One Arab World

1 - Hamas is on the EU terror list. So you're right about wondering why they give money. The EU gives money for humanitarian purposes. It is a continuation of the money they have given up to now. The EU behaves much more responsibly than the US - terror lists or no terror lists - because it is part of the Barcelona process to work for stable and democratic rule in the area. Hamas is elected by the Palestinian people. Therefore it is of vital importance to give them a chance. (Comment this)

2 - Karim,
You have one extremely flawed fundamental assumption; that is, the world is a sane place. And to answer your question about whether history taught us anything or not, I'd say no. Mankind is just stupid (by choice, not by design though).

Sigh...... (Comment this)

3 - Karim,

the "Palestinians" have money for missiles and bombs. The have received more aid than any other people in worse situations (and there are many). They have had the chance for a better life by simply stopping to attack Israel. They rejected it again and again.

At some point the world should realise that Hamas can try to kill all the Jews (and I don't believe they have given up their aim of throwing them into the sea) and can try so with their own money. Why should Europe pay for a war?

Hamas can have money in exchange for their weapons. (Comment this)

4 - The PA was getting money even as it indulged in the heights of corruption and thuggery. Apparently, the donors were not too concerned about their money being put to nefarious purposes. So the PA figured that no matter how much they ran their government and people to the ground, the cash would continue. A big waste all around, with most of the stupidity belonging to the donors.

Cut the cash. It might actually lead to some political maturity. It’s regretful it wasn’t done sooner. On the other hand, the Arab countries should be very happy to make up for the shortfall in Western money, since it is they who claim to be most concerned for Palestinian welfare. (Comment this)

5 - Europe is not stupid neither so generous.
To anyone who hasnt noticed till now but its in the interests of many that the Middle east is unstable & volatile & as long as the Israeli/Palestinian problem is in the doldrums, the better things are for them.
Now by giving some money to the palestinians, they know it isnt much but it will be enough for them to buy some weapons to use which consequently will make the situation heat up or at least worsen their position when the israelis retaliate.
I think if anyone wants peace in the region, they will starve the palestinians of money till they learn that Negotiations are the only means to reclaim back their land & their state, & not by futile fighting, suicide bombings & vile rhetoric. (Comment this)

6 - Is it basically a question of mutual paranoia: Who is trying to push whom into the sea? The Hamas charter is used as an argument to say it is Hamas who wants to push the Israelis out into the Mediterranean. What is the validity of this argument? These passages in the charter are high religious retoric. There is nothing concrete.

On the other hand Israel has built the wall. So the Israelis have actually done something concrete to push the other one around. Israel is clearly the stronger - much the stronger - of the two. So if you take the humanitarian point of view and want to support the little guy, there is a good argument for giving money to Hamas.

The EU does not give the money out of blue-eyed humanitarianism. They do it to alleviate tension and in order not to isolate Hamas completely, so the organisation may turn to other forces for assistance. The US ought to do the same. (Comment this)

7 - Hamas is going to reposition itself as a political movement that will take over governmental responsibility. That will probably lead to new political signals from the organisation. Otherwise it cannot shoulder the task. (Comment this)

8 - Andrew, there have always been Jews in Palestine. Heck, I'm Syrian and there is a minority of Jews in Syria. Yemen has a quite large Jewish minority there as well. If we want to "drive the Jews to the sea" we would have done in our own lands using the same method the Christian inquisition did. We DO however want to drive the Zionists to the sea or wherever the hell they came from (Europe, North America, Russia, etc.). Israel has absolutly no right to exist, and I wont reply to you if you're excuse for Israel is that it was their land a million years ago.

Strange Attractor: I agree that the Palestinian Authority has always been VERY VERY corrupt, just like all other Arab leadership. However the PA has always been under Arafat, I think you should give Hamas a chance. After all, they ARE the ONLY Arab leadership that the people actually elected. I do think there is a reason why the Palestinians want Hamas. (Comment this)

9 - If Israel 'doesn't have the right to exist' what does that mean? It's okay to make them leave? (Comment this)

10 - "Is it basically a question of mutual paranoia: Who is trying to push whom into the sea? The Hamas charter is used as an argument to say it is Hamas who wants to push the Israelis out into the Mediterranean. What is the validity of this argument? These passages in the charter are high religious retoric. There is nothing concrete."

In that case any further confusion could easily be avoided if Hamas merely change their charter.

I do consider several Arab attacks and continuing terrorism something "concrete". Hamas want to continue the original Arab position. Is that not concrete enough?

"On the other hand Israel has built the wall. So the Israelis have actually done something concrete to push the other one around. Israel is clearly the stronger - much the stronger - of the two."

Israel is the stronger NOW. But it is a fallacy to assume that this means that Hamas is now right because of that. The "wall" was built because of terrorism (inconcrete such, presumably). It was an Arab choice. They could have adhered to the peace treaty, they decided not to. The fence is there to deal with that problem.


"So if you take the humanitarian point of view and want to support the little guy, there is a good argument for giving money to Hamas."

It is NOT the humanitarian point of view to support the "little guy". Israel managed to survive many an attack. And yes that makes the attacker weaker over time. But it is not very "humanitarian" to prop him up again.


"Andrew, there have always been Jews in Palestine. Heck, I'm Syrian and there is a minority of Jews in Syria. Yemen has a quite large Jewish minority there as well. If we want to "drive the Jews to the sea" we would have done in our own lands using the same method the Christian inquisition did."

You have. Most Jews in Arab countries were treated like second-class citizens or worse for hundreds of years. Once they had the option to move to their own country, they did. Many were slaughtered or expelled. All of them lost their property. None of them were even recognized as refugees by the UN or compensated by the governments responsible.


"We DO however want to drive the Zionists to the sea or wherever the hell they came from (Europe, North America, Russia, etc.). Israel has absolutly no right to exist, and I wont reply to you if you're excuse for Israel is that it was their land a million years ago."

What about the "Zionists" who came from Arab countries, i.e. half the Jewish population of Israel? Do you specifically exempt them or will you drive them to America as well? What about the sons and daughters of mixed (European/Arab Jewish) marriages? Will they be allows to live under Arab rule or will they have to leave? And do you recognise what living under Arab rule means for a non-Arab minority? (Comment this)

11 - "I do think there is a reason why the Palestinians want Hamas."

