Currebt U.S. Foreign Policy - Politics & Religion

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Elston, your views are those of an uneducated extremist and completely removed from reality. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the nonsense you have spewed is so utterly ridiculous. Whenver you make a statement like "For the Jews it is about religion; they're Jewish fundamentalists. For the Palestinians, the conflict is simply about regaining control of the land that was taken away from them," it's clear that you have no understanding at all of the conflict.

Do you know anything at all about the history of Zionism? Herzl, with whom you're probably not familiar, was an Atheist. All of the early Zionist were secular Jews or atheists. The most important figures in Zionist history were secular Jews. Labor Zionism, Social Zionism etc., were all SECULAR political movements. Religious Zionism, a minor school of thought within the realm of Zionism, was developed as a response by fundamentalists who were not pleased with the complete absence of religious influence in the major schools of Zionist theory.

To say that it's not about religion for the Palestinians is absurd. Have you ever read the Hamas Charter? I'm guessing you haven't. It starts out with the words, "In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah"

Some highlights include:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (That's right, until ISLAM will obliterate it)

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors". That's right, JIHAD. Accepting only Holy War and refusing to negotiate proves that it's about killing all of the Jews, and it's not about simply getting the land back, as you say. There's nothing simple about the conflict, no matter how much you choose to simplify and make it seem like it's the bad Jews killing the peaceful Palestinians.

And let's not forget the famous words of Arafat: "We know only one word: Jihad, Jihad, Jihad"

Come on, dude. I've heard it the other way around (it's all about religion for the Muslims), but never the way you're putting it. It's quite hilarious, and a bit scary, but nevertheless funny- but still disturbing. It's not even worth going back and forth with you because you have no idea what you're talking about.

But, please, entertain me. Back up these claims of genocide and terrorism on the part of the Israelis. I'm interested in hearing some facts, statistics, and some real history.

Elston

joannajewsom wrote:

Elston, your views are those of an uneducated extremist and completely removed from reality.

I'll admit my opinion is not echoed in the mainstream of popular American media, which is essentially a propaganda machine, perhaps we can discuss that in another thread, but please take back your personal attacks.

I'm learning as I go along, as I'm sure you are too. Having an opinion that is different from yours does not make me an extremist.

So far my views on this issue have been rather simplistic, especially considering that terrorist acts have been committed by both sides (usually by religious extremist groups), however I still think the formation of Israel goes against the basic principle of right and wrong.

joannajewsom wrote:

Do you know anything at all about the history of Zionism?

A little bit yeah, but not as much as I should. I was certainly incorrect in implying that all Zionists are Orthodox. From here on in I will do my best to stick to facts.

The desire for Jewish people to reside in Israel is foretold in the holy book, the Torah. Thus it has explicitly religious roots.

The founder of Zionism, Herzl, was in fact an atheist. Nonetheless, in one of his greatest contributions to Zionism, The Jewish State, he constantly alludes to the Biblical Promised Land. The first Zionists who came to Israel in the early 1900's were Orthodox (some 40,000).

I'm against the formation of Israel quite simply because that land belonged to the Palestinians. It is my moral belief that it's wrong to try to take another person's land away from them without a legitimate cause ie: using it for illegal purposes. The fact that it's a Holy land as outlined in the Bible does not justify what happened. Nor does the problem of antisemitism or the Holocaust. The fact that you're persecuted does not give you the right to invade a country.

I also think it's ridiculous that the Jews were given as much land as they were, considering they had been there only 50 years, and that the majority of people living in Palestine were Arabs. The U.N. division of Palestine into two states was illegitimate simply because it rejected the disposition of the majority of it's citizens.

joannajewsom wrote:

Have you ever read the Hamas Charter?

There's no way to justify suicide bombings or denials of the Holocaust, however, it's not hard to realize what gave birth to such anger. The Hamas wasn't formed until 1987 after years of angst towards the invading Zionists.

Jihad is a tenet of the Islamic faith that signifies the struggle a Muslim goes through between following God and being tempted by the Devil. It has nothing to do with killing people. The Hamas have no doubt used it as a way to mobilize their people to action. Being a United States citizen you should be familiar with these sort of propagandist tactics.

