements being planned in the Israeli's own back yard, in their own defined territory? This is beyound strange, it's becoming very dangerous for both the Israeli's and the U.S.A.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 8:51AM

"he wants to see to it that the Israeli's cannot defend themselves in the event of an attack by Iran, or, he's planning for the destruction of the Israeli state, you decide."

He actively wants to see Israel destroyed? Paranoid much? This is one of the problems with this debate, anything less than utter fidelity to the party line on Israel is tantamount to wanting to see Israel destroyed. Good grief! Are you really that incapable of nuance?

bob alou| 3.17.10 @ 1:40PM

Nuance? Where is the nuance in saying that Jews cannot live in the territories but that Palestinians can live wherever they want. What nuance would you consider acceptable to responding to suicide bombers on your bus or rockets fired into your back yard? Perhaps a pursed lip, a look of perturbation? Israel is not the aggressor in this debate and suggesting so is nonsense. Pursuing policies that will make it more likely that Israel will be destroyed may not make this Administration immediately responsible for the destruction of Israel, but ultimately the end will be the same. Such thinking is not paranoid it is an inevitable outcome. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the clear history of the last century and the current statements of those advocating the the destruction of Israel irrespective of any concessions Israel might be encouraged to make. Good grief your own self.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 3:44PM

Bob. Take a deep breath and relax. I can assure you the Obama is not "planning for the destruction of the Israeli state." That is ridiculously absurd hyperbole. It just comes off as irrational and doesn’t do your case any good. People who were hoping for a change of direction in our foreign policy toward Israel have been disappointed with Obama because he has been so utterly conventional. The appointment of strong Israel advocate Rahm Emmanuel didn't help.

bob alou| 3.17.10 @ 7:01PM

You take a deep breath. I am always amazed that those who do not agree on the left think that giving advice about how those with whom they disagree should make their point. There is nothing irrational about my remarks, nor are they hyperbolic. I did not say that Obama was planning for the destruction of the Israeli state so your use of quotes in connection with my remarks is improper. What I said was that his policies would ultimately lead to that end. However, by what possible authority can you make assurances about what Obama is doing? Rahm Emmanuel's strong advocacy of Israel? Talk about absurd. When? Where? How? Obama has gone around the world apologizing for the United States to people who despise us. He has repeatedly gone out of his way to offend England, perhaps our strongest international partner. He has, through his VP and Sec State chastised Israel for building houses for its own people. Obama may well be conventional in the sense that his vision of the world is that of the liberal Democrat. If you disagree with me make an argument why Israel should make nice with people who are advocating its total destruction. As for me I am going to continue to support Israel's right to exist, where it is, and do everything I can to protect that right. I believe that is in America's interest.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 10:10PM

"I am always amazed that those who do not agree on the left"

bob, are you suggesting I am on the left? You don't know me very well then. I am a conservative non-interventionist. Click on my name. I blog at www.conservativetimes.org. Hardly a liberal sounding website.

Israel can do whatever she think she needs to do to protect herself. It is not my concern. I want AMERICA, the country of which I am a citizen and hence owe my loyalty, to mind our own business and stay out of conflicts half-way across the world that don't concern us.

Jeremiah| 3.17.10 @ 8:02AM

What is it about the vow, "Never again," that Obama and the Democrats don't understand? For that matter, what is it about that vow that the majority of American Jews don't understand? As preparations for the new holocaust proceed apace America does not cluelessly stand idly by. It is complicit in the very planning for it. And the majority of American Jews proudly vote for the people who are planning their doom.

P.J. O'Rourke was right. Democrats aren't wrong. They are evil.

martin j smith| 3.17.10 @ 8:04AM

As John Bolton suggested ( maybe ) Netanyahu thought that by making nice nice to BHO, he would avopid the " mistake" he made with Clinton in 1999.
But as Boltonb suggests, BHO is not BC. ( of 1999 vintage). BHO does not care about America's strategic interests or I think any interests of ours. I have long ago come to the conclusion that he wants to destroy us and and any other nations associated with us. So again, Israel only a mere symptom of a much broader problem with BHO. It is BHO witha chip on his shoulder about this country that is the problem. He has no business being president if he does not love this country. That ought to be a requirement--including not saying sorry to the world at every opportunity.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 8:53AM

Why should the United States have any opinion about the Israel/Palestine debate? It is not our problem. It is not our business. We should be neutral.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 9:24AM

Mr. Phillips,

In case you were unaware, there are a lot of Americans that have business in Israel.

