Suitcast Nuke

Counterpoint:

Israel is Worthy of Our Support

James Hall - from the Left

As a democratic state ensconced within a Middle East full of absolute dictatorships, Israel is special. The Israeli insistence on constitutional government, freedom of expression, and the rule of law puts them solidly in the tradition of Western democracies and makes them worthy of our support--not uncritical support, mind you--but our general support nonetheless.

Yes, there's religious zealotry within the state of Israel, particularly among the conservative and religious right there. But America has had her own share of religious bigotry. Religious Zionism isn't a far cry from American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, especially when Americans claim that their special place on Earth or their great material success comes from God.

The origins of the state of Israel are impeccably secular. Early on most religious Jews eschewed assisting the Zionist movement of stateless and persecuted Jews looking for a homeland, believing that their Messiah must first appear before a Jewish kingdom was possible. Secular Jews, desperate for a place they could call their own after centuries of persecution and pogroms in Europe, Asia and North America focused on quiet Palestine. Their desire for a nation is akin to modern European and American nationalism, where people of common descent or similar interests united form a nation of their own.

It should be noted that Jews accepted the UN partition plan for Palestine in 1947 and created the state of Israel. Palestinians and their Arab neighbors did not, and attacked Israel in the first of several wars won by the people of Israel. Had Palestinians accepted that first UN resolution, they would now be living in peace in a larger Palestinian state with a shared capital of Jerusalem.

They chose the path of war instead, and lost much of their territory guaranteed by the 1947 plan. Israel cannot be faulted for wanting to keep at least part of that territory, paid for by the blood of its soldiers, for its defense. In wars with Mexico and Spain, the US did the same, keeping Texas, New Mexico, California and Puerto Rico for its own. The largely secular Labor Party under Prime Minister Ehud Barak was willing to give much of the conquered territory of the West Bank back in exchange for recognition of Israel's status and peace, but the Palestinian leadership declined that generous offer.

We should recognize that the Israelis have been fair and diligent custodians of the major religious sites of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in Jerusalem. When Jordanians occupied East Jerusalem, they refused to let Jews go the Wailing Wall, the holiest site in Judaism, to worship. On the other hand, when Israelis captured East Jerusalem, they permitted Arabs to worship at the Al Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, and even permitted Arabs to administer the site.

I would agree with Sartre that the religious right in Israel poses a danger not only to the peace process in Palestine but to President Bush's ability to build a coalition against terrorism. Prime Minister Sharon's rash statement this past week in which he likened Bush's coalition building to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler was over the top. The religious parties' insistence on Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank based on Old Testament stories is also an impediment to peace.

But the first people to criticize Sharon's outrageous statement were not Americans but Israelis themselves, in their own media--and even members of Sharon's own administration joined in the criticism of an outrageous and inaccurate analogy. Try to imagine that kind of freedom of the press and individual speech criticizing the national leader in almost any Arab country you can name.

For this reason, while a religious Zionism may continue to be a troublesome religious/political movement within Israel, as its cousin, American religious fundamentalism is in America, religious Zionism is not the chief determinant of Israeli policy. Zionism began as a nationalist movement akin to many other nationalist movements, and so long as the right of Israel to exist is not challenged, we can expect Israel to act like most western democratic nations of the world. As the growth of liberal democracies in general is beneficial to the peace and prosperity of the world, Israel is worthy of our support.

James Hall, From the Left

Final Word:

Zionism is a dead issue - the state of Israel is exists and Jews have a homeland. Its history is remarkably like our own. Both Jews and the immigrants who became Americans came in search of a promised land. Both Jews and the immigrants who became Americans found others living in their promised land and fought with them for the land. Both lands came from similar visions - a place for those fleeing from injustice or looking for opportunity to call home.