I do appreciate the discussion, Joanna, though I think you could gain from entertaining ideas that contradict the murderous policies your government supports, or at least refrain from insulting me.

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

I sincerely apologize for the personal attacks.

The fact is that your opinion on Israel does not go against the grain because it is echoed in the international media, just about every left-wing circle and college campus (faculty and students) around the world. Israel gets disproportionate news coverage. BBC is notorious for their anti-Israel bias, and they actually paid 200,000 pounds to cover up the findings of a report on their anti-Israel bias. Check out honestreporting.com and read the case studies on CNN, Reuters, AP, etc.

It's not about having an opinion that's different from mine. I wouldn't say that only a sane person would share my views, as you suggested earlier. When you say things like "any sane person" would agree that Israel should have never been created, that is the language of someone who won't accept viewpoints which differ from his own. I was insulted by that statement and that's what caused the personal attacks.

When you use words like "genocide" and "terrorism", and suggests that Israel targets innocent civilians (more on this later), these are the words of an extremist. These are claims which do not reflect reality. Please justify your use of these terms.

Politically, that land didn't belong to the Palestinians. It was under Ottoman Rule, and then after WWI it was under British rule. If you want to attack the true culprits who took the land away from the Arabs, you'll have to go further back than 1948. The British, still in control of the land, handed the decision over to the U.N. and they gave the land to the Jews. The Jews didn't take anything, and you would be hard-pressed to find any Zionist movement which tried to rid the area of Arabs (Herzl's idea of Israel was that of a multicultural utopia). It's the Israelis who accepted and the Arabs rejected two-state proposals in 37, 47, 67, 2000. It's the Israelis who have given back land that it has acquired in defensive wars against the Arabs.

Zionists did not invade any country. They went to what was then Palestine in the 19th century, purchased land (I've never heard anyone criticize the absentee landlords who sold them this land) without the intent to drive away the Arabs (even working with Arabs), and made vast improvements to that land. Zionists started a legitimate, secular political movement, attempted to acquire the land in accordance with international law, and were given the land by the U.N. and with the approval of the majority of the international community.

The Arabs didn't approve, however the fact remains that there was never an independent Palestinian state and the Arabs were on the losing side of two World Wars. They didn't control that land at all, and this was not the fault of the Zionists. And Jews were the majority in the land that was originally partitioned to be Israel in 1947; Jewish population was around 500,000 and Arab population around 400,000.

Arab hatred towards Jews goes back much further than Hamas. In response to the Balfour Declaration, there were riots all over what was then Palestine, in which innocent Jewish women and children were raped and killed, synagogues burned down, etc. And for you to say something like "it's not hard to realize what gave birth to such anger", is the reason why terrorism is so effective.

Despite how insane Palestinian terrorists may appear to be, they truly are political masterminds. Palestinian terrorists gain a lot from murdering innocent Israeli civilians. This causes Israel to heighten security and take better measures to defend themselves, the terrorists then scream oppression, and people like you say things like "it's not hard to realize what gave birth to such anger", and more acts of terrorism are justified.

Israel on the other hand gains nothing from murdering innocent civilians, and it actually hurts their cause. Terrorists know this, and this is why they hide amongst innocent civilians. When Israel targets terrorist groups and unintentionally kills an innocent civilian, they are immediately demonized, accused of genocide, given disproportionate news coverage, and it does nothing more than fuel international sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Israel targets terrorists. The innocent civilians are not the ones who are blowing up buses and launching rockets. If there are 100 terrorists and 100 civilians, and you kill the 100 civilians, you're still left with 100 terrorists. Killing civilians does not in any way stop the attacks or decrease the number of terrorists, it only increases the number of terrorists because terrorists then use this for political gain.

Even if Israel wanted to kill innocent civilians, which it does not, it would be completely idiotic for them do so. Killing innocent civilians does not decrease the number of attacks, it actually helps terrorists organizations. Also, extremists then scream genocide whenever a Palestinian civilian is killed. Israel gains nothing from killing civilians. Anyone can see that.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the U.S. propaganda. However, in the context of all of those quotes which I provided (I could provide links, if you want me to, so that you can see the full quotes), in the context of terrorism, and in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict Jihad is used in terms of violence and holy war. When terrorists scream Jihad, it's to incite violence.