Yes, I fear there is. (Comment this)

12 - Abd ul-Rahman Hilmi,

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/syrianjews.html

"In 1944, after Syria gained independence from France, the new government prohibited Jewish immigration to Palestine, and severely restricted the teaching of Hebrew in Jewish schools. Attacks against Jews escalated, and boycotts were called against their businesses."

"When partition was declared in 1947, Arab mobs in Aleppo devastated the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. Scores of Jews were killed and more than 200 homes, shops and synagogues were destroyed. Thousands of Jews illegally fled Syria to go to Israel."

"Jews were not allowed to work for the government or banks, could not acquire telephones or driver's licenses, and were barred from buying property. Jewish bank accounts were frozen. An airport road was paved over the Jewish cemetery in Damascus; Jewish schools were closed and handed over to Muslims."

"For years, the Jews in Syria lived in extreme fear. The Jewish Quarter in Damascus was under the constant surveillance of the secret police, who were present at synagogue services, weddings, bar-mitzvahs and other Jewish gatherings."

This is what Jewish life is like under Arab rule. It only changed because of American pressure. Apparently your Jewish community is now less than 100 people.

You can blame Israel for this, but then you admit than Jews are not safe in Arab countries as long as their governments are angry at something outside their countries.

In view of this, I find it rather sarcastic of you to refer to the Jewish minority (100 survivors) as an example of how Jews can live without Israel. There might me many arguments against Israel's existence, but this is not a very good one.

You should also note that before Israel was founded Jews BOUGHT the land in Palestine they settled on. This is what you oppose: Jews buying land and Arabs selling it to them. There is nothing sinister or evil about it.

After Israel was founded the Arabs living in it had the right to vote and COULD have been friendly. But they decided to listen to their brethren and leave for the attack that would give Palestine "back" to them. You lost. Why should Jews have to live among a hostile population? (Comment this)

13 - NICK: "If Israel 'doesn't have the right to exist' what does that mean? It's okay to make them leave?"

As far as I'm concerned, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and other countries, have more right to the land than the Zionists do.

ANDREW:You have. Most Jews in Arab countries were treated like second-class citizens or worse for hundreds of years. Once they had the option to move to their own country, they did. Many were slaughtered or expelled. All of them lost their property. None of them were even recognized as refugees by the UN or compensated by the governments responsible.

In the Arab world, all citizens are treated like garbage no matter what faith you follow. I suppose Israel and the West likes to make it a big deal by taking a closer look at the Jewish suffering and claim that the Muslims live in harmony in comparision.

What about the "Zionists" who came from Arab countries, i.e. half the Jewish population of Israel? Do you specifically exempt them or will you drive them to America as well? What about the sons and daughters of mixed (European/Arab Jewish) marriages? Will they be allows to live under Arab rule or will they have to leave? And do you recognise what living under Arab rule means for a non-Arab minority?

For Arab Zionists, I'd imagine they would be tried for treason, after all, they did support an invading army. As for children of mixed marriages, as I said, we have no problem with the Jews. I do know that there are a few Egyptians who got married to Israeli women. I suppose it would put the Israeli side of the family as Egyptian in this case. My main concern is that anyone who is living in a land that was owned previously by Palestinian family who now is living as refugees SHOULD be removed and the land given to their rightful owners. Read the first couple of chapters in Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation. Robert Fisk actually meet with Palestinian families who can prove that their families owned the land during the first world war. They actually have kept Ottoman land ownership documents to prove their right to the lands that were taken away from them during the period. (Comment this)

14 - As for your quotes about Arabs oppressing Jews; your sources are very cute. Why don't you get George Bush to teach you about Islam while you're at it?

<i>You can blame Israel for this, but then you admit than Jews are not safe in Arab countries as long as their governments are angry at something outside their countries.</i>
when did I "admit" this?

<i>You should also note that before Israel was founded Jews BOUGHT the land in Palestine they settled on. This is what you oppose: Jews buying land and Arabs selling it to them. There is nothing sinister or evil about it.</i>
The Zionists tried to buy the land from the Ottoman khalif Abdul Hamid II, to which he replied the following:
<b>""Advise Dr. Herzl not to take any further steps in his project. I can not give away
a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic Nation.
The Islamic Nation that fought Jihad for the sake of this land and they have
watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the
Islamic Khalifah State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take
Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into
my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic
State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while
we are alive." - Sultan Abdul Hameed's refusal to see Theodor Herzl, founder of
the Zionist movement"</b>

<i>After Israel was founded the Arabs living in it had the right to vote and COULD have been friendly. But they decided to listen to their brethren and leave for the attack that would give Palestine "back" to them. You lost. Why should Jews have to live among a hostile population?</i>
During the first world war, the British government promised the Arabs their own independant Arabic caliphate if the Arabs supported the British against the Ottomans. Unfortunatly, we believed the British and carried out the Arab Revolution. Not long afterwards, however, the British made their Balfour Decleration where Palestine was promised to the Jews. After the first world war was over, far from keeping their promise, the European powers divided the Muslim lands into about 50 different states, each ruled under a mandate of a different European power and Palestine given to the Jews. Now tell me, after all this, why resistance is not acceptable. (Comment this)

15 - sorry for the codes, I thought it would work to make things go bold or italic. (Comment this)

16 - "Now tell me, after all this, why resistance is not acceptable."

Because "resistance" is not the same as bombing kindergartens.

And because Jews have to live SOMEWHERE, and certainly not in Syria (and you know why).

I don't care if a Turkish dictator believed that Palestine should be Muslim land or not. What kind of argument is that anyway? Once somebody else ruled the land (the British) they made a different decision. Why is the one more legitimate than the other?

You said nothing about my comments about Jewish life in Arab countries.

Your "resistance", if successful, will cost the lives of millions. Thank G-d Israel is strong enough to defend the last country with a significant Jewish population in the middle east.

