It's All Morally Relative - End Support for Israel

9/29/01 | R. Alexander

[az4vlad]

It's All Morally Relative - End Support for Israel
An Analysis of the After Effects of the Terrorist Attack
by R. Alexander
September 19, 2001

Many of us were surprised to hear responses coming from both U.S.citizens and our so-called allies suggesting the U.S. somehow deserved the terrorist attack. With righteous moral indignation, these enlightened critics, suddenly experts on terrorism, lecture us, claiming "this would not have happened if the U.S. hadn't been intervening in the Middle East." This criticism is said with a straight face by Americans who see no problem driving an oversized SUV that gets 12 miles per gallon, while condemning the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1990 which assured them the continued use of their environmentally irresponsible gas guzzlers.

What angers Middle Eastern terrorists most about U.S. involvement in the Middle East is U.S. support of Israel. A 2001 State Department report on global terrorism stated that the goal of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization is to expel Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries and overthrow non-Islamic regimes. Without U.S. support, which includes money, weapons, and aircraft, most political and military analysts agree that Israel would cease to exist, or at best, disintegrate into tiny pockets. The U.S. gives aid to many of our allies to support democracy and protect our security interests throughout the world. Israel is just one of many democratic countries the U.S. believes is necessary to arm in order to protect our own security interests. There is strong evidence that Israel's cooperation in the "strategic consensus" against the former Soviet Union helped bring the Soviet Union down.

After the terrorist attack, it seems even more imperative to continue to protect our security interests by giving aid to Israel. Unfortunately, there are those who would conclude otherwise. The thousands of Americans killed in the attack has given critics of U.S. aid to Israel the chance they need to use people's emotions for their own political purposes. The terrorist attack is viewed by them as evidence the U.S. is supporting Israel to its detriment. There are already many signs that support for U.S. aid to Israel is dwindling. One is the prevalence of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism has long existed within the U.S. and subtly exists within its media. Although the Jewish lobby is powerful, anti-Semitic sentiments are deeply entrenched in society. The recent U.N. conference on racism, expected to be taken over by anti-Semitic discussion, resulted in the U.S. only sending a low-level delegation which walked out midway in protest. The conference adopted arguably anti-Semitic language criticizing Israel but not the Palestinians for hostile relations in Israel, ongoing evidence that the leadership in the rest of the world condones anti-Semitism and is pressuring the U.S. into withdrawing its support for Israel.

Standing up for Israel is much more difficult done all alone. The U.S. no longer enjoys a position of moral leadership in the world, as evidenced by its removal from the U.N. Human Rights Commission earlier this year. Instead, known human rights violators Libya, Syria, and the Sudan have been given seats on the Commission within the past two years. This strengthens the argument of moral relativists that the U.S.' position supporting Israel and stamping out terrorism is not necessarily any more morally defensible than the terrorists' position towards the U.S. and Israel.

Are the moral relativists right? Is the U.S.' democratic government, with its selfish security interest in Israel, no more morally correct than a terrorist? One obvious way to analyze the moral righteousness of a nation's government is to look at how it treats its own ethnic citizens. The U.S. is home to more nationalities than any other nation, yet its citizens live in peace alongside each other, unlike in many ethnically diverse nations. Arabs live next door to Jews. Arabs vote and campaign for Jewish candidates, and vice versa. A former Arab roommate of mine nonchalantly explained when we first met that she was Palestinian Christian, not Jewish, "but we're all pretty much the same thing." Ironically, since the U.S. is home to so many different nationalities, including many refugees who moved here to avoid ethnic strife in their own, undemocratic homelands, the terrorists not only killed "Americans" but killed Americans of Arab descent.

Eliminating support for Israel will be tempting to Congress. It will save taxpayers money (critics of U.S. aid to Israel generally fail to point out that the U.S. also sends large amounts of aid to Arab countries, particularly Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority). It will allow Congress to appear, in a morally relative way, as being "fair" to both Jews and Arabs. After all, superficially, it appears as if Israel and the Palestinians are both equally to blame for initiating bombing and terrorism in Israel. The U.S. media does a good job of presenting it this way. But which religion's holy book encourages killing by teaching that young men who are killed in the name of Allah are rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins to be their sex slaves, and are then allowed to invite 72 of their friends to join them in paradise and receive their own 72 virgins? Not to mention 28 pre-pubescent boys for their pleasures also. With values like these, it is understandable why the parents of terrorist suicide bombers celebrate their sons' deaths.