Again, I apologize for the attacks and I do appreciate the discussion. I'm willing to entertain ideas which differ from my own, but when you make unfounded claims of genocide, I don't see how that can lead to a productive discussion.

maxxy

Gender: Male
Location: PA

Okaay...very bluntly, the United States government wants its people to believe that Israel is the greatest thing since our creation (no exaggeration needed). Its constantly in the news, politicians are shunned if they don't support Israel, a half century-old country that we helped create and that is smaller than almost all of our states and happens to be enemies of most other countries in the region, including the one right next to it. It boggles the mind.

It strikes me as extremely ironic that there's all this talk in the States about stopping violence in the middle east when it was us who helped created it in the first place (providing weapons, etc).

I think what the Palestinian government might be trying to do is annoy Israel to the point of seemingly unprovoked attack, in which case Palestine would get international sympathy and Israel would be considered as an instigator of war...Or maybe they just want an excuse to beef up their military or get more land (think about what happened with the Gaza Strip).

On another note, I recently watched an extremely good movie and would recommend it to anyone--called Charlie Wilson's War, about covert operations in Afghanistan and starring Tom Hanks.

Elston

joannajewsom wrote:

When you say things like "any sane person"...that is the language of someone who won't accept viewpoints which differ from his own. I was insulted by that statement and that's what caused the personal attacks.

You have a point. It looks as if you caught me being a hypocrite.

This is not about being left-wing, which I consider merely a 'scare-word' to try and disprove my stance. I'm getting much of my opinions and information from Zionists themselves (such as Jews for Justice), as not all Zionists agree with how Israel was formed.

joannajewsom wrote:

Israel gets disproportionate news coverage.

Not on American News outlets such as CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times and more, where Israeli deaths are 4 times as likely to be reported than Palestinian deaths (despite there being close to 10 times more Palestinian victims than Israelis). I am unsure how the conflict is portrayed in Europe though I would be surprised if the trend was the inverse of the U.S. media, that is, portraying a Palestine reporting bias. Britain doesn't even acknowledge Palestine as a State, so I somehow doubt their news outlets are biased towards it over Israel.

joannajewsom wrote:

...in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict Jihad is used in terms of violence and holy war. When terrorists scream Jihad, it's to incite violence.

I wanted to make sure that you had some understanding of the Muslim faith and how far removed terrorist acts, including violence, are from the pillars of this religion. I've met folks who think all Muslims are terrorists and back up their claims with the word Jihad. When you said "that's right, JIHAD", I wanted to make sure you weren't making the same mistake.

joannajewsom wrote:

When you use words like "genocide" and "terrorism", and suggest that Israel targets innocent civilians...these are the words of an extremist. These are claims which do not reflect reality. Please justify your use of these terms.

I can trace Israeli terrorism back to 1937, though I'm sure with more diligence I could find it occurring much earlier.

The Zionist leader, Ben Gurion, believed accepting the proposed partitioning of Palestine into two states was an integral first step, however, in 1937 he revealed in a letter to his children that he intended to build an army in order to use coercion or force to claim the rest of the country.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines terrorism as such: “The calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

The Zionist's plan to conquer all of Palestine sharply contradicts the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which states that the creation of the Jewish Homeland should in no way “prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

The Arab revolt of 1936-1939, in response to rising Jewish immigration, was defended by Gandhi claiming, "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French." I'm curious to know if you consider Gandhi to be another one of the people (like me) who justify acts of terrorism.

Israel sought help from Britain, who responded by sending troops to help Israelis kill Arab dissenters and deport them off the land claimed by the Jews.

In this decade, Palestinians have (horrendously) killed 123 Israeli children, innocent civilians caught in the line fire.

Israelis, on the other hand, have killed over 1000 Palestine children in this decade, again, innocent victims caught in the line of fire, the most common cause of death being bullets to the chest or head. These statistics sharply contradict the general feeling in the West that Palestinians are behind most of the civilian deaths.

joannajewsom wrote:

It's the Israelis who accepted and the Arabs rejected two-state proposals in 37, 47, 67, 2000.