The major difference seems to be that a peaceful partition of the Jewish promised land was worked out in a post-World War II environment, one that didn't give either side everything that it wanted. It granted land to each side where the majority population was either Arab or Jewish, and it created Jerusalem as an open city available to people of all faiths. Jews reluctantly agreed to the partition and declared their statehood based on it; the Arab League responded by invading the small spit of land that was postwar Israel.

We know the results of this war and further wars. Zionism is a moot point - Israel exists and has established its right to exist every bit as much as America. The Israelis have earned their place of advantage at the bargained table, paid for by the blood of their citizens. Sartre would have them withdraw from Jerusalem and would have America give equal support to Arab regimes ruled by absolute dictators like Yasser Arafat, the Saudi King, and Sadaam Hussein.

Sartre would have us believe that difference exists between a western democratic nation like Israel, which possesses an actively defended constitution, rights for minorities, a working legal system, a democratic form of government and dictatorial Arab regimes owned and run by autocrats, murderers, and terrorists. Somehow his mind finds a moral equivalency between Israel and nations who gas and murder their minorities. Why? Because Israel doesn't possess a political party that reflect Sartre's own beliefs. That no party in Israel finds Mr. Sartre's beliefs palatable is not a drawback but a tribute to Israeli wisdom and intelligence. Israel is deserving of our support and should get it.

James Hall, From the Left

Enter content here

Point:

Zionism is a Political Movement

It is acknowledged by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise that Zionism is a national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland. Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel is the goal, leaving open the tangible, as well as, spiritual aims. Grounds for opposing this vision are claims that Zionism is a secular non-Jewish movement or that it is not true to the teaching of the Torah. With this as background, it should be taken as a given that Zionism is not a substitute term for Jews, as individuals or as a people. It is a movement with a political goal, that takes the form of Israeli Policy.

On the surface it would seem like any other self determination movement. The entire world is embroiled with struggles for independent rule. Most conflicts are a direct result of clashing factions vying for the power to establish their own version of a regimen. So what makes Zionism different from other movements? The historical context and religious contention within the region; IS, Biblical in nature. The three great religions believe in the same one God, whether HIS name is Yahweh, Allah or Christ. Their respective teachings, convictions and codes have more similarities than differences. So what is the problem?

As with any political ideology, the religious component is only a part, if at all; of the society and their politics. In the case of Zionism, the overwhelming and essential motivation is political in nature. This viewpoint in not much different from that of other countries. So when we critique the politics of England, we analyze the society as it currently exists, based upon their heritage, policies and actions.

Those who are Anglophiles and supporters of her world view share a same ingredient, with the Zionist; namely, an advocacy for their respective goals. Debate over the pros and cons, and the merit of State policy is conducted on political grounds. So why is it an act of audacity to question the validity of Israeli policy, her motives, actions or interests? Only those gifted in the practice of deception would deny the legitimacy to question the value and wisdom of supporting the political aims of a foreign nation. As Americans, OUR interests are our own and we need not regress into some notion of false guilt, or fear being assigned the label of an ant-Semitic.

If you subordinate the interests of your own country to that of another, are you not suspect in your loyalty to your own nation? Would the response of American wrath towards the criminals of the Twin Tower massacre be the same if those terrorists were members of the Jewish Defense League? "Never, Again", is a noble motto; but does it really apply and should it be adopted as the official policy of the United States, when its consequences endanger our own Nation? Following zealots with a political agenda that does not benefit our country is insane. Zionist policy has become indistinguishable from the goals of the power elites within the corridors of our own government. The record of following in lock step, supporting foreign interests, that adversely effect ourselves; plants the seeds of our own American holocaust.

Does the media accurately portray the risks and adverse reaction towards America, which is cultivated throughout the world, when U.S. support for Israel is unequivocal? We all know what happens to those who are willing to raise such an issue! Israel is no more the partner of America, than the U.K. or any other country. Isn't it time to recognize that being used is the favorite game played against our interests, by 'so called' friends or foes? When significant and clear benefits accrue, for AMERICA; then support for political interests of a foreign country, can be considered. This is the standard that has been abandoned for decades.

