Zippidy Doo Da

I'm not stupid, I'm from Texas!

Friday, May 16, 2008

Pro-Israel doesn't always mean what most think

Myths about true support for the Jewish state
By JEREMY BEN-AMI for The Houston Chronicle

> The Rev. John Hagee and his fellow Christian Zionists are good for the Jews.

Hardly. Are Israel and American Jewry really so desperate that we must cozy up to people whose messianic dreams entail having us all killed or converted to Christianity? Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, and his ilk believe that Israel dare not cede any territory in the quest for peace, claiming that the Bible promised all of the holy land to the Jews. In other words, Christian Zionists look at the trade-offs that Israel must make to achieve peace — and hope to thwart them. Then again, peace is not what these folks have in mind; they hope that Israel will seek to permanently expand its borders, thereby goading the Arabs into a war that will become the catalyst for Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Do your ambitions for Israel extend beyond turning it into the fuel for the fire of the "End of Days"? Then Hagee and company are not — repeat, not — your friends.

> George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had.

Not even close. The president has acted as Israel's exclusive corner man when he should have been refereeing the fight. That choice weakened Israel's long-term security.
Israel needs U.S. help to maintain its military edge over its foes, but it also needs the United States to contain Arab-Israeli crises and broker peace. Israel's existing peace pacts owe much to Washington's ability to bridge the mistrust among parties in the Middle East. So when the United States abandons the role of effective broker and acts only as Israel's amen choir, as it has throughout Bush's tenure, the United States dims Israel's prospects of winning security through diplomacy. The best gift that Israel's friends here could give this gallant, embattled democracy on its milestone birthday would be returning the United States to its leading role in active diplomacy to end the conflicts in the Middle East — and help a secure, thriving Israel find a permanent, accepted home among the community of nations.

Ben-Ami is executive director of J Street, a lobby and political action committee that promotes peace and security in the Middle East.


At 6:36 AM , Blogger MyAmerica said...

Federal States of Israel and Palestine

We have had 60 years of experimenting about the Israeli- Palestinian struggle. The region would need help before we will be dragged into a World War III.

No one can reject the fact that creation of Israel on the land of Arabic nations has created tremendous political and economical problems for the United States. We may have to look outside of the box to diffuse the problems. One solution would be for Israel joining us as a member of the Unites States’ Common Wealth.

We are already supporting Israel economically, politically and by sharing intelligence and military hardware. In addition, some Israeli Americans with both Israeli and American citizenships serve in the Israeli Armed Forces. Israel never would have to be fearful of any other nation; our great American Armed Forces will protect the common wealth as they would the homeland.

Would it be politically more advantages for the United States to manage the Jewish state as a member of our Common Wealth?

The Israeli Common Wealth will be free to exercise the religious freedom that our great nation would offer without being isolated among the hostile Arabs.

The Common Wealth should include the Arabs who were forced to leave the land when Zionist invaded the land. It should also include all of the land called by Palestinian as their homeland and by Israeli as their state. I don't suggest this proposal would work or be acceptable by Israel. Then what next?

Would really two nation model for Palestinian and Israeli work in the future? Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.

Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.

We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t fight wars after wars to support a non-working model of a two state solution. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.

What do you think?

At 9:58 AM , Blogger liquiddaddy said...

I agree with a lot of what you say, sir. Everybody should share the Holy Land. It is clear that the Levant has been disputed over the years by lots of people. Maybe it's time to share?

At 11:06 AM , Blogger Lulu Maude said...

It's important to remember that we haven't really struggled with the two-nation model for 60 years. Maybe 16. European nations (I include us in this group) cheerfully handed over land that didn't belong to us in order to give a Holocaust-shocked people a homeland... at the expense of the people living there.

It's taken a long time for the voices of the Palestinians to be heard. They are just audible now.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home