It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harvard Study Finds Pro-Israel Lobby Influences U.S. Foreign Policy

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Doesn't it just gall the heck out of you when you spend so much time and effort to prepare a posting and not one person comments on it? Hardly seems worth the effort doesn't it?

If I wasn't so apathetic I would take the time to unravel your posting point by point and show where the external sources you cite were in the main either originated by or greatly influenced by the pro-Israeli lobby. As with any good reply (and your's is certainly that), your counterpoints are solidly rooted in facts, but as with the authors of the original study you treat the facts like taffy and pull & stretch them to your liking. Other, inconvenient things are just not mentioned at all. The authors of the original study are no more intellectually dishonest that anyone else, yourself included.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Astronomer68]




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Can we all surmize that we need to change our patterns of behavior, if we plan on changing the system to address more of the needs of the people, rather than casting blame and hoping it all will magically auto-correct a polarized nation?

Blaming a group for taking advantage of opportunities is more a reflection on the opposition's lack of will and ability to organize.

Grassroots lobbies can become powerful forces too.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Hardly seems worth the effort doesn't it?

Well not really, I think some people have actually read it and those that have would be left better informed and also it would be useful to anybody who would like to refute the study.



If I wasn't so apathetic I would take the time to unravel your posting point by point and show where the external sources you cite were in the main either originated by or greatly influenced by the pro-Israeli lobby.

A likely excuse.

But in all seriousness, the sources I have cited are some of the most credible and objective source that you are likely to find. Also, my counterpoints do not depend on merely the external counter sources, instead I try to present the authors source in a more complete manner, presenting it in its true context for judgement. Obviously, any history that deal with Israel would have some extent of Jewish/Israeli authorship or reference but we simply cant discount all such history because we think it may be biased.


as with the authors of the original study you treat the facts like taffy and pull & stretch them to your liking. Other, inconvenient things are just not mentioned at all.

What I have proceeded to do is present the facts that the authors use as evidence of Israeli misconduct in a more complete manner, asking those who read it to judge for themselves what the evidence suggests rather than deceive them with half-truths and opinion. This what the authors of the study should have proceeded to do as well.
I have certainly not tried to refute each and every word of the study but rather concerned myself with the basic premises that the authors of the study make and also with the intellectual subterfuge they adopt. I certainly would be interested to know where I might have dilated the truth and sidestepped any 'inconvenience'.
What is most intriguing here is not the pro-Israel lobbies influence on the US but rather the sloppy attempt made by real academicians in proving this. I mean, if I who has little academic standing in international relations or world history could attempt to refute their study then surely a qualified academician could easily shred apart the study. Why this has not happened and why have the authors, who are important academicians in their own right, come out with such sloppy scholarship is beyond me ? Its almost like a conspiracy.




The authors of the original study are no more intellectually dishonest that anyone else, yourself included.

I hope that maybe, after you have made a through perusal of my post and its supporting sources such opinions would change.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Can we all surmize that we need to change our patterns of behavior, if we plan on changing the system to address more of the needs of the people, rather than casting blame and hoping it all will magically auto-correct a polarized nation?

Agreed.




Blaming a group for taking advantage of opportunities is more a reflection on the opposition's lack of will and ability to organize.

Most definately agreed.





Grassroots lobbies can become powerful forces too.

And fact.







seekerof



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
IAF101 can you think of anything other than the pro-Israeli lobby that can account for the U.S. acquiesence to and acceptance of the West Bank settlements? Further, can you name any one specific thing that has contributed more to tensions and problems between Israel and the Palestinians than the settlements? Practically the entire world thinks the things are illegal and have done more to prevent peace in that area of the world than anything else.


[edit on 2-4-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   
This is an interesting article that looks at the lobby's money trail from a different angle than that presented by Regenmacher's oil hypothesis:


The problem with "The Israel Lobby"

I have a problem with The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt. I don't think they go far enough. Instead of looking at the institutional frameworks for this lobby, they focus on personalities. Identifying individuals is not enough. This makes it impossible to understand the motivation of this lobby. If they spent more time discussing the connections between Israeli hardliners and the US military industrial complex, I think they could spend less time trying to justify their case. Follow that money trail and it is easy to demystify the tilt to Israel.

[...]

Mearsheimer and Walt do mention the money trail. They note that Israel spends most of its aid money without oversight. They are also correct to point out Israel can buy directly from arms dealers. What they don't point out is that because it receives this money up front, instead of in quarterly allotments, they can buy a lot of weapons and transfer them. In effect, Israel can make money on arms deals subsidized by US taxpayers. This is very useful for American arms dealers faced with embargoes. One glaring example of illegal transfers was recently reported in the press. No one has been able to explain how 5 helicopters sold to Israel turned up in the hands of Colombian drug lords. That's not the kind of thing that falls off the back of a truck.


That's an interesting angle. Arms trafficking is also a big source of cash. I would like to hear what fellow ATSers think of this angle -- the complicity of the US military industrial complex and Israeli hardliners in the global arms trafficking network?

I'd like to add some more of my own research but I've got another project to write at the moment... sigh, 10 more articles on rocking chairs... I hate rocking chairs...



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Specific issues I have with this lobby are
so much money goes to Israel, that is not used for what it is given for...

dirty deeds done israel cheap...

We (the givers) have no control of the arms deals, and influence purchases, that aid our Israeli "allies"
at the very least, we should require them to buy arms from US companies with the money...

Our present administration IMO has been tougher on Israel than any previous (since Nixon) and it serves to show, that less money buys less influence...
but the true influence comes to play, in the white house, not in the form of cash..

What do you think would happen, if the White house decided that it wasn't going to give money without oversight, or that it wasn't going to support Israels attempt to keep the settlements.
even in a private meeting of the top 10 white house officials, we would have at least 2 that would make a call the minute they were out of the meeting.