And Israel is our best ally, along with the United Kingdom.

The PLO murdered an American on the Achille Lauro in 1985. Did you forget about that? Also in 1985, terrorists from "Lebanese Shia Islamists" murdered Navy diver Robert Stethem during the hijacking of TWA flight 847.

So, why should we be neutral?

Sean| 3.17.10 @ 12:21PM

And Israel attacked the USS Liberty. What's your point?

NavyBrat| 3.17.10 @ 12:57PM

A weak & sorry attempt at moral equivalency. Nick's examples were of pre-meditated murder. I hardly think that the Liberty incident could be considered as such. Ever hear of "friendly fire?"

pilot444| 3.19.10 @ 1:35AM

to navy brat..............Friendly fire for 4 hours in clear daylight weather???? Attack by low altitude jet aircraft,torpedo boat.all with the american flag flying and ships name clearly visable......The Johnson administration response was a disgrace and clearly traitorous.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 1:26PM

Sean,

My point was crystal clear. What is yours?

That one mistake (which Israel claims it was, and paid the victims reparations) is the same as numerous terrorist attacks?

I ask you the same question I asked Mr. Phillips: Why should we be neutral?

Thanks, NavyBrat!

Sean| 3.17.10 @ 2:03PM

I will take the sailors word that were on board that ship over Israel's. That was a deliberate attack on a US ship. I am sorry to see you two would back Israel over our own military men regarding that incident.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 2:29PM

Sean,

Again, what is your point?

You point to one incident, from over 42 years ago. That Israel tried to atone for, right after it happened.

They have been one of our strongest allies since. When Saddam was launching SCUD's at Israel, we ask Israel to stay out, and they did. Like a good friend would.

What have the Gaza and West Bank Arabs done for us? Execpt murder our citizens?

Why should we be neutral, Sean?

S.L. Toddard| 3.17.10 @ 2:42PM

"Why should we be neutral, Sean?"

Because our one-sided, unwavering support of Israel greatly intensifies the hatred of the Muslim world against us, and we need their oil. We don't *need* anything from Israel. In short, our support of Israel has a *negative* effect on our national security (for the reason mentioned above). The benefits of siding with Israel against the Muslim world are negligible to non-existent.

Besides that, the onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. It is incumbent on proponents of unwavering support of Israel to prove that the relationship benefits the US more than it hurts us. What are the strategic benefits? How does our unwavering support of Israel *enhance* our national security? Does it do that at all? If so, does it enhance it enough to offset the negative effects, i.e. the intensification of the hatred of Muslims, who control vast supplies of oil which we need?

Apart from satisfying the deep, unhealthy emotional attachment some Americans have for that alien state, I see no vital interest served by our one-sided, unwavering support, and I see many compromised by it.

bob alou| 3.17.10 @ 3:07PM

Alien state? Why don't you just say you hate jews?

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 3:36PM

Toddard,

I wondered when you would show up!

I was refuting Mr. Phillips' opinion that we should remain neutral.

Now, what benefits do we derive from our alliance with the United Kingdom?

The benefit we received in the past was a partner in the cold war. A benefit we receive now is a partner in our war with the terrorists.

In case you were unaware, oil is sold on the global market. We only get a little from the Middle East, 17%.

And by "we", I don't mean the United States. The U.S. doesn't buy oil from Saudi Arabia. American oil companies buy oil on the world market, and 17% comes from the Middle East.

Most of our oil comes from Canada and Venuzela. Should we also not take a stand against that fat, little commie, Hugo the Hippo?

I have no "emotional attachment" to Israel. I can just recognize a fight between good and evil when I see one.