Last week's terrorist attacks have forever changed the geopolitical balance of power, but not in the way naïve U.S. conservatives hope for. Sadly, the world is not going to rally around the U.S. as the U.S. stamps out terrorism. Over the last decade, ever since the global threat of communism was eliminated with the fall of communism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, the U.S.' reputation as a unilateral superpower has all but disappeared. This is no doubt thanks to former President Clinton, whose foreign policy in the 1990's consisted of smiling and shaking hands with all types of world leaders at numerous accords, conferences, meetings, etc., desperately attempting to create a legacy, while accomplishing nothing but meaningless words on paper.

Under Clinton's leadership, America's response to terrorism has been weak. Afraid of another Vietnam, America under Clinton has been too afraid to commit its troops, afraid of the sight on TV of American troops being killed. When Bin Laden's al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, the U.S. retaliated with a paltry, unsuccessful attack on Iraq. When the al Qaeda killed American troops in Somalia in October of 1993, Clinton hurriedly pulled our troops out, sending a signal to the world that the U.S. would rather flee from terrorism than risk any American lives. In 1996, Bin Laden's organization bombed a U.S. housing complex in Saudi Arabia, with little ramification. Later that year, according to the State Department, Bin Laden issued a fatwa, or religious order that said, "it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens civilian or military and their allies everywhere." When Bin Laden bombed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the U.S. responded with a paltry missile assault on Bin Laden's training camp in Afghanistan and on a suspected chemical weapons plant in Sudan. Bin Laden's followers have been tied in the past to plots to assassinate former President Clinton and blow up American 747 airliners over the Pacific Ocean. His organization is considered responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last year. Yet there has been no serious effort by the U.S. to eradicate him or his followers, and U.S. retaliation has been no more than a slap on the hand.

The world watched as Clinton and the Democrats greatly reduced our military defense, smugly confident of our peacekeeping abilities. Just weeks ago, the liberal Reverend Al Sharpton, who is currently running for President, stated on Fox News for all the world to hear, "In a time that we no longer have a Cold War, there is no real threat to American security." The message the U.S. has sent the world in the last decade is that we are weak. The U.S. government is afraid of committing troops in another ghastly Vietnam quagmire, aware that hunting down Bin Laden and his numerous followers may end up as guerilla warfare in Afghanistan. Although most Americans are presently in favor of sending our troops to Afghanistan, as time goes by and Americans realize they will be sending their own sons and daughters, their fervor for retaliation will diminish. They will question why it is important to retaliate, and whether the U.S. should even be present in the Middle East. Inevitably, they will question U.S. aid to Israel.

Recently, conservatives and Christians in the U.S. have emerged as the strongest supporters of Israel, probably because of the recent leadership in Israel of hawkish, conservative former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This association of Christianity with Israel is an irritation to the current fad of enlightened, moral relativists in the U.S., who dislike Christianity because it has moral absolutes. The Bible commands, “Thou shalt not kill.” Since Christianity, as well as Judaism, teach that killing is wrong, their adherents are accused of being "intolerant" of other religions such as Islam, which is interpreted (probably incorrectly) by radical Muslims that killing in the name of Allah is a virtue. In our newly enlightened era of moral relativism, which pervades the halls of Congress as well as public opinion and the media, every viewpoint is equally valid as any another. This attitude is reflected in the response of the U.S. critics, who cannot discern that the terrorist attack was clearly wrong nor that it is imperative to punish and stop the terrorists, because they have elevated “tolerance” over teaching that killing is wrong. The U.S. critics conclude that the cost of the terrorists taking more lives is not as important as appearing tolerant and not stepping on anyone’s toes, and so they will bog the U.S. down in petty discussions over what might possibly, remotely happen. Any forceful retaliation is labeled by them as initiating violence – conveniently forgetting that the terrorists started it. Meanwhile, the terrorists will continue to kill and maim, wholly unconcerned with "tolerance" for non-Muslims.

Consequently, it is just a matter of time before U.S. leaders take the easy way out and desert Israel, hoping by demonstrating their “tolerance” they will escape the wrath of the equally morally correct terrorists.