My concern is what would transpire from there...
I dont think it would be possible to decide these fair actions... too much pressure, on too many fronts... and not enough people to keep a secret long enough to get it done.

but it is needed... and NO one will support those measures... why?
In all fairness, it shows way too much influence from that direction...

do unfair decisions arise out of all lobbys, of course...
we can eat a few mistakes, but our non-oversighted blind support of Israel is not one of them...
change is needed, if the US citizens interests are truly to guide us.

Are US policy and Israel policy the same, as the defenders of this lobby state?
largely, but not entirely... I am all for support of Israel, but not cowtowing to it...

also: i agree with Regenmachers assesment... it is the responsibility of the American citizens to change this...
but the funny thing is, we cant, due to the anti semitic card being played...
it can never become a political hot button, or an issue of a platform...
we can discuss it here, openly, and intellegently... but the populace as a whole, will believe the guy that "isn't the racist"...
do ya get me?

can any candidate survive the acusation of being an anti semite... even if he has never had any history of it..

the opposition candidate would break out the wine glasses the minute the other guy declared a stance against the israel lobbys influence.

Now it can possibly be addressed against lobbiests influence in general... but that is a massive mountain to cut down... and very few politicians want to give up the bonuses...

both sides would fight it, but dont worry... they did give up the dinner option...
so we can all be happy now, that lobbiest can't buy politicans dinner...
but go ahead and give thousands to them in cold hard cash...
thats alright...
third partys... gotta rock the boat somehow...



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
A very fine reply from IAF101, and I would like to respond to it. Since having several of my posts cut up by Mods I think I finally get the excessive quoting rule and will only quote what is needed to keep it in context. I don't intend to take anything out of context, but you may want to look at his full reply on page 6 of this thread.


Originally posted by IAF101
So do we believe that the authors of the Pro-Israel lobbies Study “don’t know” this angle to the Yom Kippur War even though they are Ph.D’s in History and hold titles of Professor in some of the most reputable institutes in America if not the World?


It was not their intent to write a historical study of the 73 war. They never said they did not know the things you laid out. And nothing you said disputes the part you quoted.

The United States also comes to Israel’s rescue in wartime and takes its side when negotiating peace. The Nixon Administration re-supplied Israel during the October War and protected Israel from the threat of Soviet intervention.


Willing or not the results were that Israel received Nixons backing with both millitary and political aide.




THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Israel’s strategic value during this period should not be overstated, however Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies.

This statement is yet another gem that its naivity for authors of such calliber is simply shocking. Firstly, the reason that the oil embargo was applied by the Arab oil producing states was because of massive American airlifts of military equipment to the Israelis just like the Russians were doing with the Egyptians.


The "$2.2 billion in emergency military aid" was airlifted to Israel. How did you dispute the statement? You confirmed it.



Secondly, OPEC didn’t impose embargo’s on oil but only Arab oil producing nations.Lastly, the embargo was placed only on the US and not on ‘Western Economies’.
Surely professors in the field of international studies know that there is a difference between OPEC and oil producing Arab states,


The embargo was against America, the Netherlands, Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa. But thats not all they did. The accompanying cuts in production raised the price worldwide. It would have done little good to cut off the supply to some nations, and sell the same amount to others. We simply would have bought the oil from someone else. Everyone in the world paid more for oil. Source


a huge difference and also must know about the machination by the Arab states with regards to Yom Kippur War. Like for example, the war was started by Egypt’s sneak attack on the Israelis while the peace settlements was still going on after the 1967 war in the UN.


And for six years Israel occupied Arab land including the millions of people living there. They were liberating their poeople and their land.


Also the results of this war which the authors claim as ‘costly’ for America to support Israel in fact worked in favor of the aggressors like Egypt and Syria with Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai and returning to pre war borders. This however doesn’t carry much significance to the authors as they have concluded the results of the war before any actual study.


It was costly to the US. If the Arabs were the aggressors its only because Israel invaded in a Sneak Attack in the 67 war and took the land that the Arabs were trying to take back. Six years later there were millions of Arabs living under Israeli occupation, and the west was dragging its feet so they tried to liberate the people themselves.

By pre-war borders do you mean pre-67? Israel did NOT withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank, or the Golon Heights. And again, its not meant to be a historical paper. Not including it does not mean they excluded it.



The oil embargo on the US was yet another tactic employed by Sadat to coerce America into forcing Israel to give up its claim over the disputed area of the West Bank. Such an embargo was premeditated by the Arabs and was NOT a reactionary measure as the authors would have us believe.


You say it as if it were a bad thing from their point of view. Millions of Arabs, and Arab lands were taken by a hostile nation. Before the 67 war the West Bank did not belong to Israel, and Israel refused to assimillate the people. If America were not supporting this we would not have been on their list of 'enemy nations'. The reason why they imposed the embargo was not their point, but the reason why America was on the receiving end.

The Embargo hit America because America supported Israel making America an enemy nation.


THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Even if Israel was a strategic asset during the Cold War, the first Gulf War (1990-91) revealed that Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The United States could not use Israeli bases during the war without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and it had to divert resources (e.g., Patriot missile batteries) to keep Tel Aviv from doing anything that might fracture the alliance against Saddam.

Here again we have fact and opinion deceitfully blended to give a picture that is far from the truth. For starters by merely reading the passage we can ask ourselves why is an ally that was not allowed to participate a ‘burden’? For sending a couple of Patriot missile batteries to Israel, in exchange for Israel’s marked pacifism here despite being attacked repeatedly by Iraqi-Scuds despite no provocation on its part? Can we truly call this Israeli attitude a burden for the US ?

It was a political and financial burden, and it was a burden on the military because Patriots that should have been defening our troops were defending Israel instead.


Or is it that the anti-Iraq coalition countries,[like Saudi Arabia -recognizes Israel, Jordan -recognizes Israel and Kuwait- at that time was itself was in no position to be choosy] were so against the idea of Israel participating that they threatened to back out from the fight even though Saddam was actively attacking them? To the reasonable and the initiated such arguments are dismal at best especially for alleged academicians.


The reasons you state only show Israel to be an even greater burden.