S.L. Toddard| 3.17.10 @ 3:47PM

Hi, Nick. I understand you were trying to refute Red's assertion that we should remain neutral. I am demonstrating why you were failing - you have made no case why it is in our interests to continue supporting Israel in the way we have. Also, you seem to have missed my questions:

It is incumbent on proponents of unwavering support of Israel to prove that the relationship benefits the US more than it hurts us. What are the strategic benefits? How does our unwavering support of Israel *enhance* our national security? Does it do that at all? If so, does it enhance it enough to offset the negative effects, i.e. the intensification of the hatred of Muslims, who control vast supplies of oil which we need?

S.L. Toddard| 3.17.10 @ 3:51PM

"I can just recognize a fight between good and evil when I see one."

Of course. Because the real world is exactly like professional wrestling, or the Star Wars movies.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 4:05PM

And Saturday morning cartoons.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 4:25PM

Ever heard of the phrase, "Art imitates life"?

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 4:24PM

Toddard,

You seem to have selectively read my posts to Mr. Phillips, Sean, and yourself.

I totally refuted your questions, point by point. You didn't address my points at all. Except to claim that you did.

Is this all you have left?
"Because I said so!"?

Sean| 3.17.10 @ 4:50PM

My point is Nick that Israel will do what is best for them including attacking a US intelligence ship or spying on the US we should do the same. That means cut all foreign aid toIsrael and the Arabs. Let them take care of their own business.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 5:56PM

Sean,

We have done "the same."

We pressed Israel hard not to enter Operation Desert Storm, while SCUD's were killing their citizens. Would we have done the same? Israel honored our request.

Yes, all nations should do what is in their best interest. It has been in our interest to have Israel as an ally.

And, I agree with you. Eliminate all foreign aid, to everyone. But, don't single out Israel. Not that you have, but others do.

Joe Hamilton| 3.17.10 @ 7:06PM

To Sean ;
I'm sick of you Nazis bringing up the USS Liberty. During WWII, the US refused to take in any Jewish refugees although , it had only 130 million people., while it gladly took it British children and adult non Jewish refugees from Germany and other countries. The US also refused offers from the Nazis to allow Jews out of Europe. It was scummy Nazis like you, who much rather see Jews die than live in some unpopulated ,undesirable area for a few years in order to save their lives . So the US government during WWII could be considered an accomplice to murder . So STFU, you little worm.

Sean| 3.17.10 @ 7:44PM

Sound like you are sick. Do you accuse people of being Nazis much? Why don't you like the USS Liberty being brought up? Does a deliberate attack on a US ship ruin your worldview of US- Israeli relations? Sorry Joe I am not going to STFU. Your statement makes no sense at all. Yeah the US could be considered an accomplice to murder in many instance throughout history. So can other countries such as Israel.

Joe Hamilton| 3.18.10 @ 6:47AM

I didn't realize you are a psychiatrist. Where did you do your recently. To answer your question, I accuse people of being Nazis as frequently as I encounter them. My point makes all the sense in the world. It was Jew-haters probably your grandparents , who were accomplices to the death of many more Jews than US sailors in the ACCIDENTAL attack on the Liberty. Why was the Liberty in an active war zone? The captain should have been court martialed . Instead of finding the captain at fault, you choose the universal scapegoat Israel. Are you equally obsessed with the million American lives saved by development of the atom bomb by scientists almost entirely Jewish? Or are you obsessed about how 2 Jewish American researchers who discovered vaccines for a disease Polio, which on average had 16,000 new cases in the NYC area alone?

Joe Hamilton| 3.18.10 @ 6:49AM

The second sentence should read where did you do your psychiatry residency?

Sean| 3.18.10 @ 10:30AM

I see you are a blame the US military man firster. By the way it was no accident as evidenced by Israeli pilots and the sailors on the ship. What is your obsession with Jews? Jews are normal people like anyone else. Their life is as valuable as an Russian or Chinese.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 3:53PM

"So, why should we be neutral?"