The author can be reached at ralexand@krl.org

[F.J. Mitchell]

Five thousand Americans died last week because we have allowed a militant enviromental fanatic minority force this country to abandon all sources of energy on our own land and become dependent upon mentally unstable middle eastern tyrants for our oil. Because we had to go begging to them we kissed their butts and allowed them to screw over everyone in the world who were not Muslims. They now believe they can do as they please and we will just take it.

Israel has a right to exist and there are not enough of your ilk in the world to cause the USA to desert them. The Muslim militant terrorists have been waging a war against every non-Muslim on earth, their intent is to destroy everyone who does not bow to Allah.

Cowards are looking for excuses, but the excuses just reveal their chicken blood.

[The Green Goblin]

Israel has a right to exist and there are not enough of your ilk in the world to cause the USA to desert them

Israel has a right to exist, but they do not have a right to my tax dollars, and they do not have a right to drag innocent American civilians into their conflict. When American civilians begin dying on a regular basis in terrorist events across the nation, the public outcry will become so great that America will drop israel like a hot potatoe. You and your ilk have no regard for the Constitution which, if followed would have prevented us from getting into this mess in the first place.

[Southern Federalist]

The "Ditch-Israel" argument displays a fascinating grasp of the dynamics of history and human interaction.

Terrorist enemies of Israel commit humiliating atrocities on our soil because we support Israel. We nervously rush to dump Israel lest they do it again. The "Ditch-Israel" crowd assumes that at that point, having just proved they can batter and intimidate the most powerful country on earth into giving them what they want, the terrorists will politely go home, slaughter Jews like good little psychotics, and never, ever bother us again.

Right. That's sure the way it works on the playground, for example. Fawn on the bully who has just slugged you, and he never comes back to hit you again, just for the fun of it. Oh no.

Others say that they do indeed want to punish the terrorists, eliminate Osama bin Laden, etc., and only then ditch Israel. What a good idea! Get the radical Islamists really, really in a frenzy by killing the Mufti, and then act weak and craven.

Kipling has many uses when history gets serious. Those posters who are serious about this, not just anti-Semitic disruptors, ought to ponder his poem "Danegeld."

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
"We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to says:—

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Think about it.

[TomB]

Interesting that none of those "other" texts were actually provided as the previous one was.

Of course, when backed into a corner, deny the evidence.

So ask yourself, if this conflict is really between Arab and Israeli, Muslim vs. Jew, why have all the recent bombings by the Palestinians happened against discos, malls, pizza shops, i.e. symbols of Western Civilization, and not synagogues and other religious symbols?

[Florida native]

Add to those verses: Genesis 12:1-3...I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.

Also, as you say the land from the River of Egypt to the Cedars of Lebanon to the River Euphrates belongs and was by covenant with God, given to Abram (Abraham) and his seed, which would number as grains of sand.

The reason for the dispersal of the children of Israel was due to their disobedience for failing to take the land as God commanded them and for their reluctance to avoid pagan people. Read Isaiah 48.

Throughout history, secular and sacred, any nation who crossed the children of Israel lost their empires. The last one was...England. Not long after they reneged on the Balfour Declaration in 1947, England began to gradually lose most of her colonies, and the once mighty empire became an island.

Do you remember the UN vote last fall to condemn Israel? For the first time ever we voted with the majority and condemned Israel. Thank you Ms. Albright. We don't need to be cursed, we need God's blessings, now more than ever.

Israel has always been able to defeat her enemies, as small as she is, through divine protection and intervention. And that will ever be, so says the Bible.

May God always bless the USA, and may we never again go against Israel.

[DallasDeb]

#94: First, where did I call you an anti-semite? I called you an Arab [as in sympathizer].

Why have the Jews been disliked in whatever country they lived in?

Do you really want to know? You probably won't believe it if you have no Judeo/Christian faith. It requires a belief in God and Satan.

You've heard it before that the Jews are God's Chosen People. They are. And because they are, Satan, who wants to be god, tries constantly to subvert God's plans and pervert God's intentions. Satan knew the Christ was to be born, so he (through Herod) tried to kill all the young males. He didn't succeed. Satan also had a hand in the death of Yeshua; but he didn't succeed there, either, because Christ rose from the dead. Throughout the ages, Satan has tried to destroy the Jews, the Chosen People. God still has a covenant to fulfill with the Jews. If Satan can destroy them which, in his pride he believes he can do and keeps trying to accomplish, then he will have subverted God's plan.