Would we be biased in imagining that Israel was genuinely concerned about Iraq with Saddam Husseins unparalleled military build up & with Iraqi Sunni’s baying for Israeli blood, taking into account Iraq’s previous hostility towards Israel in general? Would it be wise on our part to forget that despite the ‘pro-Jewish’ lobbies apprehensions regarding the Iraqi build up, the USA didn’t act against Iraq until they attacked Kuwait and took over more than half of the world’s oil supplies, which are in OUR own interests?


After taking Kuwait Iraq controled aroun 20% of the worlds oil reserves, not 50%. Source


Coming to the second sentence, this again is totally deceptive statement. Granted that the Palestinian terrorism is indeed a product of Israeli control of the West Bank but to claim that it is not random is absurd. Firstly, the very acts of terrorism that Palestinians terrorists have employed have been things like, shootouts, suicide bombings, rocket attacks of Jewish settlements etc all towards Israeli civilians and not directly on the IDF.


That does not mean it is random. They always claim that attacks are retaliation for something Israel does. It may be you don't accept that as an excuse, that does not mean they can't have reasons for what they do.


Though there have been attacks on IDF bases, the majority of attacks have been towards Israeli civilians with random acts of violence towards them. I am sure any reasonable person wouldn’t hesitate to call bus bombs, attacks of cafes and sporadic shoot-outs as “random” acts but unfortunately the authors of the study prefer to term these as ‘not random’ because that would make it easier to arrive at their conclusion.


On the contrary they are well planned out perposful desperate actions. A Palestinian does not wake up in the morning and say 'Gee, I think I'll go blow myself up in a shopping mall today'.




THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
…..saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around………..
There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians…….

This statement makes up one of the central argument against the pro-Israel stance of the US. Granted that many terrorist do find US support to Israel to be point of contention between the United States and the Arab World. But terrorism directly against America which is a very recent phenomena (started in the 90’s) while compared to the US-Israel relationship (goes back to the late 60’s). To say that American support to Israel is a main cause for the terrorist movement against the United States would be to say that the Arabs were either unaware or not concerned about the US-Israel relationship for nearly 30 years.


They were very aware of it but apparently had decided against violent action. As you can see from the results of 911 they were wise to not attack before. America does not reward violence.


Or that America’s insistence on Israel to grant autonomy to the PA, the sign peace accords with Arafat in the 1990 and the PA in 2000 or America generous aid to the PA(BTW America is the largest contributor of aid to the PA ) are against the interests of the Palestinians and the Arabs in general.


There were never any peace accords. Peace means a pacific settlement which has not been reached.


This however defies logic, as the above have only improved the lives and the standing of the PA and have helped expedite the peace process.


How has America expedited the peace process? Foot dragging would be a kind term. America alone has stood against the entire world denying a solution. Results are what matters, and the results are that after almost 40 years the occupation continues with the Palestinians suffering more each day.



The authors go on to claim that Israel treats its Arab citizens as second class and thus is at odds with American values of equality and justice for all. But this is yet again far from the truth as, not only are the Arabs citizens given equal rights and privileges but they are also have reserved seats allotted to them in the Kessnet apart from the right to own land, buy property and practice their religion freely without persecution unlike anything that is possible in the middle east. But I wont deny that there is indeed massive discrimination against Israeli arabs by the Israeli government and its jewish citizens.


So the authors say Israel discriminates against the Arab Israelies, and you say its far from the turth, but you don't deny that there is massive discrimination?

Do you understand they hypocracy here?


Also it is claimed that Israeli citizen ship is solely by blood kinship but this is again incorrect as according the Israeli Govt. :


Acquisition of Israeli Nationality
Citizenship may be acquired by:

*Birth
*The Law of Return
*Residence
*Naturalization


You misquoted the author. "By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship."

The Israeli interim constitution refers to Israel as a Jewish State. This has many implications. While it does not exclude non-Jews it does not serve them either.

Israeli immigration laws, despite the way you make it sound, are highly racist. Citizenship by birth is to be assumed. Citizenship be residence applies to those who were in Israel from it inception to 1949[?]. The law of return allows for any Jew in the world to immigrate without restriction. All others [very few] must go through the naturalization process and get approval from the foreign ministry.

Biased to the core it is.


The authors conclude their argument against the democratic credentials of Israel by claiming that Israel doesn’t give Palestinians proper ‘political rights’ when they have conducted two elections and have authority over the West Bank and Gaza which Israel has allowed them to form. P


Elections do not equate to democracy. Sovereignty is required and Israel has denied this to the Palestinians for over 40 years. What good does it do to elect people when a government that does not represent you is maintaining a military occupation over your territory?


lus Israel also has been a major donor of aid to the Palestinians and has supported their attempts at democracy along with the international community.


To the best of my knowledge Israel has not given any aide to the Palestinians, and has done everything they could to get other aide to end.




Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked that “there was no such thing as a Palestinian,”

This would seem to be denying the rights of the Palestinians but it is in fact to be taken from a historical perspective, as historically Palestine is a state that the Romans named after destroying the Jewish civilization there and not contrary to popular perception the name of the Arab state of Palestine.

If not Palestine what was it called from 1920-1948?

There was a nation called Palestine, and it was Arab Majority. It was not Sovereign, but it did exist. Even the Jews were palestinians then.


Most everything else I cut was either your opinions, and you are welcomed to that, and not relevant.

The really difficult parts were skipped right over like this.


In addition, Washington provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.7


This alone is undisputed, and the single greatest example of the power of the pro-Israel lobby.

No other nation in the world has sustained the UN veto of UNSC permanent member at all let alone for this long.

The RESULTS are ignored, and their spin on the history gets the focus when it is only included to keep the timeline straight.

Rather than attacking the foundations you sniped at the edges which is to be expected. As you said:


I mean, if I who has little academic standing in international relations or world history could attempt to refute their study then surely a qualified academician could easily shred apart the study. Why this has not happened and why have the authors, who are important academicians in their own right, come out with such sloppy scholarship is beyond me ? Its almost like a conspiracy.