Because it is in the best interest of America to be neutral. And the purpose of American foreign policy is what is best for America. Have you read what the Pentagon said about how our perceived excessive fidelity to Israel hurts us? Take a look.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....more-53214

So is the Pentagon full of unpatriotic anti-Semites now?

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 4:13PM

Mr. Phillips,

So, you are an isolationist? Should we pack up our embassies and have no interaction with other nations?

Did you miss the part about Americans having busisness in Israel? Don't Ameicans in foreign lands deserve the protection of the U.S.?

Don't allies deserve more consideration than murderers?

Why should I care how our fidelity to Israel is perceived?

Sean| 3.17.10 @ 4:57PM

How is peaceful trade with countries isolationist?

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 6:02PM

Sean,

Mr Phillips' wrote we should be neutral. I'm assuming he meant with all nations, not just Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, et al.

I am just curious how far this neutrality/isolationism goes.

KyMouse| 3.17.10 @ 9:36AM

Well, to begin with Israel is a sovereign nation and a member of the United Nations. When other countries repeatedly attack and threaten to wipe out a sovereign nation, all other nations should be concerned, including the U.S. Israel is also our strongest ally in that region.

Beyond those reasons, many people (including Bible-believing Christians) believe that the Jewish people should be free to return to their ancient homeland, especially since they have been persecuted everywhere else on earth since the Diaspora began. And because we believe that the God of the Bible is the only God, we believe the promises that He has given the Jewish people throughout history. Those include Genesis 12:1-3, 13:14-17 and 17:8, among many other verses.

Non-Jewish people are welcome to live in the Jewish homeland-- if they will live in peace. In contrast, Jews are not welcome to live in Gaza and other Arab-controlled areas. Some of us think that the concept of "judenrein" should have died with Hitler.

One in five Israelis is Arab, and a recent survey found that the vast majority of them would rather live in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 4:01PM

KM, not all Bible-believing Christians accept dispensational pre-millennialism as the correct interpretation of Scripture. As I have repeatedly told Margie, I'm sure you are aware that that is a very new doctrine historically speaking. About 150 +/- years. And is found nowhere among the early Church. (Pre-millennialism is but not dispy style.) It is not what Luther believed. It is not what Calvin believed. Etc. I think they count as Bible-believers don’t they?

KyMouse| 3.17.10 @ 9:39PM

I have no problem with Luther and Calvin when they agree with the Bible. I could list the dozens of verses in which God says that that land belongs to the Jewish people, even though He would drive them out of it for a time. I believe the God of the Bible.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 10:00PM

KM, answer me this. If dispensational pre-millennialism is such an obvious out flowing of a plain reading of the Bible, then why did someone only stumble upon it 150 years ago? Would you not agree that a conservative Christian should be very skeptical of the novel and tend to favor of the older?

KyMouse| 3.18.10 @ 11:27AM

One need not believe in pre-millennialism in order to believe that God means what He says to His Jewish people in the Bible. Jews who believe in their God-given right to the land of Israel probably disagree with pre-millennialists on many points, such as the identity of the Messiah. If you'll read the 30th chapter of Deuteronomy, you'll find a good overview of God's promises, and warnings, to His Jewish people concerning that land.

KyMouse| 3.19.10 @ 10:56AM

Mr. Phillips, I have another free moment, so I'll add that the Jewish people have a God-given right to the ancient homeland in which they have lived for 3,500 years, because Abrahamic Covenant (passed on through Isaac and Jacob) is unconditional -- it was initiated by God Himself (see Genesis 15:17-18) and He obligated Himself to fulfill it. Even the sins of the Jewish people don't nullify it (see Deut. 4:29-31, Isaiah 41:8-9). Israel will fulfill the conditional parts of the covenant in the days when each of them knows the Lord (Jeremiah 31:34), because God will have put His Spirit in them, and they will walk in His ways (Ezekiel 36:25-28). The Jewish people's possession of Israel is "everlasting" (Gen. 17:8) and "for all time" (Deut. 4:40).

John Roberts| 3.17.10 @ 2:18PM

4 Harrops to you sir.

http://www.urbandictionary.com.....erm=harrop

Joe Hamilton| 3.17.10 @ 6:42PM

Red stop making a fool out of yourself.