Arabs have enough Jew-free countries. I don't see how adding one more to their number would solve anything. But it would cause millions of refugees, and they would not simply have to move a few miles to live among their own, they would have to live among strangers again.

You treated and treat the Jews and other minorities very badly. And I don't mean like the evil Israelis treat Israeli Arabs. I mean REALLY badly.

At some point Arab dictatorships will lose control over all the minorities. Better get used to it now. The Kurds will be next. (Comment this)

17 - abdul rahman hilmi
you say [Israel has absolutly no right to exist] so who has the right to exist? any country that you approve of according to your own rules??
when was Syria called Syria? Egypt was always called Egypt as far back as history goes, but what about saudia arabia, emirates, Jordan & kuwait? do they have a right to exist too? these names did not exist a few centuries ago, The British empire created Transjordan after cutting it from Palestine, then accordingly to your hollow rhetoric it has no right to exist too. But you will argue that its own population are indigenous rather than immigrants, so its a matter of racial population where muslims are welcome but christians or jews no.
What do you think Syrians are? arabian peninsula arabs? Syrians have been mixed with Turks, mongols, arabs & europeans to mention a few, what made syrians legitimate?
No one used the word Syria untill recently as it was part of what was simply called, the Levant.
You say [My main concern is that anyone who is living in a land that was owned previously by Palestinian family who now is living as refugees SHOULD be removed and the land given to their rightful owners. ]
then shouldnt jordanians be asked to give the land back to palestinians? Sure jordan has a large palestinians population but they dont own the land, do they?
Abdul rahman, you talk about muslim countries when there isnt such an entity to start with, there is no such thing as a muslim country or a christian country or a jewish country, you are mixing nations with religion just to stir emotions & in the end its pathetic & useless.
There is no Islamic khalifa nor Islamic state as the one youhave in your head, you seem to think that there was once an Islamic state somewhere in history, well for your information, there was not.
You sound fanatical & racist & islam has nothing to do with your type. (Comment this)

18 - ANDREW: "Because "resistance" is not the same as bombing kindergartens."

I have never supported such innocent killings. I do realise that Hamas might have some innocent blood on their hands, but if you are coming to me with an argument saying that Hamas should not be supported because they are killing innocent civilians, then until you lay that judgment on Israel who have just as much innocent blood if not more on their hands, I'm going to say 'support Hamas'. If one terrorist is going to be financed by the west (the US alone gives Israel 3 billion USD annually), then you're certainly not allowed to ban aid to another terrorist and claim to be in search of peace at the same time.

"And because Jews have to live SOMEWHERE, and certainly not in Syria (and you know why)."
I believe Ahmedinjad, the Iranian president, gave the most suitable solution. If you're so worried and care so much about the Jews, then why the hell don't YOU give them your land? If the Jews need a Jewish homeland because of the holocaust, then why punish the Palestinians when it was carried out by the Germans under German occupation and supervision? I am not against giving the Jews a homeland, I am against them taking my home and making it theirs. The only excuse I have ever heard that actually makes sense is that the Jews lived in the land of Palestine several thousand years ago. Even though this is quite silly as you might as well give the red Indians their homeland back, I will go along with it. First of all it was the Assyrians and then the Romans that destroyed their kingdom and disperssed the Jews. So yet again, it's not our fault. The Muslim army took Jerusalem from the Romans and not the Jews. I can't believe I'm even arguing this as it's so unbelievable silly argument. Give me one good reason, just one good reason why Israel should exist in Palestine.

If you give, say, the state of New York for the Jews you will solve the whole problem. a)New York has alot of Jews anyway. b)The state will be surrounded by it's allies and we would stop hearing all their whinning about "Muslim terrorists this and Muslim terrorists that", and c)The Palestinian refugee problem will be finally solved after more than 50 years and finally d)we might even start getting better Muslim/Jewish relationship. All these benefits, all these solutions and everyone is happy.

"I don't care if a Turkish dictator believed that Palestine should be Muslim land or not. What kind of argument is that anyway? Once somebody else ruled the land (the British) they made a different decision. Why is the one more legitimate than the other?"
I quoted Abdul Hamid II's letter in reply to you saying that the Jews bought Palestine from the Palestinians. That never happened. They tried buying it from the caliph Abdul Hamid II but he refused. They DID buy land over there, but it certainly was not the whole of Palestine neither any where as large as today's State of Israel. And yet, even if they DID buy the land, does that give them an excuse to create a state within a state? So if I buy a plot of land in the UK, can I impose my own laws on it and create an army in it?

About the British ruling the land, you missed the point. There was what you can call a contract between the Arabs and the British. We waged the Arab revolution against the Ottoman with the help of the British agent Lawrence "of Arabia" and they will in return grant us an independant Arab caliphate. The broke their promise and we retaliated, how is it that we are wronge now?

"You said nothing about my comments about Jewish life in Arab countries."
I did. You got your sources from "Jewish Library.com". Do you honestly think that you will get a fair analysis of Jewish life in the Arab world from there? If I wanted to learn about Judism, who should I ask? Adolf Hitler?

"Your "resistance", if successful, will cost the lives of millions. Thank G-d Israel is strong enough to defend the last country with a significant Jewish population in the middle east."
The last country? As if you had so much land and we Muslims ate it up one after the other until Israel is all what's left. The only reason there is a significant Jewish population in Israel is because you came in hordes in the early 90s on ships from Europe under British military protection.

"Arabs have enough Jew-free countries. I don't see how adding one more to their number would solve anything. But it would cause millions of refugees, and they would not simply have to move a few miles to live among their own, they would have to live among strangers again."
Jew-free countries? Seriously you should examine your sources. Almost every single Arab country (probably except Saudi Arabia) has a Jewish minority. I was searching for Jewish prosecution in Arab countries on Human Rights Watch website and Amnesty International's website and found absolutly nothing. You are free to make your own search in those and any similar UNBIASED AND NEUTRAL sites. I found the following two links:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-05.htm
if you scroll down you will find the section on the Jews of Iran. Nothing much said. Actually, there is more said about Sunni Muslims being persecuted in Iran than Jews. And that's supposedly THE most anti-semetic country in the world.

