What is the Free Republic Position on Israel?

[yonif]

I am a strong supporter of Israel and also specifically its war against terrorism.

I was wondering what is the Free Republic's position on Israel.

Thank You

[seeker41]

Most of us strongly support Israel although FR has no "offical" position.

[McGavin999]

yonif, if you spent any time at all on FreeRepublic, you would find that we support Israel as we support all free and independent people.

[MoJo2001]

I love Israel. I'm sure that you'll find the majority of Freepers are sympathetic to Israel and their war against the Palestinian aggression. Keep in mind that the Palestinias are occupying Israeli terrorities not the other way around. The Palestinians need to go home to their true country of Jordan!!!

[MinuteGal]

There is no official Free Republic position on anything. FR is an amalgamation of folks with different views on everything under the sun.

Perhaps, to get the discussion going, what are YOUR views on Israel?

Leni

[SevenofNine]

Personally I have speak for myself

I recongize Israel as country with rights

I don't know about rest of Freepers I do support Israel and their right to exist

[knak]

I support Israel and their struggle. The rock throwers should leave.

Welcome to FR.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

What is the Free Republic Position on Israel?

Just over the center and a little to the right !

[knak]

Behave.

[Howlin]

Charming.

[txhurl]

You should probably add that it is unfortunate that Israel is such a tiny country to be eliciting 'nuke 'em! sentiments from whoever. lol

[RightWhale]

FreeRepublic has no position on Israel, nor on many other topics. FreeRepublic has a founder who wishes to see the Constitution working better. Otherwise, opinions abound, as one would expect from 70,000 different, mostly unrelated people posting on the issues of the day.

[Romulus]

I was wondering what is the Free Republic's position on Israel.

You are here to tell us what you think -- not to be told.

[Mr. Mojo]

Most Freepers support Israel in a big way, and I'm certainly no exception. I'd like Israel to expand its borders dramatically --- the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and Gaza, all of Lebanon, and a chunk of the west coast of Syria. Perhaps they'll get the opportunity to do so in the upcoming war.

[yonif]

Here is one of my commentaries concerning Israel which I read on my radio show (I am a college freshman, this was done on a one-time training show, next semester I get one, with another kid as the co-host).

There are many around the world which believe that the reason terrorism is occurring against Israel is because of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and because of the fact Palestinians are under occupation, repression, and apartheid. They say that what the Palestinians are doing is not terrorism but a way of fighting back at those tanks and heinous war-crime soldiers.

These are nothing but baseless lies. In my opinion there are 2 existing conflicts in the Middle East. The first is the one between the Palestinians and Israel concerning a state, Jerusalem, refugees, etc. The second conflict is between Israel and the terrorists. These are very different conflicts.

The reason Palestinian statehood was already rejected 3 times by the PLO is not because Israel is not going far enough, it is because the terrorist infrastructure has been so untouched by the PLO leadership that they have become a part of it. When ever you hear Arafat speak he is basically protecting the terrorists which he is a part of. In the early 1990s he didn’t renounce terrorism. It was all for the cameras. Terrorism exists both under and above ground. Underground, terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Jihad Islamic recruit individuals, mostly brainwashed teens. Politically they have no problem running offices in Gaza and the West Bank. Above ground there is the Palestinian state-run media, which incite violence, run commercials praising child terrorists, and telling the young that they will see a great heaven if they kill Jews. In English the PLO speaks of Peace, in Arabic they speak of terrorism.

On the issue of repression, yes indeed they are being repressed. Not by Israel, but by Yasser Arafat and his goons. Arafat is a dictator. Being a dictator is also why he didn’t accept the possibility of a Palestinian state. If his people had a Palestinian state what do you think they would do to Arafat? He would go out of business.

The current operations to destroy the terrorist organizations are occurring not only for the sake of Israel’s security but also for the Palestinians in a way. As soon as terrorism leaves the PLO leadership, negotiations with real leaders can occur. When you negotiate with Arafat you are in affect appeasing a terrorist.

These terrorist groups operate on the pretext of fighting for “Palestine” or against occupation. In effect they do not care about either. They simply care about declaring false beliefs to attract followers and to tone down international criticism of their operations.

The issue of occupation is also false. If there was occupation why is Arafat still in power? Shouldn’t Israel be installing a puppet leader? Why do textbooks in children schools omit Israel on the map? Why do Palestinians have their own license plates, passports? Why do some countries have offices in the territories? And also if they were really occupied why do they cry out to the media that they are being invaded with Israeli forces? How can they be invaded by the same force which is supposed to already be there?
Finally many around the world say that Israel is an Apartheid State which oppresses the Arabic population. This is a complete lie. Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights. It is only of the few places where Arab Women may vote. The only difference between an Arab and a Jew is that the Arab citizen is not required to serve in the Army so that they wouldn’t need to take up arms against their brethren.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I was told that the Free Republic has no official positions. The same thing I was told about the immigration crisis, that the free Republic had no official position on that either....

