[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well you basically answered your own question, the US was close to WWIII if the Soviets decided to intervene against Israel in the Yom Kippur, that's why the US pushed so hard for a ceasefire. As for the Egyptian troops in the Sinai, Israel tried and tried to take them out for good but couldn't and decided to accept the ceasefire, along with a mutual withdraw from the front lines.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez.


[/ QUOTE ]

An act of pure agression against Egypt with a flimsy pretext of the nationalized canal to give Israel, UK and France an excuse to take out Nasser. We objected (imagine: juuust as we get ready to harshly condemn the Soviets for intervening in Hungary, our western allies do the same to Egypt) and demanded they withdraw and yes that was our least pro-Israel moment.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[/ QUOTE ]


Are your serious? Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America. No good could have come out of it and Israel knows it. Israel has its faults but bringing up this event makes me wonder about your true feelings about Israel.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was very unlikely to be an accident considering how distinctly different looking the Liberty was from anything Egypt owned, with the attack occuring in broad daylight. It was possibly a deliberate attack on the local US intelliegence ship to cover Israel continuted offensive in Syria. Israel had refused international declared ceasefire AFTER all the Arab states had accepted it, prefering to continue their sucessful invasion. Many US officials eventually admitted that they did not buy the Israeli explaination, but at the time most were just happy it wasn't the Soviets.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, because Israel exists, it is a destablizing factor in the world. To say we should remove our support for israel to appease the arab world is insane and morally reprehensible. Firstly, it would quite possibly lead to the end of israel and you know this. Second, if you think that removing support for israel will stabilize that region, then why not submit to the will of the islamic world that wants women removed from society, all non muslims delegated to the lowest class or worse, and america destroyed. that would stablize the world so why not do it. You want increased support for palestinians and other arab countries and decreased support for israel. so you basically want increased support for countries that have far worse human rights records than israel and a government (palestinian) that steals from its people and aids terrorism. Now tell me how I'm completely wrong because I am conservative and support israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

True the creation of Israel proved extremely distabalizing in the Middle East. Still, it was the consistently pro-Israel US which supplied Israel with massive guns and millions in cash for decades when it should have opted for an even-handed and pro-peace approach. Dulles, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, and many others saw a very strong Israel as necissary to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East. There were unforunantly two small prices to pay for this service: a) continuing war, and terrible instability in the Middle East for 50 years, b) the recent rise of Islamic radicalism and terrorism in the Middle East (partial credit).