I found also this on HRW:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/WR94/Middle-10.htm
But yet again, it shows more persecution from the Syrian government on the Palestinians and Kurds than Jews. So yet again, the Jews have absolutly nothing to whine about in Arab lands as they are not picked on in particular. The Arab dictators persecute Muslims just as much if not more than the Jews.

About the Jewish immegration, I'm not surprised. If an Islamic homeland was established somewhere in the world that promised me a plot of land, home, job and a governmental salary, heck, I would go there myself and leave everything behind.

"You treated and treat the Jews and other minorities very badly. And I don't mean like the evil Israelis treat Israeli Arabs. I mean REALLY badly."
Me? The Arab governments do. And you said it yourself, they treat other minorities very badly and not only minorities, they treat ALL their subjects badly. Although I have to say, as much as i hate the Arab regimes, it will be a huge exageration to say that they treat their subjects as bad as Israel treats the Palestinians.

Just typing the word "Israel" in the HRW search engine and you get all this:
http://www.google.com/search?domains=hrw.org&sitesearch=www.hrw.org&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=israel&GO.x=0&GO.y=0
Amnesty?
http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng


ALIENKAIN:
I completely agree with you. Like I said before, the consequence of us allying ourselves with the British during the Great War is the creation of all these petty states and statelets. Heck, just read this:

"And of all the artificial countries created by the victorious European powers who drew arbitrary lines on maps after World War I, none was more artificial than the tiny, poor, lawless leftover patch of desert that would become Jordan.
Even the flag was artificial. The green, red, white and black banner that fluttered over Arab raiders led by the Hashemite family against the Ottoman empire -- the basis for today's flags of Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization -- was designed by a British Foreign Service officer named Sir Mark Sykes and produced by his army's supply shop in Cairo."
- Building Modernity on Desert Mirages by JOHN KIFNER

So no, I do not believe that these creations of the European colonialists have any right to exist in their present form. All the Arab regimes are dictatorial and tyrannical and very few Arabs would disagree with me. As you said, these Arab states never existed before the first world war as we have all been part of a greater Islamic caliphate.

"Abdul rahman, you talk about muslim countries when there isnt such an entity to start with, there is no such thing as a muslim country or a christian country or a jewish country, you are mixing nations with religion just to stir emotions & in the end its pathetic & useless."
What's the difference between a Muslim country and an Islamic country? As far as I know, a Muslim country is a country with a Muslim majority. An Islamic country is a country that rules by Islamic law. Likewise with Christian and Jewish. I have always used such labels in my arguments and you are the first to point out that you didn't understand what I meant. But now you do.

"There is no Islamic khalifa nor Islamic state as the one youhave in your head, you seem to think that there was once an Islamic state somewhere in history, well for your information, there was not."
There is indeed no Islamic Khilafah nor state, however there have been one in the past and it will come back again in the future. As long as there are Muslims there will be people working to what the Prophet said and this is what Muhammad (s) said:

Hudhaifah (raa) has said that the Prophet (saws) said "The prophethood (meaning Muhammad (SAW) himself) will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then when Allah wills he will raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then when Allah wills he will raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of the oppressive [The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust] rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then when Allah wills he will raise it up. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood" and then the Prophet (saws) remained silent. (Comment this)

19 - "I have never supported such innocent killings. I do realise that Hamas might have some innocent blood on their hands, but if you are coming to me with an argument saying that Hamas should not be supported because they are killing innocent civilians, then until you lay that judgment on Israel who have just as much innocent blood if not more on their hands,"

So what exactly is the "resistance" you are talking about? What have Hamas done other than kill civilians?

BTW your remark about Israel is a lie. Israel does not specifically target civilians. They target terrorists. Terrorists hide among civilians and civilians get hurt, but you can blame the terrorists for that. If Israeli soldiers hid in Jewish kindergardens, then we'd be on the same level.


"I have never supported such innocent killings. I do realise that Hamas might have some innocent blood on their hands, but if you are coming to me with an argument saying that Hamas should not be supported because they are killing innocent civilians, then until you lay that judgment on Israel who have just as much innocent blood if not more on their hands,"

I didn't say anything about the holocaust. The holocaust has nothing to with this. Jews already live in Germany. But in contrast to Arab countries Germany allows Jews as normal citizens, with the right to vote and the full protection of the law. Jews do not need their own country in Europe, because Jews can live in any country in Europe without being subject to (official) discrimination.

If the same could be said about the Arab world, there would be no need for an Israel.


" The only excuse I have ever heard that actually makes sense is that the Jews lived in the land of Palestine several thousand years ago"

That's a lie. I told you about the Arab treatment of Jews in Arab countries. I told you that that was a reason for Jews to have their own country. The fact that you might disagree with that being a good reason doesn't mean that you have never heard of it.

_I_ didn't mention the holocaust, _you_ did. _I_ didn't mention the historical connection between the Jewish people and the region, _you_ did. So please stop refuting arguments I have not made.

The only justification for Israel's existence I gave you is that Jews cannot live anywhere else in the middle east. Disagree with that or not, but don't change the subject and don't argue with what I haven't said. It's the fallacy of the straw man, attacking a different argument.

And if you find it acceptable for middle-eastern Jews to move to Europe (a land they have no connection with whatsoever), I don't understand why you don't find it acceptable for Palestinian Arabs to move to other Arab countries a few miles from their previous home.

The fact is that Jews bought land in Palestine, legally and without forcing anybody to sell, and than founded a country. And if the Arabs had not attacked it, nobody would have been hurt.


"I quoted Abdul Hamid II's letter in reply to you saying that the Jews bought Palestine from the Palestinians. That never happened."

You are right. It never happened. I never said that the Jews bought Palestine from the Palestinians. I would never use the term "Palestinian" to refer to only Arab inhabitants of Palestine and I spoke of individual Jews and Jewish agencies who bought land from individual Arabs. And THAT, my friend, DID happen.

And your "resistance" is more than willing to murder thousands just to undo it, because obviously Jews have no right to buy land in Palestine.


"Seriously you should examine your sources. Almost every single Arab country (probably except Saudi Arabia) has a Jewish minority."