[RightWhale]

there are 2 existing conflicts in the Middle East

It might be added that several countries in the region do not recognize Israel and would prefer it be dissolved. A peace treaty was signed with Egypt a few years ago, which gave Israel some breathing room. Iraq and Iran still wish the destruction of Israel. The terrorists are agents of those authorities who still desire the elimination of Israel. Treaties need to be signed and recognition granted by all parties. Then it will end.

[yonif]

Here is another one I wrote for the school newspaper in a column, which I write weekly. This backs up my current position on Israel.
By the way: I have lived in Israel for 7 years, know hebrew, etc. I support strongly, in addition, going after Iraq. During the opposition rally against war on Iraq at my college, I was the only sole opposition member who was there. It was funny to hear all the uninformed information that was propagaded to the rally. All those liberals. In addition, one of their guys was actually anti-semitic, as when I argued with him off stage he agreed that Israel had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and he also presented all these "facts" painting Israel as the one who did it.

Here is my article concerning Israel, latest one:

There are many around the world which believe that the reason terrorism is occurring against Israel is because of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and because of the fact Palestinians are under occupation, repression, and apartheid. They say that what the Palestinians are doing is not terrorism but a way of fighting back at those tanks and heinous war-crime soldiers.

These are nothing but baseless lies. In my opinion there are 2 existing conflicts in the Middle East. The first is the one between the Palestinians and Israel concerning a state, Jerusalem, refugees, etc. The second conflict is between Israel and the terrorists. These are very different conflicts.

The reason Palestinian statehood was already rejected 3 times by the PLO is not because Israel is not going far enough, it is because the terrorist infrastructure has been so untouched by the PLO leadership that they have become a part of it. When ever you hear Arafat speak he is basically protecting the terrorists which he is a part of. In the early 1990s he didn’t renounce terrorism. It was all for the cameras. Terrorism exists both under and above ground. Underground, terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Jihad Islamic recruit individuals, mostly brainwashed teens. Politically they have no problem running offices in Gaza and the West Bank. Above ground there is the Palestinian state-run media, which incite violence, run commercials praising child terrorists, and telling the young that they will see a great heaven if they kill Jews. In English the PLO speaks of Peace, in Arabic they speak of terrorism.

On the issue of repression, yes indeed they are being repressed. Not by Israel, but by Yasser Arafat and his goons. Arafat is a dictator. Being a dictator is also why he didn’t accept the possibility of a Palestinian state. If his people had a Palestinian state what do you think they would do to Arafat? He would go out of business.

The current operations to destroy the terrorist organizations are occurring not only for the sake of Israel’s security but also for the Palestinians in a way. As soon as terrorism leaves the PLO leadership, negotiations with real leaders can occur. When you negotiate with Arafat you are in affect appeasing a terrorist.

These terrorist groups operate on the pretext of fighting for “Palestine” or against occupation. In effect they do not care about either. They simply care about declaring false beliefs to attract followers and to tone down international criticism of their operations.

The issue of occupation is also false. If there was occupation why is Arafat still in power? Shouldn’t Israel be installing a puppet leader? Why do textbooks in children schools omit Israel on the map? Why do Palestinians have their own license plates, passports? Why do some countries have offices in the territories? And also if they were really occupied why do they cry out to the media that they are being invaded with Israeli forces? How can they be invaded by the same force which is supposed to already be there?
Finally many around the world say that Israel is an Apartheid State which oppresses the Arabic population. This is a complete lie. Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights. It is only of the few places where Arab Women may vote. The only difference between an Arab and a Jew is that the Arab citizen is not required to serve in the Army so that they wouldn’t need to take up arms against their brethren.

Here is the one I wrote on the head to head issue of going to war after Iraq (this will be on the side of another column, written by someone else, who doesn't want to go to war) (sorry for all the heavy reading :) )