Could it be because their conclusions are correct? If it were so easy to refute you would find refutaions everywhere. Instead they are reduced to linking them to Anti-Semites which is the last straw of a defeated argument.





(Mod edit: Did a little "cutting" and put tags on a long quoted URL. Just trying to help.)


[edit on 4/6/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Just to set the record straight, here is a link to the list of UN resolution concerning Israel & the Palestinians:
en.wikipedia.org...

If you bother to read through the list you will quickly come to the conclusion that Israel has more or less just ignored the UN.

There is a related thread concerning Israel and Jerusalem and it is at:
Should Israel Divide Jerusalem???



[edit on 5-4-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
An Interesting response by Malichai. Here is my response.

Originally posted by Malichai
It was not their intent to write a historical study of the 73 war. They never said they did not know the things you laid out. And nothing you said disputes the part you quoted.

It is their intent however, to subvert the truth and history through their selective rendition of history, so as to perpetuate their own prejudices and opinions which contradict the claim of this being a scholarly study.

I doubt they wouldnt know the details of the YOm Kippur war and I am sure they would deny any ignorance on their part but that is my point exactly. IF they do know, they why do they present the fact with such dissembling intent? Why not lay the facts out as they are so that we may judge it by what we perceive, rather them interjecting fact with their opinions and obfuscating the truth and fact ? It is this insincierity that I choose to bring out by presenting the facts completely.
The circumstances, the atmosphere of the moment coupled with the political dynamics of the situation in history need to be understood if we are to judge a situation or a nation in history. This the authors do not present, knowingly I presume, even as they try to dig up the past to point the accusatory finger in Israels direction vindicating their opinions. When such pernicious attempts are made to vindicate the authors opinions, it would be ludicrous to accept any of the conclusions they drawupon.




Willing or not the results were that Israel received Nixons backing with both millitary and political aide.

What Israel received was support so that America could curtail the spread of communism in the Arab region and balance the Soviet stranglehold on the region by allowing Israel to fight back and maintain the status quo of the situation rather than as the authors would have you believe that it was for Israel's sake.
The pseudo--UAR intended to,with great conviction, to decimate the state of Israel and as they would have it " drive the Jews into the sea". Thus giving them effective control over the entire Suez, the Read Sea and large control of the Mediterranian Sea. This inturn would have given the Soviets the ability to open another front to Europe and with their hold in the balkans, have great strategic depth over the region. The US and its allies could not afford this thus its supported the Israelis to fight back.
It is THIS history that people should know before they refer to the aid given to Israel. And ponder this, why would a president who was so deeply anti-semetic prefer to support a small Jewish state against a larger and more numerous Arab military especially in the 70's ?He would do so only if the Soviets were involved!



The "$2.2 billion in emergency military aid" was airlifted to Israel. How did you dispute the statement? You confirmed it.

You make the ingenuous assuption that I am out to dispute fact! $2.2 billion "worth" military aid was sent to Israel, no one can dispute that. BUT, what I want to point out is that the Soviets were providing similar assistence to the Egyptians to help aid their war against the Israelis, thus the US was bound to send aid to the Israelis, the conditions under which aid was sent is talked off above plus it is mentioned in the actual post at page 6 where I have shown a study that specificaly deals with the Yom Kippur war.
So even though Israel received aid, if one understands the context in which it received aid it can hardly be said that the US acted as its benafactor in the war.



The embargo was against America, the Netherlands, Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa. But thats not all they did. The accompanying cuts in production raised the price worldwide. Source

The embargo as I said was not by the OPEC but by the OAPEC. To understand the oil embargo it is important to know the US financial and the global energy situation at that time. I havent dealt with this in full in my post on page 6 as I had taken it for granted people were well aware of its causes, apart from the obvious trigger- the YomKippur War.

The Oil Embargo of 1973 was the culmination of American domestic practices and the economic polies of the West in general. The US was used to a period of rapid growth since the end of WW2 due to rapid industrialization and cheap resources. The supply of oil was of vital importance to the US domesticaly and industrialy. While domesticaly it was an era of far flung suburbs, non-exsistent public transport, high consumption cheap vehicles that were churned out in the millions. When dirve in's and family cars were the craze, the automobile became central to the average american's way of life. The automobile was in essence the ubiquitous symbol of American industrial and economic growth. This period of economic prosperity peaked and stagnation had already set in during the early 70's. With inflation on the rise and massive domestic pressure to revitalize the economy President Nixon was faced with both the tribulations of the Vietnam war and the pressures for domestic reform. America particularly as a nation consumed more oil than most of Europe and other nations combined. Effectively, for a nation that consisted of 6% of the worlds populace the US consumed 33% of the worlds oil produced. To add to this the oil was paid for in dollars, which was the currency in which the prices are fixed. Also American productivity was nearly 25% of the worlds productivity due to the massive industrial base. This shot up the demand for oil all the more.

Nixon was under pressure to deal with the stagnation in the economy and rising inflation, he did this by removing the Dollar-gold convertability that was present since WW2 thus causing the value of the dollar to fall significantly. With the fall in dollar, there was a corresponding fall in the price of oil which helped US industrialists against their European and Japanese competition. The fall in oil prices however didnt go well with the Arab producers who saw the resources dwindle. Apart form this the assests they held were in a currency that was significantly less in value than it had been a few years ago. To counter this the oil producing nations (OPEC here) did what every good business man would do, which was to negotiate a price raise. As the Shah of Iran Said to the New York times :

en.wikipedia.org...
Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told the New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300 %, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, redefined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say 10 times more."

These opinions were discussed in the 1971 Tehran talks that sought to increase the price of oil but failed. These reservations were apart form dwindling aid from the US and its allies to the oil-sheiks made the arab members of the OPEC a disgruntled lot. The west could no longer continue to recklessly increase its energy consuption while paying low-oil prices and sell these thrid world nations finished goods which were neatly 300% more inflated. This dysphoria which was brewing in the Middle east was triggered by the Wests re-suuply to the Israelis which enabled them to withstand the combined assalt by Arab Forces.