Yes. Like 100 Jews in Syria. Did you even read the article I quoted to you?


"I was searching for Jewish prosecution in Arab countries on Human Rights Watch website and Amnesty International's website and found absolutly nothing."

That doesn't surprise me. If you type "Jews" into their search engine you will probably find lots of evil things Jews did but not a single mention of what, say, Syria did to the Jews. And you will probably believe that this "proves" that the Jews are evil and Syria is not.


"Although I have to say, as much as i hate the Arab regimes, it will be a huge exageration to say that they treat their subjects as bad as Israel treats the Palestinians."

So I take it you didn't read the article I pointed you to. If you refuse to learn, how can you continue to argue?


All the "Palestinians" have to do is accept peace. If only it was as easy for Jews!


As for Germany's role in all this, which is something you mentioned, and not I, I find the comparison interesting. Because millions of Germans were expelled from parts of Germany that are now Poland and they DID NOT and DO NOT attack Polish civilians. So apparently that is possible.

I can tell you that if Germans would start attacking Polish civilians, I would be completely opposed to their doing. And I would not call it "resistance". All of what is now Poland was once Germany and Russia. Things change.

The "Palestinians" could have lived in peace with the Jews. They ALWAYS had the option. The Israelis didn't start the conflict. The Arabs chose not to live in peace with the Jews. And that's why the conflict is the Arabs' fault.

You can continue the conflict and more innocent people on both sides will die. But the Jews have accepted every single peace proposal put in place.

In 1947 Israel would only have been the land that the Jews actually bought. After the first Arab attack it was more. After the next Arab attack it was more again. Israel will grow as often as Arabs attack. When will you realise that? (Comment this)

20 - "I believe Ahmedinjad, the Iranian president, gave the most suitable solution. If you're so worried and care so much about the Jews, then why the hell don't YOU give them your land?"

We did. Jews live here. Jews vote here. Jews are allowed to buy property here.

I'm afraid that many Arabs believe that the Iranian president gave the most "suitable solution".

Force the Jews to leave the Arab world and/or nuke the lot.

Very good solution indeed. This should finally solve the problem.

(We tried it here in Europe. It didn't work. The Americans bombed the living daylights out of us for trying!)

Arabs being forced to move to another Arab country: proof for Israel's evil.

Jews being forced to move to another continent: suitable solution.

I get it now.

BTW, do you have any primary sources for Arabs being expelled from Israel BEFORE the first Arab attacks? (Comment this)

21 - "And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" (Comment this)

22 - a)I said more than five times already, I'm not going to waste my time reading websites such as the "jewishlibrary.com" as I do know what to expect from there without going. In contrast, I gave you an opposing opinion from an internationally known organisation that is accepted for being neutral and unbiased.

b)you think the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and probably every single peace keeping and charity organisation is biased (after all, we have all heard of what happened to Rachel Corrie). It seems the only time they are unbiased is when they agree with you.

c)You refuse to reply to more than half of my post and only reply to a small section. For example, how Israel's creation is based on deciet and betrayal. You simply skipped that part.

d)Even though I said several times that our problem is with Zionists whatever religion they follow, you insist on saying that I want to "Force the Jews to leave the Arab world and/or nuke the lot."

e)So your excuse for the creation of Israel is that they are prosecuted in the Arab world? To reply to that I'm going to use your own Jewish sites, as biased and more advantagous that could possibly be to you, I would still prove you're talking nonsense.
According to this site:
http://www.adl.org/Israel/Record/immigration-to-48.asp
About 25,000 Jews entered Palestine, ALL from Europe. This was before the first world war. After that, a group (no number has been given) of Jews from Yemen came. In 1945 about 40,000 Jews also came ALL FROM EUROPE.

Now this is only the early immegrations. From 1930 - 1995, according to this site:
http://www.adl.org/Israel/Record/immigration_since_30.asp
You should see on the left hand side of the page a column with how many Jews immegrated to Palestine during that period from different countries. I added the Arab countries together (and you can do the same [Morrocco, Algeria, Tunesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Yemen, Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan, Lybia and Syria]) and got the total as 796,706 Jews. As for all other countries (ie, Europe, Russia, US, South America, India and South Africa) and got a total of 1,600,384 Jews. In other words, only about 33% of the Jewish immegrants from 1930-1995 are actually from Arab countries. ALL the rest are from non-Arab, non-Muslim countries. As for before 1930, according to the article, the only major Arab immegration was from Yemen and the author didn't bother to give any numbers. ALL the other immerants are from the non-Arab, non-Muslim countries. So to tell me that the state of Israel has been created to save the Arab Jews is the biggest load of nonsense I have heard in my life. About 70% of the immegrants are from non-Arab countries.

As for primary sources, I have already mentioned. Rober Fisk's Pity the Nation. However, Robert Fisk received Amnesty International UK Press Awards in 1998 and again 2000. He also received the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year seven times, and twice won its "Reporter of the Year" award (The Times, December 15 1987, "Times reporter wins award"). So in your standards, he's VERY biased. (Comment this)

23 - Look,
Israel was occupied by the Caanites, then the Jews conquered them, then the Babyloneans,then the Romans,Then Arabs, Then Jews again.Big Boo-Hoo. If you can reconquer it, have at it. Don't expect Christians and Jews to pay to have it done. (Comment this)

24 - Thank you very much. That's all what I wanted to hear. We have a right over that land and any resistance to Zionist occupation is valid. (Comment this)

25 - Good luck,
You haven't accomplished much in the last 50 years. (Comment this)

26 - "We have a right over that land and any resistance to Zionist occupation is valid."

Good luck, if you don't mind going to hell.

The Qur'an is pretty clear about who owns that land, about who you are not allowed to kill, and that suicide is a sin.

Are you not the least bit worried that this Palestinian death cult that you seem to call "resistance" will slowly transform a once great religion and culture into the laughing stock of the world?