There is nothing more important than persistence in one’s actions against an enemy. The war against terrorism includes Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The reasons are simple, yet the opposition paints them as false. The reasons are factual, yet the opposition chooses to sway away. The reasons are there, yet the opposition prefers to propagate its followers with misinformed information and facts that do not pertain to the situation. Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. He has always been one, since coming to power in a 1979 coup. He is a terrorist domestically, repressing 23 million citizens, and a terrorist internationally, monetarily supporting Palestinian terrorists and providing a safe haven for terrorists in his country. After all, he who harbors a terrorist, by the Bush doctrine, is a terrorist himself. Saddam Hussein represents the next target.
The US should go after Saddam and liberate Iraq from state sponsored terrorism and dictatorship. There are currently 23 million citizens who are under Saddam’s fist. He starves them by spending the millions of dollars he gets from oil on developing weapons, in secret, and strengthening his rule. The sanctions are not to blame. Do you know why? Because his people were starving even before they were placed. Back then he had less money and today he has even more and they are still starving. The sanctions are not the reason, he is. Furthermore instead of aiding the hungry, he has spent millions of dollars in rewarding his supporters, and building lavishes statues and palaces. Destroying his dictatorial infrastructure will allow Iraq’s population to freely breath and live. Getting rid of Saddam will help Iraq in the humanitarian field. One must also remember that he is the only leader who has used chemical weapons on his own people.
Another reason to go after Saddam is his international funding of terrorism. Whenever a suicide terrorist bomber detonates in Israel killing tens of civilians, he gives the families of the suicide bombers $25,000. Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the Sept. 11 2001 attacks citing, hypocritically, that the US was “…reaping the fruits of its crimes against humanity.” In addition Saddam’s regime continues to provide training and support to numerous terrorist groups such as (according to the State Department) the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Abu Nidal Organization. The Palestine Liberation Front, in particular, has carried out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.
Iraq also is suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction. This is highly credible as inspectors haven’t been let in since 1998. Imagine how many weapons he probably already has and maybe hiding. Iraq played games with the inspectors in the late 90s. It let inspectors in but didn’t let them see specific sites, and then two weeks later (after probably moving them) they let them in. Some sites, such as presidential palaces, have not been open to inspectors at all. Do you think he will allow them access now? The only sites he would probably allow them to visit are his websites. He poses a threat to neighbors such as Israel, with his scud missiles (used in the Gulf War), and Kuwait. Taking him out will bring stability, not instability.
One of the ways the opposition has scared people into following their platform has been the usage of the sentence “war with Iraq.” This is false, cause there will be no war with Iraq. First of all there will be no declaration of war, such as the one made against Japan in World War II, and secondly the definition of war, “A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties,” will not apply to what the US and its allies will do to Iraq. What the US will be proceeding with will be a short military operation which dismantles the weapons of mass destruction, liberates the Iraqi people, captures or kills Saddam Hussein, and dismantles the state sponsored terrorist apparatus. The ridding of Saddam and his state sponsored terrorism will take weeks, maybe a few months.
The reason I say this is due to the fact the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was fought from January 16 to February 28, a small time period. When ground forces were finally used, after bombarding Iraq’s military structures to smithereens, the “loyal and strong” Iraqi soldiers surrendered by the thousands or were killed. In addition the United States lost only 268 servicemen, half of which died from friendly fire or accidents. This is what is going to happen when US uses force against Iraq. There will be a few weeks of fighting, but the superiority of the US military will furnish thousands of defections from the Iraqi military as their means of communication with Baghdad will be tarnished.
The next claim the opposition brings is that the solution to violence is not with the use of violence. What are you talking about? Are you saying that whenever one’s military acts in the protection of its citizens’ interests they are actually causing violence to occur? Are you saying that there was violence when the US intervened in World War II, or better yet, the Korean War? Sanctioned military action is not violence. This is nothing but a baseless, pathetic claim.
Another basis the opposition brings forward is that “war” on Iraq will cause civilian deaths. Of course it will. Civilians are always caught in the conflict as they are collateral damage. The possibility of hurting civilians exists in any military operation. Even in your daily lives. Someone driving an ambulance to a hospital can hurt civilians as what would happen if it swayed away and hit someone? It can happen, but when it does it is an accident. Does this factor cause the ambulance not to drive? Of course not. This is the same thing. Doing what’s right and protective, as going after Saddam’s Iraq, is necessary. The US military will do its utmost to protect civilians. Some will be lost, but that is what always occurs in conflict. As a result of this assessment one can conclude that using the pretext of possibly hurting civilians as your “anti-war” platform is nonsense. When we went to war against Hitler did we not hurt civilians? Of course we did.
The final point I would like to touch upon is the issue of the CIA Letter to the Senate. In that letter, by Tenet, it stated that Saddam attacking the US, based on the current conditions, is low. On this point the opposition focuses greatly. One must take into account some things. The first, people make mistakes. Many generals during WWII played down Hitler in the beginning. Furthermore one must take into account who is writing this letter – George Tenet, one who was appointed by a democratic President Bill Clinton. Don’t you think that there can be some partisanship in his letter? After all it was Democratic Senators who pushed the CIA to publish it. He could just be doing this to help out his Democratic friends. However, Tenet went on to publish a statement (of course the opposition fails to mention this) that, “Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack at this moment are low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD, there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the US or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build.” Nonetheless the latter argument is a valid one of going after Saddam’s Iraq and evidence the CIA does indeed support the president’s planned actions.

The facts remain: Saddam Hussein is a terrorist domestically and a terrorist internationally. Saddam’s Iraq is the next viable target of the war on terrorism and will remain so as long as Saddam and his enemy terrorist infrastructure continue to thrive.