In my previous post on page 6 you may also see a quote that shows how the Egyptians and the Saudi's had planned an organised oil embargo on the West much before the actual attack on Israel. They wanted to presure the West by cutting its oil supply into conceding Arab demands, to force the Israelis to surrender to the Arab forces and thereby putting an end to the exsistence of the state of Israel. They hoped to include the UK, France etc which had supported Israel so far in an embargo to scare them away from assisting Israel. To their dismay they found that the US was the one to send aid to the Israelis while UK, France etc decided to not participate. This led to the embargo against the US, which was in good part influenced by the Soviets, who also provided the Egyptians the military and technological backing needed to counter the Israeli military. Also if one were to look closely look at the chronological series of events:


Source

  • Sept. 15, 1973 - The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) declares a negotiating front, consisting of the 6 Persian Gulf States, to pressure for price increases and an end to support of Israel, based on the 1971 Tehran agreement.
  • Oct. 6 - Egypt and Syria attack Israel on Yom Kippur, starting the fourth Arab-Israeli War.
  • Oct. 8–10 - OPEC negotiations with oil companies to revise the 1971 Tehran price agreement fail.
  • Oct. 16 - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Qatar unilaterally raise posted prices by 17 % to $3.65 a barrel and announce production cuts.
  • Oct. 17 - OAPEC oil ministers agree to use oil as a weapon to punish the West for its support of Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. They recommend an embargo against unfriendly states and mandate a cut in exports.
  • Oct. 19 - Saudi Arabia, Libya and other Arab states proclaim an embargo on oil exports to the United States.
  • Oct. 23–28 - The Arab oil embargo is extended to the Netherlands.
  • Nov. 5 - Arab producers announce a 25 % (global)output cut. A further five percent cut is threatened.
  • Nov. 23 - The Arab embargo is extended to Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa.
  • null

It is clear to see that the oil price hike with cuts in production were the initial grouse of the Arab countries and through out the process they continue to cut back production and raise prices through out. The US was the first nation to receive embargo, with Netherlands following after a gap of a week. Netherland was chosed because it allowed US to use its airfields and bases to resupply the Israelis apart from providng vocal support to the Israelis over the arab aggression.

If we look at the Arab embargo objectively it would be nothing short of Arab oil states bulling the world to accept their position. To threaten nations that supported Israel defend itself when it was attacked by Arab states is ludicrious to say the least. It would be extreemly naive on their part to imagine that the Arab states would simply be allowed to destroy Israel and the world watch despite its control over oil. As the 1973 embargo has shown, the embargo did more damage to the Arab nations that sought to use it as a tool to punish other nations while it introduced the importance of energy conservation and the environemental movement in the West.




And for six years Israel occupied Arab land including the millions of people living there. They were liberating their poeople and their land.

A curious response.
It is well known that the arab in Israel are infact of Syrian ancestry and have little or no connection with the state of Egypt despite their alacrity for war with Israel. Plus when the arabs lost the war in 1967, 56, 47 it would be imperative that all land gained by the victors would be their by the conventions of warfare.
Nonetheless, while peace was being negotiated for effective settlement of the 1967 war, the arab states sought to exacerbate the situation, in effect recognising Israels rule over the West Bank, Gaza etc and tried to take it by force. This recalcitrant attitude, would ineffect be seem as contemptible in the Western world that was brokering the peace.
As for the situation in 1967, to the initiated it would hardly be a "surpise" that Israel attacked when they did. The besieging hostility by the Arab states and their military build up would naturaly have caused the Israelis, who at that point of time had no great support from either powers, to react when they saw an imminent threat to their state. The 73 situation on the other hand was completely different with Israel withdrawing its forces from the Sinai and the international community taking a greater interest in the region.



It was costly to the US. If the Arabs were the aggressors its only because Israel invaded in a Sneak Attack in the 67 war and took the land that the Arabs were trying to take back.

How was it costly ? The oil embargo ? I have already dealt with that in the above. It was infact costly for the Israelis who were forced not to launch a pre-emptive attack on the Egyptians because of American insistence and thus ended up lossing a large part of their population.
As for the Arab attack, as I said the situation was different and the arab attack on Israel was at a time when a peace was being brokred by the West. This would be viewed with contempt in the west and thus the US support for Israel.


By pre-war borders do you mean pre-67? Israel did NOT withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank, or the Golon Heights. And again, its not meant to be a historical paper. Not including it does not mean they excluded it.

Pre-War border as in the border with Egypt in the Sinai.
Despite your assumptions of the study not being histrical in context, the paper does take a lot of histrical references from history to accuse Israel of duplicity and contradictions. The authors try to portray Israeli values as those being contradictory to American values and in such an attempt seeks to obfuscate the truth by selective refrencing and interspercing fact with opinion. They, I would think deliberately, do not disclose their reference material fully while claiming a certain portion of history as evidence and cleverly try to intersperce opinions into facts so as to deceieve the reader into accepting their prejudice rather than present the reader with facts and build upon them to arrive at conclusions. Though they seek to delve on the present they make heavy inferences to the past and in doing so slant fact to match their opinions.



You say it as if it were a bad thing from their point of view. Millions of Arabs, and Arab lands were taken by a hostile nation. Before the 67 war the West Bank did not belong to Israel, and Israel refused to assimillate the people.

Again very curious the way you see this.
Do you not think that coercion is a bad thing ? Do you not believe that attacking somebody who has rightly defeated you the last 3 times is foolish to say the least ? Isnt it nothing but shear subterfuge when you decide to attack a nation when you are brokering a peace deal on one side?
The land in Palestine was never Arab, Palestine is a Roman name, then following the US partition a British name. The nomadic populace and the remanent Arab population of Palestine lived with thousands of Jews and all lands that they Arabs would see as their own were also inhabited by the Jews of that time. Before the 1967 war, the West bank was under Arab control and the Jews that lived in the West bank were expelled from there. The West Bank is disputed land, it always had a resident jewish populace. So claiming that it was under Arab control from 1947 to 67 as the basis for an Arab claim is meek at best.
Israel's refusal to assimilate the Arabs of the West bank would be similar to Syria's refusal and Jordans refusal to assimilate the Arabs of the West bank into their countries. When Arab states dont want the very people they have fought for it would be ludicrous to image that the Israelis would want to keep those who have tried to kill them.