You are fighting the Jews, you are fighting the British, you are fighting the Americans, and you are fighting G-d. Why do you think you can win? And what will be the glory in the victory? (Comment this)

27 - i find it an interesting point that zionists are not just jews and zionism is the policy to further the isreali state.
personally i dont like isreal, i have heard so much evil things that isreal has been up to - Israel seems to have a stake in unethical activities around the world.
e.g exporting torture techniques to iraq and cuba, white slave trade, etc.
It seems the strength of israel lies in the hands of the muslim nation - i.e it is just a perception built up by the leaders within the states around it.
The friendship israel has in the west is not loyal and is driven by interest - this interest could slide in other directions. (Comment this)

28 - dear andrew,
the resistence is against an occupation - the occupation is a tragedy. i dont think you can laugh at islam for this resistance. Either way the resistence itself is a win-win. (Comment this)

29 - dear andrew,
the resistence is against an occupation - the occupation is a tragedy. i dont think you can laugh at islam for this resistance. Either way the resistence itself is a win-win. (Comment this)

30 - "personally i dont like isreal, i have heard so much evil things that isreal has been up to - Israel seems to have a stake in unethical activities around the world. e.g exporting torture techniques to iraq and cuba, white slave trade, etc."

Exporting torture techniques to Iraq and Cuba? That's, to be honest, like like taking owls to Athens.

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac36owl.html

Be serious. "white slave trade"? When has Israel ever been involved in slave trade? And what exactly is "white" slave trade?

You will have to get used to the fact that what you heard about Israel is utter rubbish. And if you don't like Israel because of that, I suggest you stop listening to whoever told you that nonsense and go look for better sources. Someone was out to make you look like a big idiot, and if I were you, I wouldn't stand for it.


"the resistence is against an occupation - the occupation is a tragedy."

I'm not talking about a "resistance". I am talking about the Palestinian death cult. Killing children and attacking supermarkets is not "resistance" (unless you are resisting children or supermarkets).

The occupation is a tragedy, indeed. And that is precisely why Arab Palestinians should stop giving Israel no choice but to tightly control them. Israel has no choice in the matter.


"i dont think you can laugh at islam for this resistance."

If it wasn't so sad for all these people who have to die because they believe that committing suicide is is a ticket to heaven if only they kill a few Jews during the act, it would be a reason to laugh at Islam. A religion that teaches people to violate its own rules in the most violent ways possible IS a joke.


"Either way the resistence itself is a win-win."

If you consider thousands of dead Arab Palestinians and hundred of dead Jews a good thing, then, yes, the "resistance" is a "win-win".

But otherwise the "resistance" is the sad reason to keep occupying the Arab part of Palestine. If that is what you want, support the "resistance".

In that case the war will end once Israel has killed all the terrorists or once the terrorists have killed all Jewish children.

How's that for a "win-win"? (Comment this)

31 - dear andrew,
because isreal is a better killer, it dont mean that the resistance to the occupation should not continue.

resistence to occupation is not about killing jewish children and describing palestinians as terrorists. Infact Isrealis have and are able to have holidays whilst Palistinians with their children live in fear and deprivation.

As you point out isreal kills thousands of palistinians - these thousands of palistinians can not have killed hundreds isrealis (is it taking many arabs to kill one israeli?) - hence israel (taking reality into context) is the one with the terrorist force killing indiscrimantly.

I suppose if the palestinians had guns that could reach the isreali target - they wouldn't make their body into an exploding weapon - one could view their objective as not to kill themselves but to reach their targets.

The best defence isreal has are the countries and leaders that surround it and western support for isreal is based on interest.
I hope that i dont offend you in any way.
regards (Comment this)

32 - "because isreal is a better killer, it dont mean that the resistance to the occupation should not continue."

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say anything about Israel being the better killer nor did I say that the "resistance" should not continue because of that.

I guess everyone has to make their point as intelligently as they can, but why resort to making up stuff?

What I did say was that what you call "resistance" is no resistance but the simple murder of civilians and children. And it should stop because it is a loss for everybody, particularly for Muslims and Islam.

The occupation is Israel's best protection against further attacks from the territories. Take away the threat, and Israel has no reason to keep an expensive occupation ongoing. Israel doesn't make a profit here, you know.

But if Palestinian Arabs continue to attack Israel, Israel is forced to continue the occupation.

Palestinian Arabs want Israel to give them what their fellow Arabs did not grant them; independence. They are right in assuming that Israel is their chance to become independent. They are wrong in assuming that continuing the attacks on Israel will convince Israel to withdraw.

Israel has a choice between the pre-1968 war scenario and the occupation. They chose occupation, because they wanted to survive. Give them a third option, and they will take it.

But Arab attacks on Israeli civilians is NOT entirely convincing. It merely backs up the Israeli right-wing's claims that Arabs still want to get rid of all the Jews.

Go ahead and play into their hands. I am right-wing myself, but I don't want to see Jewish extremists to be in power. If you do, support the attacks. It's your choice. It's everybody's choice. Choose life or death. (Comment this)

33 - Juhel;

The difference is that the Isrealis, in the majority of cases, do not aim for civilians. The civilians get caught in the crossfire or happen to be in the area when the Israelis lob a rocket at a militant. The Palestinian “resistance”, however, makes civilians their TARGET.

By doing that, the Palestinians lose the moral high ground.

The Palestinians need to make a better case for themselves than blowing up their young men and cutting out the body organs of freshly killed Israeli soldiers, then marching through the streets, holding them up like trophies. Those tactics are inexcusable and revolting, and they are causing the Palestinians to lose sympathy from the rest of the world. They are also causing people to associate Islam with violence and terrorism, as so famously demonstrated by certain cartoons in Denmark. (Comment this)

34 - Strange Atractor
You are right, but dont you feel that palestinian resistance deliberately hide in civilian areas, heavily populated at times, so if they are targeted, civilians die with them & so embarass the israelis further?
Isnt the way that the palestinian militans been conducting their struggle resembles a tit for tat gangster wars rather than a fight for their freedom?
 (Comment this)

35 - "rather than a fight for their freedom?"

Of course not. The "resistance" is not about freedom. The last thing people like Hamas want is freedom for anybody.

Before the occupation, "Palestine" was not free either. It was simply ruled by Egypt and Jordan. The only way Arab Palestinians can be free is if and when Israel decides to give them freedom.

