Replies

Well, I think that Israel has a right to the land by virtue of conquest, and that the U.S. has an interest in that by virture of Isreal being a democracy, anti-terrorist, etc.

I will say, however, that I think reasons #1 and #2 are totally bogus.

What Inhofe says is true, I just don't think it matters who left a scroll in a cave 3,000 years ago. Every nation on earth has changed owners since then. Are we to re-draw the boundaries of every nation based upon 3,000 year old borders?

Also, it takes a lot of chutzpah for someone who owns property in Oklahoma to make such a claim. The Indians were on his land only 150 years ago.

Anyway, this is not meant to be a swipe at Inhofe or Israel, it is a refelction of my beleif that the whole who was and wasn't there crapping in the bushes 3,000 years ago is so silly, that it really doesn't advance our cause.

The cause is this: God created us as individuals with inalienable rights. Freedom is the natural state of mankind, which includes the right not to be blown to bits by a bunch of warped individuals with completely irrational minds.

Under the view that we were all created equal, it is in the interest of all free men to promote freedom around the world, recognizing that the slavery or oppression of any individual is neccessarily a threat to our own freedom.

The Israelis sought freedom in a largely abandoned desert. They are surrounded by nations of murderous thugs, who oppress hundreds of millions. It is in our interest to defend Israel, and to bring down the murderous regiemes of Israel's enemies.

The Arab's are fanatics and are totally warped. But they are not neccessarily anymore warped then the Hitler Youth or the Japs who embraced freedom when they tasted it. It is therefore worth our while to promote freedom in the middle east.

I couldn't care less who took a wiz on a tree in Nazareth 3,000 years ago, and it has no effect on who I think should occupy that land now.

Well, I think that Israel has a right to the land by virtue of conquest, and that the U.S. has an interest in that by virture of Isreal being a democracy, anti-terrorist, etc.

I think your analysis is entirely correct. Regardless of how and why they acquired this land, 3000 years ago or 50 years ago, this land belongs to the nation of Israel; and as they are our staunch ally, we should support them in maintaining their control.

No other nation is being called upon to justify, ad nauseum, their "right" to the land that they exist upon.

"The Arab's are fanatics and are totally warped. But they are not neccessarily anymore warped then the Hitler Youth or the Japs who embraced freedom when they tasted it."

Rodney...when you refer to fanatic arabs, I assume you mean muslims and islamic jihadists. There are at least three points which I believe distinguish these from the Hitler youth: (1) There are 1.2 billion muslims of all ethnic types compared to some 30-40 million germans at the start of WWII. (2) Islam is NOT your religion of love. It is a medieval demonic cult with potentially 1.2 Bil believers many of whom are prepared to die killing non-muslims in exchange for eternity with allah/mohammad in the "big whorehouse in the sky". These do not readily embrace freedom.

Hitler youth were fanatical but did not have the same death wish as this current threat. They readily abandoned their fanaticism as they fought and died. They did not take hostages among their own people. We did not then have a UN and "WEAK KNEED" politicians urging restraint.

The islamic jihadist, on the other hand, merely shrinks back into the shadows or flees into a Christian church or a refugee camp and takes hostages like a coward as he is being persued and annihilated and the world community leaps to his (its) defense. Consequently, (3)this islamic malignancy and its "international community" allies is a new kind of threat which we are not yet accustomed to dealing with. Because of its large numbers and fanaticism, we had better learn fast.

Rodney King : Well, I think that Israel has a right to the land by virtue of conquest, and that the U.S. has an interest in that by virture of Isreal being a democracy, anti-terrorist, etc.

I will say, however, that I think reasons #1 and #2 are totally bogus.

====================

LibertarianInExile: In fact, most of Inhofe's logic can be used to justify a certain other group's claims:

Why Native Americans Are Entitled To The U.S.

I can't even start to twist Inhofe's 3rd, 5th and 6th comments in favor of Native

Americans,

====================

Rodney hits a key point, which Inhofe barely touches on, the legitimate results of conflicts between nations.

I’d be quite comfortable to trace Israel’s history to the aftermath of WW I, and the Treaty of Paris, the Balfour Declaration playing a big part.

Unfortunately, Turkey, the dominant Arab power of the time picked the wrong side and lost. As a result, she lost a substantial portion of her previous territory, which Britain and France carved up into a Jewish homeland, along with ten or eleven Arab states. Israel was, of course, later cut up again to provide a home (Jordan) for the Hashemites which the peaceful Sauds kicked out of their historical homeland on the Arabian peninsula.

Jews have a right to a homeland, and the right to settle there. If that’s illegitimate, so is every Arab state from Syria to Saudi Arabia.

The Arabs picked the wrong side again, in WWII, leading to the establishment of Israel as an independent political entity, they again picked the losing side a number of times from 1948 to 1973. Losing wars has repercussions, though admittedly they’ve lost little in their wars with Israel.

BTW, to this day no sovereign nation since Turkey has claimed the West Bank or Gaza.

The Indian comparison would only be valid if they had won their wars, they didn’t. The reason you can’t twist 3, 4 and 5 is that, like 6, they address Israel’s value to the US, not her right to exist.