If America were not supporting this we would not have been on their list of 'enemy nations'. The reason why they imposed the embargo was not their point, but the reason why America was on the receiving end.

America is always on the 'enemy' list of some nation or the other. Such intimidation has not stopped America from doing what was right(WW2, etc) or what was in America's best interest. Supporting Israel was the right thing as, its neighbours had attacked it while they deceived the world into believeing that they sought peace, supporting it was supporting peace. It was in America best interests because it was to counter the Soviet dominance of the region and the worlds oil supplies, this I have stated already.
The oil embargo was, as discussed earlier, more a product of Western economic policy towards the OAPEC rather than its support to Israel. The war only served as a trigger for the Arab nations to vent their anger. Moreover the actual embargo was for less than 6 months(Oct-Mar) .

The reason why the embargo was imposed is more important that why America was at the receiving end. How can you judge why America was at the receiving end if one doesnt understand the reasons ? THAT is what academic study is all about, objectivity and logic. You cannot just state something and get away with naive interpretations. When presenting it as proof of US 'burden', it should be presented with the political background, the historical perspective in all its dimensions. But the authors state them off hand, as if were all so black and white and the reasons simple. That is naive and doesnt have any place in academic study.



For sending a couple of Patriot missile batteries to Israel, in exchange for Israel’s marked pacifism here despite being attacked repeatedly by Iraqi-Scuds despite no provocation on its part? Can we truly call this Israeli attitude a burden for the US ?

It was a political and financial burden, and it was a burden on the military because Patriots that should have been defening our troops were defending Israel instead.

Have you not read what you have quoted ?
Israel did not participate but took the brunt of America's actions to protect America's oil security ! There were numerous apartments and buildings destryed during the Scud Attack in Israel . The missile batteries that were sent to Israel were poorly manned and thus had were only 40% effective and thus suffered lots of damage. So financially it is they who need to ask for compensation.

Militarily US land forces were inserted into Kuwait while the Iraqi forces tried to bomb cities and ports. The Scud batteries covered all staging areas in Saudi Arabia including the base of operations- KKMC, Al-Kharj etc. Though they werent very effective they still did protect American troops in KSA to a greater extent that the Israelis. The Israelis on the other hand were supposed to contend with Saddams misslies destroying their cities. The Israelis felt that their goverment was sucking up to the US for not retalitaing on Iraqi cities but despite domestic pressure the Isrealis kept out of it and the war was confined.



The reasons you state only show Israel to be an even greater burden.

I was asking a rhetorical question there. What makes you think it was a reason/s ? Have you not understood what is written ?
Why would a nation not fight an aggressor that was trying to destroy it when powerful nations are on their side ?



After taking Kuwait Iraq controled aroun 20% of the worlds oil reserves, not 50%.

By taking Kuwait and attacking Saudi Arabia, Saddam was endangering 505 of the worlds oil reserves.



That does not mean it is random. They always claim that attacks are retaliation for something Israel does.

They claim they are fighting the IDF occupation while blowing up cafes and buses. I doubt the world would be naive enough to accept such retaliations as "directed" responses, though you have the prerogative to do so.



On the contrary they are well planned out perposful desperate actions. A Palestinian does not wake up in the morning and say 'Gee, I think I'll go blow myself up in a shopping mall today'.

I think you are digressing from objective discussion and moving onto more speculation and histrionics here.
Attacking civilians though indeed an act requiring great resolve can hardly be considered as well planned or directed, as plainly attacking citizens would do little to defeat the Israeli military. As to what they say when they wake, it is of little relevance here.



They were very aware of it but apparently had decided against violent action.

So you are saying that they took 30 years to make up their minds ? Because as quoted in my post on page 6 Bin laden himself claims it was the US involvement in Saudi Arabia that was his motivating factor, as the US had defiled his "holy land" .
Do you claim to have a greater understanding of Al-Qaeda's struggle than Bin-Laden ? I would be happy if you can furnish those links.



There were never any peace accords. Peace means a pacific settlement which has not been reached.

Well those who are aware of it, the OSLO peace accords and the Camp David Peace intiatives are a significant part of contemporary history and still are as they were the first few concrete step towards the road map to peace in the region.
Though your interpretation of peace might be different the leaders of the world have to the best of their understanding of peace forged settlements to the situation at the highest level. I believe Jimmy Carter received a Nobel Prize for his efforts towards peace, though it may not be what you consider to be peace, I do believe it was to the best of his understanding.


How has America expedited the peace process? Foot dragging would be a kind term. America alone has stood against the entire world denying a solution.

Is there any more fact you would like to contribute? Because there are many ways to deal with opinions and I believe it is right for people to form their own opinions on a situation after they understand the facts of the situation.


So the authors say Israel discriminates against the Arab Israelies, and you say its far from the turth, but you don't deny that there is massive discrimination?

Well, you misunderstand me. To put it in context it would be akin to claims of discrimination of Blacks in America. One wouldnt be fair in discribing America as racist but there are some Americans who are indeed racist but it is not policy you see. That is how the Arab Israelis are. They are granted all the priveleges of citzenship but some Jewish Israelis do discriminate agaisnt them, as it happens in every society there are always those that face discrimination from one part or the other.
I hope you understand what I mean here.


The Israeli interim constitution refers to Israel as a Jewish State. This has many implications. While it does not exclude non-Jews it does not serve them either.

What do imply by "interim", this is not Iraq to have an "interim" constitution ! You must be mistaken.
Also as for not serving non-Jews, you are wrong.

Source
Let us take for example, hundreds of Vietnamese boat people, some of them rescued on the high seas by Israeli freighters and brought to Israel, were granted full citizenship.