I don't see that happening unless the "resistance" stops and Israel has reason to believe that a free Palestine is not the same threat as a Jordanian and Egyptian Palestine or a greater threat than an occupied Palestine.

If you occupied a territory which was used for staging attacks to eliminate you and continues to be used to attack your children, would you grant these people independence? (Comment this)

36 - Dear Andrew,

You seem to dismiss the purpose of the resistance in Palestine by the palistinian people whose land has been occupied illegally by a terrorist state.

This is clearly a resistance to liberate the land, from an occupying force known as Israel - i'd like to add Evil Israel as that is how i view Israel with her domestic and foreign policy.

Resistance is a legitimate activity so it can not stop, however occupation which is an illegal activity could stop - the position is more flexible.

Resistance is not about eliminating jews - its about removing the occupiers, a state known as Israel.
Israel came into existence in 1940, why displace the arabs? How do you justify its creation? dont give me a web link, just your thaughts.

It is funny that you use the term 'granting independence' when you discuss the removal of the illegal occupation by israel. Is the Israeli power sustainable? demography, water, etc.
take care
juhel (Comment this)

37 - "You seem to dismiss the purpose of the resistance in Palestine by the palistinian people whose land has been occupied illegally by a terrorist state."

I didn't say that Israel was a terrorist state nor have I ever said that the occupation is illegal. You can thus be sure that I am not "dismussing" that possibility.


"Resistance is not about eliminating jews - its about removing the occupiers, a state known as Israel."

If "resistance" is not about eliminating Jews, tell Hamas to do the following:

1. Remove the relevant parts from their charta.

2. Don't kill Jewish civilians. Target military installations instead.

3. Don't pretend that a "resistance" that violates a peace agreement is "legitimate".


"Resistance is a legitimate activity so it can not stop, however occupation which is an illegal activity could stop - the position is more flexible."

Your grasp of international law is wanting. Occupation is NOT an illegal activity. I grew up in an occupied territory, for goodness' sake. However, "resistance" in the form of attacking civilians _IS_ illegal.

There was already a time when Israel didn't occupy "Palestine", and then the territory was used to attack Israel. You can bet that Israel's position is not very flexible at all, when the choice is between occupation and constant Arab attacks.


"Israel came into existence in 1940, why displace the arabs? How do you justify its creation?"

I told here before how I justify Israel's creation. Jews needed a country of their own. Why "Palestinians" don't understand that is a bit of a mystery to me. I would have thought that they would understand why Jews wouldn't want to live as second-class citizens under non-Jews.

If you take a look around and realise how Arab countries treat minorities in general and Jews in particular, it is not difficult to see why Jews would want, would need their own country; a country they can defend against Arab aggression.

If Sudanese Christians and Iraqi Kurds had had their own countries and were able to defend them against Arab nationalists, don't you think they would have suffered fewer genocides? I think the same is true for Jews and Israel.


But answer me this: how come the "resistance" already manifested itself with attacks against Jews and a boycott of Jewish businesses long before Israel was created?

And if Israel would end the occupation, who would guarantee that Arabs won't attack from Gaza and the West Bank any more, like they constantly did before 1968? Hamas? You would have to be kidding. (Comment this)

38 - Dear Andrew,
written by Andrew:---------------------------
Jews needed a country of their own. Why "Palestinians" don't understand that is a bit of a mystery to me. I would have thought that they would understand why Jews wouldn't want to live as second-class citizens under non-Jews.
---------------------------
So why do you think its' ok to create Israel out of palestinian land? Do you think its ok to take something that does not belong to you? Do you think it is ok for a community in Europe or America to give away land that does not belong to them inorder for the creation of Israel?

Please now have a think why palestinians and muslims in general are not happy with it. I would be impressed if you can demonstrate good understanding here.

You may not have called Israel a terrorist state but many do.
Arab countries treat minorities badly because of the system and the culturing in place. Nationalism is a key factor that produces such racism.

The state of israel is a barrier to peace, tranquility and security for all zionists.

You seem to think israels occupation is not illegal - it has broken international laws. breaking laws is illegal.

if you are here to insult and not understand then you can please continue with style you have been using..
Otherwise lets try to understand each and demosntrate our understanding - we might get further. (Comment this)

39 - "So why do you think its' ok to create Israel out of palestinian land? Do you think its ok to take something that does not belong to you? Do you think it is ok for a community in Europe or America to give away land that does not belong to them inorder for the creation of Israel?"

I never said that I believed that Palestine belonged specifically to its Arab inhabitants.

I believe it belonged to all Palestinians (all people who lived there), INCLUDING the Jews who bought the land.


"Please now have a think why palestinians and muslims in general are not happy with it. I would be impressed if you can demonstrate good understanding here."

"Palestinians" and Muslims were never happy with Jews living anywhere. That's not exactly news.


"You may not have called Israel a terrorist state but many do."

Many people are liars. Many people are anti-Semites. Many people think it's ok to call a Jew who defends his life a "terrorist" for it.

"Arab countries treat minorities badly because of the system and the culturing in place. Nationalism is a key factor that produces such racism."

True.


"The state of israel is a barrier to peace, tranquility and security for all zionists."

No. The state of Israel has been the last and best line of defence for middle-eastern Jews. Without Israel, they would be dead, like the Sudanese Christians and many Kurds.

But go ahead and make your case for your position. I would be interested.


"You seem to think israels occupation is not illegal - it has broken international laws. breaking laws is illegal."

I _know_ that Israel's occupation is not illegal. And I have told you before that international law does NOT say that occupation is illegal in general or in this case. Israel broke no law when they occupied Egyptian and Jordanian territory after being attacked by them.

You are clinging to a revisionist history.


"if you are here to insult and not understand then you can please continue with style you have been using..
Otherwise lets try to understand each and demosntrate our understanding - we might get further."

Further where? If you won't stop calling Jews terrorists for defending their country and keep pretending that occupation is somehow illegal by international law, where could we go?

You demonstrate no understanding at all. In fact you demonstrate ignorance by repeating over and over the same lies.

Understand a few facts:

1. Occupying enemy territory after winning a war is NOT illegal, not by international law, not by the Geneva Convention, not by any law that was ever in effect.