This is completely understandable for reasons I've already stated. Other reasons why the Arabs rejected these proposals (which went ahead anyway) were: the borders in the partition were based exclusively on where the Jewish settlements were located; and the Arabs were given 43% of Palestine, and the Jews 57%.

Again, if we look at the present day situation we see this gap has intensified. Palestine’s land surface is 26,320 km², with Israel comprising 20,770 km², nearly 80% of the entire country.

The vote for the partition plan is where the U.S. makes it’s first unqualified entry of it’s support for Israel by lobbying several Central American countries, which were all heavily dependent on the U.S., to vote for the partition, while convincing several other countries in the same region to abstain from voting. President Truman became the first world leader to recognize Israel as a state, while refusing similar recognition for Palestine, a policy the U.S. refuses to reconsider even to this day.

joannajewsom wrote:

And Jews were the majority in the land that was originally partitioned to be Israel in 1947; Jewish population was around 500,000 and Arab population around 400,000.

Actually, there was a rather pressing problem when creating the Jewish State, the problem being that there were slightly more Arabs in it than Jews. Those numbers you quoted were achieved by counting Jews that were living on proposed Arab land and taking a significant amount of Arabs from the Jewish State and counting them for Palestine. The actual numbers for the Jewish State looked like this: 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews.

After these numbers were rearranged (the ones you quoted), there were 55% Jews and 45% Arabs living in proposed Israel. There were 99% Arabs and 1% Jews living in proposed Palestine.

At the time of partition the country looked like this:

1,237,000 (67%) Arabs
608,000 (33%) Jewish

All this information and statistics can easily be found on Wikipedia.

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

BBC is not merely a European outlet; it's arguably the most popular news channel in the world, the most influential, and it actually paid to cover up the results of a report on their anti-Israel bias after many accusations. Barbara Plett admitted on BBC radio that see cried when she saw Arafat taken to the hospital; where's the impartiality? Check out honestreporting's reports on CNN, probably the most influential news channel behind the BBC. Honestreporting did a case study on CNN back in 2001, CNN received a lot of complaints, engaged in a dialogue with honestreporting and agreed to make improvements. However, the site recently ran a report which showed that the improvement was temporary and gave detailed analysis on recent bias by CNN. Peter Jennings was famously anti-Israel his entire career. Check out CAMERA and honestreporting's case studies on anti-Israel bias by the New York Times (as well as the other news outlets which you have listed). I'm sure you heard about the Tuvia Grossman photo that ran in the New York Times.

You really don't want to play the "who's been the victim of more terrorism?" game, do you? I can go back to Al-Nadi Al-Arabi (established in 1919 as a response to the Balfour Declaration of 1917), which carried out terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians in Jaffa, Rehovot, Hadera, and I could go back further than that. We could talk about the Nabi Musa riots, the Jaffa riots, and so on. If you're so interested in terrorism, why don't discuss the Arabs who have been undoubtedly more terroristic than the Jews throughout the conflict.

Would you like to actually discuss Ben-Gurion's actions and not just some letter he wrote to his children? Funny how you bring up this letter (could you send me a link if you can, I'd like to read a direct quote since I fear you may not be providing enough context), and you don't bring up his policy of Havlagah, which was a policy to abstain from attacking innocent civilians as retaliation when Arabs attacked Jewish civilians during the Arab revolt of 36-39. Even though you brought up Ben-Gurion and the Arab revolt 36-39 in the same post, you failed to mention this. You also mention that the Balfour Declaration states that the Jewish should state should not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” But you fail to mention the Israeli declaration of independence which states the Israel will "uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or gender". I really love how you cleverly pick and choose which wikipedia entries serve your theories

We all know what India was going through at this time. Gandhi also recommended that Jews stay in Germany, hold their heads high, and use non-violent resistance in Nazi Germany. Really great advice, Gandhi! He also asked why Jews couldn't just live and thrive in the countries in which they were born? Interesting question, I guess, but the fact is that Jews could not just live in the countries where they were born because of extreme anti-Semitism in these countries. He also said that there were hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs. Yes, becauses Arabs have always been willing to negotiate, right? So, although Gandhi was the man, I really don't think that he was an expert on the situation. I don't think that he would justify any terrorism but I think that quote needs to be framed in the context of his entire understanding of the situation. Check out Buber's response to Gandhi, in which he points out his lack of understanding of the situation.