Obama policy has "disappointed ..."so utterly conventional. The appointment of strong Israel advocate Rahm Emmanuel didn't help." Are you disappointed he didn't attack Israel with nukes? You stupid Nazi . It's time to restart your medication.

Alan Brooks| 3.17.10 @ 8:02PM

"Red stop making a fool out of yourself. "

Red can't help it, he is trapped in the Confederacy 'til Kingdom Come. And Toddard is a masochist who wants to be tied up and... well, you know.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 9:55PM

I am a conservative non-interventionist. You are a mindless name calling intellectual midget. A Nazi? Really? I am disappointed that Obama, and Bush II before him, and Clinton before him, and Bush I before him ... aren't practicing non-interventionist neutrality in conflicts that are none of our business.

Lawrence D. Cannon| 3.17.10 @ 9:23AM

Haman Obama the Agagite.

coal carrier| 3.17.10 @ 9:31AM

This is just what the Middle East needs right now, the three stooges’ brow beating our ally on the world stage.

Dan Hirsch| 3.17.10 @ 9:32AM

Hey, I'm Christian and don't know too much about the Middle East. But I do know this: When Christ walked the streets of Jerusalem, the Jews lived there. And Mohammed wrote the Koran about 700 years later. So how can the Jews have no claim to Jerusalem as our brilliant State Department seems to think?

Any supporter of Israel who voted for Clinton or Obama should be ashamed for having been so easily fooled!

cuban pete| 3.17.10 @ 3:45PM

Dan,I am a Christian also and I believe the old saw.
"If the Palestinians lay down their arms tomorrow there will be peace in th middle east. If the Jews lay down their arms Israel will cease to exist."

Mike| 3.17.10 @ 10:18AM

For another perspective, I recommend Thomas Friedman's editorial in today's NYT.

martin j smith| 3.17.10 @ 10:36AM

The notion that a ype such as Red Phillips expresses is foolish. It assumes as appeasers and isolationists in the past have said, if you leave them alone they will leave you alone. WRONG !!!!!! It was wrong then
then and wrong even more so now. The woprld is smaller,various WMDs are availble for an individual terrorist to inflict enormous damage. Large nations such as Russia and China export military material and support to rogue nations such as Iran,N. Korea and Venezuela to name a few. Black mail is the operative concept for China, Russia and their rogue clients. If Red Phillips you believe that our country will not be subjected to this black mail you are at best --in my eyes a fool. At worst, well--I will not say.
I join with those who reject appeasement and so called disarmament treaties --except where is "trust--but verify" and this verification is ironclad--and good luck with that.
I also reject those who use the time worn canard of "war monger" against anyone who supports national defence. Those who reject the need for national defence I simply do not trust-at all.

martin j smith| 3.17.10 @ 10:50AM

Mike: the NYT and Thomas Friedman have had a long history of Anti-Israel sentiment of at least 30-40 years perhaps much longer. In any event, TF and NYT are an old story for me. I actually did locate and look at the op ed piece. Its the usual settlements are the problem--No, the problem is the greater Arab world do not want a Jewish State at all.
Netenyahu I believe knows who BHO is and is basically saying:" I got the message-we are on our own." That is realistic. The vast majority of Israelis got it after a while and support Netenyahu.
Many Jews in the country voted for BHO--Now I think some are wondering--but not enough --yet. If this kind of treatment of Israel continues the %
of Jewish voters who supported BHO will decline dramatically in my view. Here is why: If the ADL and AIPAC got out of their stupor and wake up then others of the spineless, cowardly lack of leadership might get some backbone and take a stronger stand--Time will tell.

Bram| 3.17.10 @ 11:26AM

Why does a foriegn government have an opinion on a housing development inside Israel's borders?

Once Obama is gone, maybe Israel can have a healthier relationship and a real alliance with the U.S. Where this stuff is none of our business.

Would Canadians freak out if we built an apartment building in upstate NY or northern VT?