Attempts to umpire the ultimate Hatfield and McCoy feud is like putting your beak into a buzz saw. If someone punches you in the nose, like the Terrorists, you seek justice and accountability. How you achieve that objective, has been the subject of unending debate for the last several weeks. So why is it any different to discuss, openly and tangibly; the reasons, risks and benefits of a balanced policy towards Israel and their Muslim cousins?

If the Zionist admits, that the tangible is part of their political movement, why is it denied to the American people the opportunity to achieve the practical protection that they deserve? Those who reside within our borders who are loyal to Israel, at the expense of America, are Zionists. The debate is not about them or Israel, but needs to be focused upon what exactly is in the interest of our own country.

The absence of a deep reliance upon the spiritual aim that the Zionist claims, is at the center of the animosity that is endless in the region. This abandonment from faith is not reserved solely to them. The PLO in all their incarnations, partake in this same rejection. A willingness to settle the conflict is absent from all sides. The end result is brute political power aggression, with no saints and only sinners; applying their trade.

Zionist have perverted the socialist dream of Theodore Herzel, who did not care where a homeland was established, as his endorsement of the British offer to settle Uganda, illustrates. Self determination is, a noble goal. But the political nature of the current version of Zionism, lacks in Judaism. The proponents of building the Third Temple, just started, playing directly into the hands of the Begen's, Netanyahu's, and Sharon's. With their own deviation of their religion, the political climate from such provocative actions begs for an explosive eruption. The term zealot derives its meaning from a sect of Jews, of this same name, who decided that it is better to die at their own hands than to be sold into slavery. Does America really yearn to be slaves of these fanatics, for surely we are bent upon dying along with them?

James Hall aka SARTRE

Rebuttal:

Well, there you have it folks! Socialist Democracies are SPECIAL . . . They need to be supported over all those other evil governments. On this point, those on the Left expose themselves to their true agenda. 'Collectivism' couched in the garb of democratic voting is just as corrupt as regimes run by the worst dictator. The Socialist State assumes the role of the tyrant, enforces their notion of compliance and views citizens as wards of the government. Israel embraces Socialism.

Since Zionism is a political objective, it needs to be scrutinized in the same manner as any other politic. Basing its legitimacy upon a UN partition plan for Palestine, is like attending an organized summit, for the purpose of dividing up territory for criminal enterprises. Legitimacy is established by the consent of People. The fact that Palestinians rejected the theft of their land is central to the continued hostility within the region. Should this come as a surprise, what if an outside power would enter your own community and displace you and your neighbors? Just ask any resident displaced by urban renewal! What moral authority does a 'World Community' have to force inhabitants from their lands? The reality of the state of Israel, is not denied, nor her right to survive as a nation. But it is the height of hypocrisy to conclude that Zionism was blessed when the UN planted the germ of the final conflict.

So the 'bad seed' wants to defend imperialism? 'Manifest Destiny', Jewish style. Just like that practiced by the U.S. Is there any wonder why much of the world views America as the patron saint for Zionism? What next James, send the troops to suppress a Puerto Rican rebellion? Set them FREE . . . they deserve their own Exodus, don't they?

Yes, James is a comrade in the secular community. When frustrated with the facts, make up your own. When confronted with the Truth, blame the religious. Jerusalem needs to become as 'open city', controlled by neither Jews or Muslims. With both factions resisting a real compromise, the result is an never ending war. Just how do the American People benefit from becoming the protector of Zionism? Blame infects all parties. No side is rational or moral. Our Nation is at risk because of the attitudes of blockheads who will argue that "Israel is worthy of our support" . . .

Are you willing to trade the lives of our fellow Americans, those residing in fly over country, for the perverted and pathological loyalties of the few who occupy Manhattan, and LA? Start acting in our own interest, and let the blood feud be settled among Semites.

James Hall - 'The Right'

Enter content here