See, I told you you wouldn't believe it. But consider this: why WOULD "every country" hate the Jews? They have done NOTHING to deserve hatred by "all" of mankind. Doesn't that prove that there is some underlying satanic influence? Now the US is under attack, possibly because of our alliance with Israel. So, now Satan's presence is evident in the US. There will be more attacks. It will continue to worsen for the entire world until it culminates in the return of Yeshua. The signs are everywhere if you dare to study Biblical end-time prophecy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Journal Entry: September 18

From these ashes...
Luis Gonzalez
September 18, 2001 

Click on America

</a href>

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

[TomB]

Kipling has many uses when history gets serious.

Do you think?

I myself have never kippled. ;-)

[The Green Goblin]

Of course, when backed into a corner, deny the evidence.

I pointed out the fact that no passages specifically mentioning war and terrorism were provided, and you accuse me of denying the evidence! That's hilarious! You have provided no evidence--that was the whole point of my statement.

[The Green Goblin]

So ask yourself, if this conflict is really between Arab and Israeli, Muslim vs. Jew, why have all the recent bombings by the Palestinians happened against discos, malls, pizza shops, i.e. symbols of Western Civilization, and not synagogues and other religious symbols?

Because those are places where lots of young people congregate, and are less heavily guarded that religious sites

[TomB]

I pointed out the fact that no passages specifically mentioning war and terrorism were provided, and you accuse me of denying the evidence! That's hilarious! You have provided no evidence--that was the whole point of my statement.

I provided a link to an article that supports my position. All you do is bloviate, pretending facts don't exist when they are inconvenient.

And ignoring entire portions of posts when they are difficult to answer.

[TomB]

Because those are places where lots of young people congregate, and are less heavily guarded that religious sites

That is an abject an complete lie, and you know it. Since when does the amount of security matter at all to a suicide bomber? There is NO DIFFERENCE in security in a crowded street and a crowded holy site.

You've lost any credibility you had.

[Right Wing Professor]

Right. And while the arabs disseminated Greek and Hindu discoveries in mathematics, they discvered very little on their own.

[Right Wing Professor]

The firm carries out hydraulic projects in the West Bank financed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID)

I think the real question is, why is the US government financing projects to bring water to people who were dancing in the streets celebrating the wholesale murder of Americans just last week?

[The Green Goblin]

I provided a link to an article that supports my position. All you do is bloviate, pretending facts don't exist when they are inconvenient. And ignoring entire portions of posts when they are difficult to answer.

The article you linked to does not provide any specific examples of Palestinian textbook passages supporting terrorism. To ask for such is not to deny the evidence, it is merely a re quest to be given evidence. If you (or the article)contend that such passages exist, then providing a specific example should be easy enough. To do otherwise is extremely poor scholarship.

Furthermore, I've ignored none of your statements that I'm aware of.

[LadyForLiberty]

Shall we dig into the back ground of Palestinian Leadership such as Arafat? Arafat is first, foremost, and forever a terrorist. Time for the world to see the truth in Israel. The Truth is the Arab world wants to push Israel into the sea and will go to any lengths against a superior force(moral and militarily).

The Arabs are just playing victim here so as to turn world sentiment against Israel. What they are now starting to realize is that America will never back the Palestinian Terrorist Groups that are terrorizing innocent Jewish people. Palestinians are now on the "most wnated list" as far as I am concerned.

There are plenty of good Palestinians, but, they now have to pay the price for the morally bankrupt terrorists.

[The Green Goblin]

It makes no difference in terms of him losing his life, but it certainly does make a difference in him getting to his high-profile targets. I've lost no credibility--that's merely an attempt on your part to shift the focus away from the fact that you can't provide a specific example of a Palestinian text book that literally makes statements in support of terrorism. if you can, please do so. i'm still waitning.

[vrwc54]

Do a little homework professor.. the film was from 1991.

What kind of propaganda website would one find such an ASTONISHEDing piece of disinformation?

LOL...The weed is baaaaack!!!!!