Since you seemed to be so disgusted by this letter, I'm sure you'd be disgusted by Grand Mufti of Jerusalem al-Husseini going on a Berlin radio program in the 1940s and saying, "Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." Now you tell me. What's more dangerous? Ben-Gurion telling the Jews not to attack civilians, or the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem telling the Arabs to kill the Jews wherever you find them? Since you're so interested in terroristic rhetoric, I thought you might find that little soundbite by al-Husseini a bit interesting.

Watch your use of the word conquer, which means to acquire by force of arms; reminds of the language BBC might use. Again, Zionists were a legitimate political movement that acquired land from those who owned it. Arabs were the one's who started the armed conflict and started the wars in which the Israelis defended themselves. This is not terrorism. Zionists had no intention to conquer, and those Zionists, like Irgun, who did want to conquer the Arabs were met with much opposition by the majority of Zionists.

Any context for these numbers of 123 and 1,000 children? Without context there's not much we can say about these numbers. And let's not make it seem like the Palestinian terrorists are batting at a high percentage here. Let's not forget the over 1000 terrorist attacks on Israel which have been thwarted since in this same time period.
And check the definition of 'genocide'- the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Your claim of genocide on the part of Israel remains unfounded. There's nothing deliberate about these Palestinians deaths, while the Israel civilians are deliberately targeted. I've explained earlier why Israel gains nothing from targeting civilians and there's no way that you could prove that Israel targets civilians. Palestinian terrorists are the one who are deliberately attacking civilians, which is evident in their rhetoric, and more important, their tactics. If anyone is guilty of attempting and promoting genocide it's the Palestinian terrorists who deliberate kill civilians and promote Jihad.

It's completely understandable for Arabs to turn down two-state solutions? This kind of refusal to negotiate is counterproductive. Like I said, Arabs were on the losing side of both World Wars. They initiated and lost several wars against Israel. They continually refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. They turn down proposal after proposal. And keep in mind that there was never an independent Palestinian state in the first place. At this point, they should could consider themselves fortunate that Israel is still even willing to negotiate. Israel is still willing to negotiate because of the extreme coercion used by Palestinian terrorists. Tell me, do you support a two-state solution at all?

I cited the 37, 47... to show that even though the conflict has heightened over the years and Israel has won several defensive wars, Israel has always been willing to negotiate and will always be willing to negotiate. Israeli leaders have always supported a two-state solution (I'm sure there had to be a few which didn't, but surely they're the minority). Palestinian leaders have famously been opposed to even negotiating. How can continue supporting refusal to negotiate like this when it will only lead to the conflict never coming to an end?

Thanks for clearing up those numbers. I was going off memory. However, that doesn't invalidate my main points that there was never an independent Palestinian state and the Arabs were on the losing side of two World Wars. They didn't control that land at all, and this was not the fault of the Zionists.

Elston

joannajewsom wrote:

Check out honestreporting's reports on CNN, probably the most influential news channel behind the BBC. Honestreporting did a case study on CNN back in 2001, CNN received a lot of complaints, engaged in a dialogue with honestreporting and agreed to make improvements.

My complaint is towards American news channels, which uncontroversially display an Israel bias. Furthermore, honestreporting.com is an unabashedly pro-Israeli organization! I laughed out loud when I read their 'about us' page. I'm surprised you're quoting this source, which is anything but objective.

I don't have the time nor passion to continue debating in such length. There is a lot more reading I have to do on this issue.

I support Palestine. I believe they are getting the short-end of the stick. I doubt I will be able to change your mind at this stage. I find it difficult to empathize with the Israeli's for reasons I've mentioned.

As I said, I got all the information from Wikipedia, including the letter that Gurion wrote to his wife & kids. If you're interested, find it yourself, it's on there.

Elston

maxxy wrote:

What do you think about the Bush Doctrine? I think its imperialistic and unreasonable.

Agreed and agreed!

What most people forget to point out is that the Bush II administration is at the extreme of controversial policies the U.S. has been undertaking all the way back to JFK's invaision of Cuba in 1961. In other words, this has been going on for a long time. George W. is just a lot more up front and extreme about it.

