reply to post by SteveR
Interesting, however, it wouldn't be difficult for the West to cut support to Israel. The moment military and financial aid is cut, Israel will be
preyed upon. Her continued survival depends upon her alliance with the U.S.
Who knows?? Consider what Israel is outside the US. Just read "start up nation". Israel is essentially the most productive and creative country per
capita on earth. You never know what those Jews can do without America.
Of course, undoubtedly, without American support they are made weaker. But perhaps they could defend themselves in other ways? I do agree though that
American is an important ally - and Israel, likewise, for America, is an important ally the Islamist growing middle east, as many commentators
There's a basic alignment of interests in America and Israel. So why exactly do people think Israel is a 'menace' and source of all the trouble? Oh,
that's right. Because the media deliberately plays down the significance of the Islamist threat, of the fanaticism of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It amazes me how they do all this beneath the publics gaze.
The majority of American voters (democrats and those leaning libertarian combined) would support an end to aid to Israel. So this begs the question,
if the the intention is to destroy Israel, why not throw Israel to the wolves by the popular mandate of cutting aid. But I am rather clueless as to
why the West would supposedly want to destroy Israel.
That is an interesting question the commands brooding over.
In the end, you can't really go to the heart of why "they" want to get rid of Israel, without talking about philosophy. But I'll leave that for
another day. As you realize, socialist libertarians and other leftists want a 'universalist' world order. Israel is an example of particularism. As
Tony Judt described it: Israel is an anachronism. They jumped on the nationalism train 'too late'. The world has now abandoned that formula, and have
moved on to 'destroying' the concept of nationalism all together, hence, the european union, multiculturalism, the insistence of european politicians
to get the masses to embrace the 'universal european identity', but of course, the majority of the masses want to stay "portuguese" , or "british", or
"polish", or "german", or "italian" , and so they've encountered difficulty. Humans will not give up on their heritage, their background. Human
diversity is beautiful; conversely, universalism is evil in it's homogenistic outlook.
As for why America continues to give Israel military aid? That is an interesting question. I wonder if they want to embroil Americans - and the world
- in a larger world conflict? Conflict is used to shape the world, just as WWI led to the creation of the league of nations, and WWII led to the
creation of the UN. Each time, there's further consolidation. The years of war do a very good job at 'burning away' old prejudices, and also giving
governments the means to 'clean up' on internal domestic situations. Not to mention the issue of over-population.
There's countless reasons why a future war would be deemed necessary to engineer the future utopian society that they have in mind: that what we
currently are, with Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc - all this stubborn differentiation - has to be 'melted away'.
How could they turn such a mess into the marxist utopia they so evidently hold close to their hearts? Care to speculate? I thought one of the main
themes of marxist doctrine was the abolishment of religions. It doesn't follow that it would be advantageous to invite millions of Islamists to infect
your demography if that was your goal.
From a purely social scientific view, the Islamists are the antithesis, the native population the thesis, and the government intervention, the
synthesis. If the government wants to transform itself into a dictatorship, you need an internal enemy. Just so happens for them that the Islamists
ARE a very real enemy they can take advantage of.
You watch, this scenario is already brewing in that direction. Once Israel attacks Iran, Iran's many 'sleeper cells' in America and other countries
will start committing suicide attacks in their respective countries. This will undoubtedly force a government response in the form of passing
Muhammad Morsi and his cohorts pale in comparison to the extremism (or should we say, true Islam) running amok in the country.
And yet, they've released thousands of these criminals from their jails. They MUST obviously approve of it, if they both enabled it, and do nothing to
deal with it.
Crucifixions and other gratuitious violence, petitions to demolish the Pyramids, state TV airwaves being turned over to radical preachers who openly
instruct men to beat their wives.
It's effing insane. It's hard to believe how crazy these people are. Imagine they actually went through with it and destroyed the pyramids? I can
almost see it happening.
Who will, of course, eventually be replaced by a more representative group of extremists.
You seem to be underestimating how extreme Mohomad Morsi is. You have to understand, he still has to come off as 'moderate' to the outer world. People
still think that his election was a victory for democracy.
To quote a recent article By Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post
Morsi himself has a rich record of pronouncements attesting to this fact. For instance, in November 2004 he said, "The Koran has established that
the Jews are the ones in the highest degree of enmity towards Muslims."
He continued, "There is no peace with the descendants of apes and pigs."
In January 2009, Morsi called Israelis "Draculas who are always hungry for more killing and bloodshed using all kinds of modern war weapons supplied
to them by the American administration." He accused Israelis of "sowing the seeds of hatred between humans."
Morsi has no problem pandering to the radicals. Because he himself is a radical.
Barack Obama, by ensuring the Islamist takeover of Egypt and providing Morsi 1.5 billion dollars in 'aid', is directly responsible for the bloody wars
that are coming Israel's way.
It still amazes me that Egypt is still getting that money. Military aid, most of it, of all things. Sophisticated US weaponry, tanks etc.
It bothers me to think where this world will be in a years time.
Islamic extremism (true Islam) existed long before Western intervention in the region
I'm aware. Ibn Warraq - the liberal writer - even quote the beloved Averroes to the effect that he advocated expansionist wars against the infidels.
Islam is just a very bellicose religion; a religion that unites religion with politics; the sheer idea of a separation goes against the very grain of
Which is why there is so much difficulty in moderates convincing 'traditionalists' otherwise. They are in fact 'departing' from the spirit of Islam.
They have to modernize it, make it a "diet" Islam, one amenable to modern culture.
People who think Islam is simply on their way to their own 'protestant reformation" I think are a bit clueless as to the nature of Islam.
on 21-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)