Oldefarte| 3.17.10 @ 2:01PM

Why is there shock and surprise over this administration's actions, since we have elected as PRESIDENT OF THE US someone raised inside of the Muslim religion? As Jeremiah Wright proclaimed 'GD THE US' [AND ISRAEL, no doubt, also]!!!!!!

Everly Waverly| 3.17.10 @ 2:36PM

The time can't arrive soon enough when the adults again take over America.

Don't Biden and the administration read history? Don't they realize Israel is defending themselves? I'm guessing, but I would bet a day doesn't go by there isn't an attack on Israel and it's citizens? Israel will be expected to give-up territory until they are standing on the Mediterranean with no where else to go but for a swim. What does Hillary want Israeli citizens to do, place their heads on the block?

Those poor, poor Palestinians, aren't they a battered constituency.

MikeM| 3.17.10 @ 4:20PM

Don't Matter...All the Jewish libs in New York and in Palm Beach will just keep votin' for these Dems. Bush is the real problem.

Leroy Schuurhof| 3.17.10 @ 5:06PM

East Jerusalem is in Palestine. It is not disputed territory. The Jewish state invaded and illigally occupied East Jerusalem.

So yes, blame Israel. First.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 6:11PM

Nice rewriting of history!

There is no "Palestine" any more. There is Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Israel was invaded in 1967. It was called the Six Day War. Maybe you heard of it.

Israel conquered the stupid Arab countries that were dumb enough to invaded them. They are entitled to keep any territory conquered.

They should never have given back the Sinai.

Joe Hamilton| 3.17.10 @ 6:52PM

Leroy;
There is no Palestine ,never was a Palestine, and there are no real ethnic group called Palestinians. By international law, all of the following should rightfully be under the control of the Jewish people: Jordan, the West Bank (where the fictional Palestine is located ), and Israel. The last governmental entity to have control of what you call Palestine was the Ottoman Empire. The League of Nations took over control, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. At the conference of San Remo in 1920, the League clearly stated all of the land including Jordan and the West bank would constitute a Jewish homeland and political control would solely be held by the Jewish people. The League made the mistake of allowing the Evil Empire (Little Britain) to be a caretaker. Of course, the evil empire promptly took 73% of the Jewish homeland in violation of the League of Nations to create a totally phony country called TransJordan so King Abdullah of Arabia , who had no connection with the Holy Land could have his own country further the Evil Empire's imperialistic aims.

Red Phillips| 3.17.10 @ 9:48PM

Joe, so conservatives are supposed to consider authoritative the dictates of the League of Nations? You're kidding right? You do realize that the US never joined the League of Nations and that it was CONSERVATIVES who opposed our membership? So you're a conservative for ceding authority to supranational organizations? How does that work?

Nick| 3.18.10 @ 12:07AM

Mr. Phillips,

Can't answer my questions?

Are you an isolationist?
Why should I care how our fidelity to Israel is perceived?

Red Phillips| 3.18.10 @ 8:51AM

I am a conservative non-interventionist. This should be clear from what I write.

"Why should I care how our fidelity to Israel is perceived?"

I thought all this business in the Middle East was about fighting terrorism. Is it really just about fighting terrorism for you? Or is it also about using the might of the US military to guarantee the security of a foreign nation?

You want to fight terrorism on our shores. Then withdraw from the region, declare ourselves neutral, and restrict immigration. That will do much more to protect us from terrorism than will bombing any number of far off Muslim countries.

Nick| 3.18.10 @ 10:29AM

Mr. Phillips,

I agree with you, up to a point.

It might shock you, but I agree with Americans from the past, who didn't want to get involved with WWII. They were called isolationist. FDR, the two-faced weasle, was doing everything he could, to get us into that war.

But (monkey), once we were attacked, and had war declared on us, we had an obligation to fight. Not, just to defend ourselves. But to demand that Japan, Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria surrender on our terms.

"Unconditional surrender" is a debatable position, but I digress.

Now, you keep stating that we should remain neutral in the Israeli-Arab conflict. But, you don't address my points.