Here's some parts that caught my eye:

"Preemptive strikes against potential enemies"...you mean attacking people who haven't done anything to you - that is terrorism.

"Promoting democratic regime change" - propping up regimes that will do what the U.S. wants them to. Not be confused with giving oppressed people governments that represent their interests.

The invasion of Afghanistan has been devastating to the poor people of that country.

The whole idea of the Middle East engaging in an ideological war against the U.S. is laughable. These feelings of resentment are a direct response to America's unqualified involvement in Israel.

This Doctrine of Bush's has created a deep feeling of resentment among European allies. Most people who are paying attention to the current administration are worried about the fate of the world.

maxxy

Gender: Male
Location: PA

To further support your point, I'd like to make examples.

Preemptive strikes against potential enemies--what do you think started the United States involvement in WWII? The Japanese were paranoid back then and were convinced the United States was going to attack them from Pearl Harbor at some point and decided to strike first to "defend by attacking first"--their excuse to avoid being implicated in breaking the peace pact of 1927. Some people don't learn from history.

The already-poor situation for the people of Afghanistan just got worse when we invaded. Sure, I would love Al Queida to be gone, and the Taliban aren't the greatest either, but we should have provided more AID to the people instead of going in there and doing whatever we wanted. The whole operation was very poorly planned. If we would just help improve living conditions and infrastructure instead of constantly rolling over them, maybe they wouldn't hate us so much.

The "Bush Doctrine" is just an excuse to invade the middle east and gain control of everything. Learn from history-no one likes an imperialist.

It's like this quote: "Kill, kill, kill, that's all you ever think about. Maybe if you were nice to people, they might let you rule the world"
-Spider Man
Confused

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

I encourage you to check on honestreporting and then do your own fact check in regard to their claims. I don't take that stuff on blind faith; I fact check it and it's all verifiable. With a quick Google search, you can find a ton of articles and reports on Peter Jenning's anti-Israel bias, and Christine Amanpour's anti-Israel bias; these are two of the most important media figures of the last 50 years.

In response to the honestreporting case study on CNN, CNN actually engaged in a dialogue with honestreporting and they made retractions and changed their format because of the valid argument of bias on the part of CNN by honestreporting. Say whatever you want about them being pro-Israel, but when CNN actually responds to it and makes changes based on this research, it's completely validated. I've cited actual reports and incidents, which I strongly encourage you to fact check like I have, in order to prove not only anti-Israel bias in American media, but also in International media, which reaches not only Americans but the entire world. You've chosen to ignore these facts.

Being pro-Israel does not automatically mean that you can't be fair. Honestreporting is about maintaining balance in the media. It dedicates itself to exposing bias against Israel in the media, and promoting fair coverage. It does NOT promote bias FOR Israel. Honestreporting, and CAMERA, are about exposing anti-Israel bias and not about promoting pro-Israel bias. It only wants fair coverage.

On the other hand, If Americans Knew, a source which you have suggested, is unabashedly anti-Israel. I'm surprised you're promoting that source, which is anything but objective. How about you read their 'about us' section which includes gems like "Israel is imposing an ethnically discriminatory nation on land that was previously multicultural. There is ethnic and religious discrimination inherent in its national identity, and a doctrine of the supremacy of one group over all others permeates its political, financial, and military policies".

I didn't laugh out loud when I read their 'about us'. I didn't see anything funny about their absurd and offensive claims.

Come on, dude. If Americans Knew is disgustingly anti-Israel. Honestreporting refrains from making political statements and you will not find any anti-Palestinian rhetoric on their site (if you do, show me). On the other hand, If Americans Knew is chock full of stuff like "American support of the Israeli government...makes us an accomplice to war crimes and an accessory to oppression."

Objective? Check your own sources.

I tried to find the letter on Wikipedia, but it's not there. I found only one statement on it- not a direct quote, with the source cited, but it did not provide a link to the entire letter. I assumed that you read the letter and was able to fully interpret for yourself what he said, instead of regurgitating someone on wikipedia's interpretation. Nevertheless, I was more interested in you citing incidents, facts, history, etc. in which Ben-Gurion's actions reflected this viewpoint, but you have not and you can not.