2. Killing civilians and children is NOT resistance, unless you specifically "resist" civilians and children (which is what I believe Hamas and Fatah are really doing and why I believe that Jews would not survive in the region without their own country).

3. Whatever it is that you call "resistance", it is NOT legitimate, because the Palestinian Authority have signed a treaty with Israel, which a) accepted Israeli souvereignty over the occupied territories until a final agreement has been reached and b) forbids "resistance" against Israeli rule, including "resistance" against Israel's civilians and, yes, even children.

So unless you want to argue that international law changes specifically for Jews and forbids only Israel to occupy territories won in a war, that all Jews are military targets, and that Arabs don't have to keep their word when dealing with Jews or Israel, I'm afraid you are totally and utterly wrong. (Comment this)

40 - it is quite pointless to discuss with you as you are fixed to your position and unable to empathise and understand those whose views are not in according to your interest. Truth and falsehood do not make a difference to you.

Andrew: ------
Occupying enemy territory after winning a war is NOT illegal, not by international law, not by the Geneva Convention, not by any law that was ever in effect.
----------
looking at your comments the following scenarios came to my mind:
[1]When Iraq invaded Quwait - it was illegal, a coalition came into existence under the backing of un to repel it.

[2] The American war currently in Iraq is considered to be an illegal occupation with the installation of puppet regime that provides a false impression of democracy.
----------


I suppose the death of palistinian civilians and children is collateral damage to you whilst the death of jewish children isn't. And like yourself i would also condemn the intentional or reckless killing of innocent jewish children. What is the death count of palistininan children at the hand of isreali to the jewish children at the hands of palistinians?

it is a joke that Israel signs a peace treaty with a corrupt and unrepresantative regime of yasser arafat and then calls it legitimate.

you seem to miss the point, being a jew is not the problem, the problem and the issue of debate is being an israeli.

regards
juhel (Comment this)

41 - chack this out from the UK Guardian website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1731851,00.html
 (Comment this)

42 - Juhel
actually the palestinian authority israel signed agreements with that you call corrupt & unrepresentative was in fact a Legal & democracticaly elected authority.
& in my opinion, it has nothing to do with being an Israeli, because 20% of Israelis are arabs, & the issue of debate is really about the many missed opportunities which palestinians failed to take advantage of to create a satte side by side with israel & there is also another aspect of the problem rarely discussed. (Comment this)

43 - Juhel;

You said "Do you think its ok to take something that does not belong to you? Do you think it is ok for a community in Europe or America to give away land that does not belong to them inorder for the creation of Israel?"

That's what happens in wars. The Ottomans lost WW1 and the Western victors got control of the land. So the land did belong to the Europeans and they did what they pleased with it. Right after a war, it's normal for borders to get shifted and for countries to gain and lose territory. Just ask Poland and Germany.

Best solution is for mankind to stop warring, but that's pie in the sky.
 (Comment this)

44 - Highly amusing, this blog in general and this thread in particular. Regarding the relevant bits of the Israeli-Arab conflict (as I do not regard Palestinians as anything but Arabs);

Jews have a claim to Israel both as an ethnicity and as a religion. Jews were and are targeted for being Jews all over the world - there is this little thing called anti-Semitism. It is extremely logical for Jews to desire to return to their ONLY homeland, namely Israel.

Unfortunately, from the POV of Islam, any land that was at any time considered Islamic belongs to Islam forever and ever. This includes Israel. Therefore Islam opposes Israel, the Jewish desire to return to Israel and make it Jewish (see Zionism) and, by extension, all Jews. Moreover, the war to retake a land that was once Islamic is Jihad, and in Jihad the end justifies the means. A pretty mix, yes? Especially when we note the proliferation of such best sellers as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "Mein Kampf" in the Muslim world...

Now, regarding the Israeli "atrocities", charges of "genocide", etc... the chief goal of Israel is survival. But Israel also happens to be extremely moral - too moral, perhaps - and thus exhibits what her enemies perceive as weakness. Namely, the use of ground troops, checkpoints and precision strikes when MLRS barrage or carpet bombing would have been much more efficient. Israeli troops die all the time so that Palestinians will not have to, in spite of the latter's professed hatered towards Israel, Jews and so on and so forth. IDF goes out of its way and does backflips to minimize harm to Arab population in the occupied territories. These are simple facts... and the rest is Media Jihad.

Oh, and regarding the treatment of Jews in Muslim lands... uhm... I, for one, would rather die than be a Dhimmi. Lucky me - Islamic states offer me just this option! Yippee! They are so accommodating! Let's make the Jews give up all their rights and accept the fabulous Dhimmitude Or Death option!

The ONLY solution for this whole mess is the modernization and secularization of the Muslim world. This is also the only solution for the Islamic problem in the general Western direction. And until that happens (if ever)... the security fence should do.

Good living to all.

The Raccoon

 (Comment this)

45 - Hey Zionist fool, you people are well known for being nazis of the world. Everybody know when you bombed the church of nativity and killed the priest and two monks. you are ruthless cowards. (Comment this)

46 - Israeli occupation= WORST FORM OF TERRORISM (Comment this)

47 - please refute the following.

Shocking Comparisons

These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for theWashington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.

As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.

But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.

It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.

Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.

Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.

Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.

Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.

By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi attrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.


 (Comment this)

48 - U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact
Summary
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630 Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240
 (Comment this)

49 - "U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact"

Isn't it great what a little friendship can do for a country? Just imagine what any Arab country could have done with the money! Or imagine what Israel could have done with the money if it wasn't forced to spend it on defence.

It's quite amazing. (Comment this)

50 - Andrew Brehm, I agree with you. People who are commenting here should go back and read history, not ancient history but the comparatively recent history of the region from the mid-1800s to the present. When Mark Twain visited there, he commented that the area that is disputed---Israel---was a deserted place with few inhabitants. Like many countries, Israel was established by resolutions and agreements, and yes, they bought the land. Every single border in the world was established similarly--by resolution to a conflict, by outright conquest, or by negotiations. What is different here is the hatred and anti-semitism. It is truly appalling. (Comment this)