Hasn't Israel been a good ally? Why should we drop a good friend just because a bunch of Moslems don't like it? Should we also drop the United Kingdom as an ally?

Haven't Israel's Arab enemies in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon also been our enemies? Haven't they killed our citizens?

Would you please address these questions?

Red Phillips| 3.19.10 @ 9:45AM

I'm not suggesting we drop Israel as an ally. You are having trouble thinking outside the terms of the debate as it is currently constituted. I am suggesting that the Israel Palestine conflict is none of our business and we should be neutral and quit trying to "fix" it. Our constant attempts to "broker" peace in the region is the internationalist equivalent of being a busybody. We need to quit being an international busybody and tend to our own affairs.

Nick| 3.19.10 @ 10:12AM

My response is below.

Joe Hamilton| 3.18.10 @ 6:36AM

Apparently , this is too complicated for your tiny brain. By international law, since no legal authority SINCE the league of nations had governmental authority, Israel ,or the Jewish people have by far the strongest claim to the west bank. So having Haggary , and VP 1929 FDR TV speech Biden having a hissy fit over Israel building in their own country was something Hitler did in the Sudatenland in 1938. One the point which you don't seem to grasp was the League of Nations which was hardly pro-Jewish recognized 90 years ago, the ethnic group with the strongest claim to the Holy land were the Jewish people. So all the BS about "taking Palestinian" land has no basis in international law.

Andrew| 3.17.10 @ 6:28PM

Dear God, this is boring.

Any nation will support its allies (in this case, Israel) rather than its enemies (the large majority of the Middle East). This is not rocket science, and it remains true even if from time to time Israeili's national interests are occasionally perceived (by them) as being disparate from ours.

I struggle to recall the last time a bunch of Jewish terrorists flew a couple of passenger jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, etc.

I'm no fan of Israel--I like them, but I expect them to act in their own national interest, as any nation would do. If their acts are contrary to the US national interests, we should oppose them in that instance.

But pretending that the Palistinians or Syria or man other Middle East countries are more conducive to our national security than Israel is idiotic nonsense.

Red Phillips| 3.18.10 @ 8:55AM

"But pretending that the Palistinians or Syria or man other Middle East countries are more conducive to our national security than Israel is idiotic nonsense."

Who is suggesting any such thing? What is being suggested is that NEUTRALITY would be the most conducive to our national security.

Andrew| 3.17.10 @ 6:31PM

It seems I can't edit the above post. I would have changed the text to state that the occasionally perceived differences between the Israeli or US could be perceived by either country, not just Israel.

Cpm| 3.17.10 @ 10:34PM

Iran can build nuclear weapons but that's not a problem. Israel can build apartments and it's a major foreign policy dustup. With this administration hot is cold, up is down, and right is wrong.

Yosemeti Sam| 3.18.10 @ 1:13AM

" Blame Israel First ...."

Philistine administration!

Yo - 15% of the US senate:

Levin, Specter, Lautenberg, Kohl, Liberman,
Feinstein, Boxer, Feingold, Wyden, Shumer, Cardin, Sanders, Kaufman, Bennet, Franken - democrats all.

Y'all got BHOs' ear - ears?

Y'all carry any weight?

How about some indignation from y'all.

sre| 3.18.10 @ 4:12AM

A beautiful woman's shoes can not travel hurry, neatly put on good. The pair of Christian Laboutin shoes, like the masters,Pale and tired. High-heeled shoes is another woman's face, mood, temper, character and are meant to be exhaustive in the above.

Nick| 3.18.10 @ 8:44AM

Do you know how you know when you have won a debate?

When the people you are arguing with stop answering your objections, and run away.

Red Phillips| 3.18.10 @ 9:23AM

Wishful thinking Nick. Some of us have other things to do. That said, I have returned. Scroll up.

Nick| 3.18.10 @ 10:51AM

Mr. Phillips,

My retort is above.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 3.18.10 @ 7:30PM

Curse, damn, and to Hell with that shitty little country!

Long Live a Free & Independent Palestine!

Nick| 3.18.10 @ 8:18PM

Go away, anti-Semite!