Israeli immigration laws, despite the way you make it sound, are highly racist
.. Citizenship be residence applies to those who were in Israel from it inception to 1949[?].... All others [very few] must go through the naturalization process and get approval from the foreign ministry.
Biased to the core it is.

I see that you are against-Israel but I will ignore this.

I havent made it sound in any way other that the way it was written on the site by the ministry of interior, Israel.
Citizenship by residence would mean that all those who reside inside the "state of Israel" are eligible to become its citizens.
The naturalization process is for all others, like for example, If I were to go to Israel and stay for say 5 years then I could apply for citizenship and the ministry of interior would process my application. I dont understand what you mean here by "[very few]" because there is no number mentioned to limit this. If there is a mention of any limit, please present a link.

As for the law of return, though you may be under the impression that any Jew could just catch a plane and move into downtown Tel-Aviv it is hardly the case. The process of making "Aliyah" is no so simple as many would have you believe. There are military duties, relgious duties and lots of other things that need to be satisfied to be complete the process.



Elections do not equate to democracy. Sovereignty is required and Israel has denied this to the Palestinians for over 40 years. What good does it do to elect people when a government that does not represent you is maintaining a military occupation over your territory?

Well, elections play a central role in the democratic process, where the people's mandate is taken into account. The very ability to participate in an electoral process to elect representatives to govern their localities is more than what many Arab states allow. These ellections are meant to introduce a sense of democracy among the arabs.
As for sovereignty, as I have mentioned the West Bank is disputed territory and both the Jews and the Arabs have interets there. Thus any independence would only be in pockets for the Arabs. The IDF's presence in the West Bank is clearly due to the security situation.
To say that elections are not a symbol of promoting the democratic model would be illogical.



To the best of my knowledge Israel has not given any aide to the Palestinians, and has done everything they could to get other aide to end.

Isreali groups and aid workers regularly provide assistence to the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians are provided access to hospitals, education, electricity, water etc. That are all subsidized for the Palestininas. The reasons that the Palestinians live in squallid camps is not because theu werent provided with a chance to better themselves but because they were not allowed to by their own leaders who threatened them with terrorist bombings.
Source
I recently read that Israel till recently footed the Palestinians authorities electricity bill that was left unpaid by them! It was only after the Palestinian's elected HAMAS to power that Israel sought to cut ties with the PA and proceed with a process of isolation. This is in essence a democratic response without use of violence, very Gandhian I would say.


If not Palestine what was it called from 1920-1948?
There was a nation called Palestine, and it was Arab Majority. It was not Sovereign, but it did exist. Even the Jews were palestinians then.

It was called the British Mandate officially, which was given the name of Palestine after the Roman title of this area. As I have mentioned in my post on page 6 even the Arabs of the region initially didnt call it as Palestine, seeing themselves part of Syria.
There was no nation that called itself Palestine, it was but a colony of the British for a while, neither the local arabs nor the Jews saw themselves as a separate nation initally but later decided to adopt themselves as Palestinians for the apparent political benefits of the name. Thus, palestine is a name that was given by the British to the land, to their colony. Just like they called Indonesia as JAVA and Sri Lanka as Ceylon. Do you find any nation called JAVA anymore ?


The really difficult parts were skipped right over like this.

In addition, Washington provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.7

This alone is undisputed, and the single greatest example of the power of the pro-Israel lobby.

I seriouly doubt you read my post on page 6.
I have never said that there was no lobby that campaigned for Israel, it would be wrong to say that. There is a pro-Israel lobby and a pretty good one at that.

As I said before I havent refuted every line but stuck to the central issues of the article. If you are going to bring up the vetoed resolution, I would like to point to the resolotion that were passed despite Isreali opposition to them? How come Yasser Arafart could address the UN general Assembly if the US support to Israel is so strong ? Why have there been so many resolutions against the state of Israel including some that prevent Israel from helping Palestine, if the pro-Israeli lobby has so much of an influence that it was able to block a mere 32 resolutions ? Why dont the authors provide examples of these one wonders??
UN resolutions against Israel

I could in essence cast serious doubt on every nefarious attempt made by the authors of the study but I feel that I have touched upon the central points and if they seek to call their work a "study" I can imagine their level of scholarship.


The RESULTS are ignored, and their spin on the history gets the focus when it is only included to keep the timeline straight.

What is ignored is logic and fact. They seek to cast aspertions with articles that are baseless, sloppy references and purse a campaing of intellecual deciet in their study. THAT has been ignored. Contrary to your perception, they have done much more than "keep the timeline straight" with their historical references.
The authors of the study would have arrived at the same results without the need for the face they make out to be a study. Nothing they dededuce can ever take precedence over the overwhelming levels of subterfuge and grossly misquoted statements that they authors have exhibited in their study. The RESULT being- ralling the naive and vindicating the brainwashed .


Rather than attacking the foundations you sniped at the edges which is to be expected.

I believe fact make the foundations of a study, dont you ? If I were to engage in disecting conjencture, it would surley have taken the better part of the month.


Could it be because their conclusions are correct? If it were so easy to refute you would find refutaions everywhere. Instead they are reduced to linking them to Anti-Semites which is the last straw of a defeated argument.

Well, I have not read one credible source that seeks to validate the authors claims, with even the univeristy of Harvard, Univeristy of Chicago have with drawn their support and no publisher will touch this.
What does this tell us? The lobby is all pervasive and the authors have lost all their friends ? or is this such poor scholarship that no institute, publication or institute of repute would want anything to do with it ?

That I leave for people to decide, as in your case you have already made up your mind it would seem, the reasons for the study's isolation.
I personally dont object to such studies, but the authors here are sloppy and deceptive, in essence lazy to do the hard work of actual referencing genuine claims and building on that. Intellectual apathy at such a level is disgraceful.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

It is well known that the arab in Israel are infact of Syrian ancestry and have little or no connection with the state of Egypt despite their alacrity for war with Israel. Plus when the arabs lost the war in 1967, 56, 47 it would be imperative that all land gained by the victors would be their by the conventions of warfare.