Nick| 3.19.10 @ 12:45AM

Red Phillips: "That said, I have returned. Scroll up."

And then you ran away again.

rayv| 3.19.10 @ 5:52AM

With each passing season,ray ban sunglasses sale styles change.ray ban 2010 sunglasses are like any other fashion accessory.So newer styles

can be seen at red-carpet and glamour queens on magazine covers andeventson the faces of Hollywood stars,at the same time,old

styles become the kind of ray ban wayfarer that "your grandmother used to wear,"Eventually those old styles stage comebacks as "retro"

ray ban sunglasses, and the fashion cycle comes full circle.

At the time,you can choose one kind of ray ban 2010 sunglasses if you guys want to look like Heath Ledger on the beach.

Nick| 3.19.10 @ 10:11AM

Mr. Phillips,

Thank you for the response.

I'm glad you don't want to drop Israel as an ally. So, you don't want to be completely neutral, just when it comes to forcing a resolution to the conflict?

On this we can agree. We should not be butting in and trying to "fix it." We have no magical solution to this conflict. As I've written before, Jerusalem is preventing peace. Neither side is going to give it up.

So, you must have supported President Bush's hands-off approach to "peace negotiations", which the left attacked him repeatedly for, right?

Time Love| 3.20.10 @ 3:20AM

Blame Isreal first

YouTube Video Converter- Automatically download YouTube Video and convert to more 30 video/audio formats

VOB to FLV- Your best choice to convert DVD (.vob) files to FLV, AVI, MP4, MPEG, DivX, Xvid, WMV, HD MOV, MP3, AAC, AC3 and so on

Michele San Pietro| 3.21.10 @ 11:21AM

Obama's double standard is shameful, but it is no surprise. Everybody knows that his administration supports terrorism and destruction of the State of Israel.

www.sunglass-mall.com| 4.6.10 @ 2:17AM

You won't have to worry about having your sunglass merchandise to gather dust on its display racks waiting for the summer season to commence www.sunglass-mall.com

Edie Pinero| 4.9.10 @ 12:39AM

Well, it seems that no one will verbally stop Israel from doing what they plan to do. They are a tough nation. After all, Look at them on the map. They are entirely surrounded by enemies. It looks like an ant in a puddle of water. By the way if anyone is needing
target="_blank">hand arthritis relief, then you should check this site out! It has helped me dearly. I like your blog Aaron.

vibram five fingers| 4.25.10 @ 12:07PM

This would ensure that people with genetic issues.to find a perfect answer
http://www.glauke.com/vibram-f....._p251.html

watches| 4.28.10 @ 11:56PM

hublot

arabmuslim| 11.8.10 @ 4:55AM

There is no state called Israel.
State of thieves called Israel a
basis of the displacement
and killing of Innocent nation .
state of thieves basis
bloodshed and war
And the arrest of people
for tens of years to
prevent him from claiming
The right to life .
basis steal the land of the
Palestinian people
And then steal
the land of the Arab-Muslim
the entire .State of the
thieves do not know the law .....
Does not recognize the
law of the United Nations,
a state that considers itself above the
law . the law is the siege of Gaza
And the bloodshed and
destruction of houses and
killing innocent people
and occupying the country
This is a country named Israel thieves

Raymond Abdul Saquet| 11.29.10 @ 7:02PM

The so called "Israelis" (they're really Judeans) have proven once and for all that displaced people can return from diaspora! May ALLAH Bless 'EM! Now if we can only find enough blond haired, blue eyed INDIANS with Mauser rifles, we can start by "reclaiming MANHATTAN!
Hoka-Hey!

Joe| 5.9.11 @ 4:50PM

Just travel to India. It'll be a lot more pleasant!
http://www.wildplanettours.com/

jewgenda| 6.5.11 @ 1:24PM

tired of constant jewgenda. Little nation causing world's peace to be destructed, and our liberties taken away

سوريا| 6.25.11 @ 1:29AM

thaanks
http://www.soryh.com

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 10:11AM

I found very useful and interesting posts in this blog which is the great signs for a good bloggermesothelioma attorney