Could you please show us where the 'conventions of warfare' allow taking land in war? The 1949 Geneva conventions sewed up the loopholes in the Hague Conventions. I believe you are mistaken about this.

I'll answer more later when I have time. I could not let this stand without a reply.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

What do imply by "interim", this is not Iraq to have an "interim" constitution ! You must be mistaken.
Also as for not serving non-Jews, you are wrong.


Actually its only a Declaration of Establishment although many refer to is as a Constitution. Israel has no constitution, and is in violation of its founding document for failing to produce one. Like in Iraq an interim constitution led to an elected government tasked with creating a constitution, and presenting it to the people for ratification. Israel has thus far failed to do so.


Jewish Virtual Library

Israel does not have a written constitution, even though according to the Proclamation of Independence a constituent assembly should have prepared a constitution by October 1, 1948. The delay in the preparation of a constitution resulted primarily from problems that emerged against the background of the alleged clash between a secular constitution and the Halacha (the Jewish religious law).


They still can't decide.


THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL


Malichai, you are aware that some of the functions of a constitution are filled by the Declaration of Establishment (1948), the Basic Laws of the parliament (Knesset), and the Israeli citizenship law?
Field Listing-Constitution






seekerof

[edit on 6-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Malichai, you are aware that some of the functions of a constitution are filled by the Declaration of Establishment (1948), the Basic Laws of the parliament (Knesset), and the Israeli citizenship law?


Yes I am aware of that, and much more concerning the legal situation with Israel. A constitution is not required, but without the people ratification the Israeli government lacks legitimacy. The nature of the Gov is interm with an exceptionally long period from inception to the people legitimizing the Law.[still waiting]

There are some who say it was done intentionally so that Israel would not have to declare borders until after Jerusalem was on their side of the border, but that is only supposition.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Could you please show us where the 'conventions of warfare' allow taking land in war? The 1949 Geneva conventions sewed up the loopholes in the Hague Conventions. I believe you are mistaken about this.


The Geneva Conventions of 1949 are meant to protect civilians, especially women and children from the ravages of War. The conventions seek to provide a legal framework to differentiate between belligerants and civilians so that the civilians are spared from the brutality of war. Also it provides opportunities for civilians to get access to medical facilities, food, shelter etc. It also specifies the treatment of POW's. It does not however specify the rules of engagement and conduct of a military in battle. These are specified in the Hauge Concentions of 1907.

The Hauge Conventions state explicitly what an occuping force is and also states the level of control for the occuping forces on the occupied territories and its people. From the Conventions the relevant articles are:

ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

Section III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Article 42
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Article 55

The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Since Israeli authority extend into the West Bank after the war, it can be considered as the "occuping" force and thus all 'public buildings, real estate, forests' etc belonging to the hostile state are in effect the property of Israel. There is no nation left to make peace with and return the occupied territory to as independent West Bank. Israel cannot return it to Jordan because they gave up claim to the West Bank in 88 and more over Jordans authority over the West bank was never officially recognised. The 'occupied' territories have never been part of any state legaly other than the Ottaman Empire, which doesnt exsist any longer. The Territories were defined by the Israeli-Arab Armstice and even after the 1967 war it was never annexed into Israel except for east Jeruselem. It is still considered as outside the state of Israel and as there is no nation to make peace and return it to it is left indefinitely under Israeli authority.

So you see the term and conditions do support Israel's authority over the disputed territories.

Civilians and Occupation
USMC: Conventions of Land Warfare

[edit on 7-4-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
A very fine reply from IAF101, and I would like to respond to it.
.............................................................





Great and well researched response Malichai



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Actually its only a Declaration of Establishment although many refer to is as a Constitution. Israel has no constitution, and is in violation of its founding document for failing to produce one. Like in Iraq an interim constitution led to an elected government tasked with creating a constitution, and presenting it to the people for ratification.


Even though they havent codified all their laws into a single document they are still bound by the laws of their land which have legal authority and have been passed in the Knesset. It is interesting to learn that they have no official constitution till today. But I do remember reading recently that all political parties had agreed upon a new constituion and that the Knesset was likely to pass this and adopt this constituiton.

I think even Great Briton has no constitution but that hasnt affected its credibility. What we take for a constitution and its functions are fulfilled by a collective set of laws and documents it would seem and these together could be equated to a constitution as we see it.
Great Britan Constitution
Israeli Democracy: How it works



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Plus when the arabs lost the war in 1967, 56, 47 it would be imperative that all land gained by the victors would be their by the conventions of warfare.


yah sure .. are you talking about the law of jungle of Zogzog realm in world of warcraft ?!!! .. DUHHH


Using your concept: Iraq should have been allowed to keep Kuwait because Iraq won the war against Kuwait !!!! Oh I forgot USA fought bravely to liberate Kuwait back then. Hitler invaded France so the German should have been allowed to keep France (and most of Europe) according to the Law of Jungle that you are advertising.

What standards do you have? !!! Double standards .. Triple standards .. or X^4 standards..

Deny Infinite-Bias


[edit on 7-4-2006 by Deep_Blue]

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Deep_Blue]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Oh I forgot USA fought bravely to liberate Kuwait back then. Hitler invaded France so the German should have been allowed to keep France (and most of Europe) according to the Law of Jungle that you are advertising.

Well, I'm not aware of any ZogZog but Iraq did plan to keep Kuwait and would have too had it not been for US forces and Hitler did keep France and most of Europe after he concered them. It was only when the allied forces defeated the Nazis did the countries gain their soverignity back .

They say that Churchill wanted to annexx the lot but thats another story.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Well, I'm not aware of any ZogZog


You Justified the Barbarian Israelis savage aggression in the middle east by the following silly statement if yours:

Originally posted by IAF101
Plus when the arabs lost the war in 1967, 56, 47 it would be imperative that all land gained by the victors would be their by the conventions of warfare.


And ya .. I think you live in ZogZog where Law of Jungle exist.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join