You either see Israel as an intentionally aggressive religiously driven racist (different license plates, voting laws, roads, id cards, laws) nuclear state with a colorful history of terrorism, espionage, invasions, spying, and assassination convictions in multiple countries, or you choose to ignore all of history and blindly support it. Either way, please stop acting surprised when people claim Israels' foreign policy is antagonistic, as if her detractors are mistaken and fabricating... as if Chomsky and Kofi Anaan are liars...

You don't like Israel, fine. To what in my post do you object? How do I act surprised?

BTW, the _government_ of Israel has never been religiously driven, rather it has always been security conscious. The racism, nuclear deterrent, invasions, and assassinations are all a result of security policy (what do you call terrorism?). Condemning countries for espionage/spying (twice!) is kinda strange - all countries engage in espionage. The most egregious, in both this respect and invasions is the US. Do you perchance live on land stolen from Mexico or the American Natives? Enjoying a standard of living dependent on world wide projection of military power? Even if you don't, I think Israel receives a disproportionate amount of criticism for the amount of evil it does.

Israel was founded by Lehi, Irgun, and Haganah. The evacuation plan which led to the population growth of Israel was invented by Irgun commander Ze'ev Jabotinsky. The sixth prime minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, was also a commander in Irgun. Irgun and Lehi led to Herut, which is now the modern controlling Likud party in Israel. Lehi also had Yitzhak Shamir who became prime minister in the 1980s.

Lehi is famous for the Ankara document which proposed a pact with Nazi Germany to help start a totalitarian state (their words) in Palestine, to fulfill Zionism. They sponsored multiple sabotage and espionage operations against the British and in the Middle East. They were instrumental later in the invasion of Iran in 1942.

Lehi assassinated politicians in Britain and was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.

Irgun is an even easier case to make. Its motto: a hand holding a rifle with the words "only thus" underneath it. It was self-described as a terrorist organization by spokespeople from it at the time (1940s) and openly spoke of terrorism as the only effective way for a Zionist state.

So yes, Israel exists because of terrorism and is deeply rooted in it at a fundamental basis.

The whole point is that to point out that the current political manifestation known as Israel is a danger for the geopolitical stability of the region is actually a valid observation that historians will see as clear as day in 500 years. I know how politically unwise it is currently, but that doesn't make the reality false. There's lots of bitter pills out there.

I don't know anything about Lehi being "instrumental in the invasion of Iran in 1942". Do you have any more information on this?

Saying that Israel engages in terrorism and is deeply rooted in terrorism based on actions of two small factions (Lehi was no more than a couple hundred people at its peak) from before the War of Independence which were then shut down by Ben Gurion and Haganah (e.g. the Altalena Affair) and were not allowed anywhere in government is... strange. American patriots in 1775 were also properly called terrorists by the British, but you don't claim that the USA is a terrorist organization deeply rooted in terrorism, do you? Anyway, the maximalists were not in government for the first thirty years and by then realities and their position changed a lot. The beliefs of Netanyahu are not the same beliefs as those of Jabotinsky, though they both support an independent Jewish State.

Your point is very difficult to take seriously because of all the hyperbole. If you support an unbroken Muslim land from Morocco to Indonesia, just say that, don't say "Israel is bad because they fought the British for independence". Who didn't fight the British for independence? Jeanne d'Arc did it! Why don't you rage on the British for all the suffering they caused in all corners of the world for centuries? All the people they killed?

>>Saying that Israel engages in terrorism and is deeply rooted in terrorism based on actions of two small factions [...] not allowed anywhere in government is... strange.

You don't usually read much from hate propagandists? :-(

An explanation:

Facts don't matter, the important point is to throw garbage in the right direction -- the believers know they are true, because the jews/blacks/white/israelis/democrats/etc are evil.

dear lord ... all I was saying is that "Here is why people think this" not "you should think this" or even "I support this" other than for the fact that I want cultures to be more open (and that is all cultures ... really).

I was just trying to back up the idea that these aren't just hateful things concocted out of thin air because people are evil or something trivial and without context.

There's a history to all of this ... that's all I'm saying. Don't need to get offended by it.

>>all I was saying is that "Here is why people think this"

1. That would be more convincing if you could answer wolf550e's point that your argument was garb... less than coherent.

2. This is not your only comment with "logic" and "facts" in this discussion.

3. Do you yourself really think that logic and facts has nothing to do on HN?

[Edit: Clarity]

Funny that no one uses this logic to argue for wiping Ireland or South Africa "from the pages of history", isn't it?

South Africa had a nuclear program, apartheid, and a few interesting property laws. But then they had a regime change and the previous way of thinking have been wiped "from the pages of history"; npt signing in 1991, cwc in 95.

SA split in two forming Namibia in 1990, the same year that the talks to end Apartheid started ... leading to the release of Mandela and the multi-racial 94 elections.

Sure, in California English, I'd be using different idioms for describing that transformation, but that is the whole point here ... sometimes idioms don't translate well and the nuanced connotative punch of a colloquialism can have different impacts in different areas. Some things just don't translate well; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you (although that one feels more like this: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/treehouse2.jpg/sr=1 ... who's to know?)

I would be in wide support for something similar to Israel, but instead of having say, a non-jewish prime minister, they take a Jewish State loyalty oath; an interesting opposite. Statehood ecumenism is seen as a radical idea in Israeli political discourse.

I'd just like them to be more inclusive and a bit less violent.

I'm referring to the current "regime" in South Africa (do people ever use that word to describe a state they feel is legitimate?). If you had some kind of agenda and wanted to spin it the way you're spinning Israel, you could say the South African regime is even more deeply rooted in terrorism--Mandela was the founder and leader of the "terrorist organization" MK, and two of the next three successive presidents of South Africa were also members. Just as you point out that the Jewish militants were designated terrorists by the British, MK was designated as a terrorist organization by the South African government as well as the United States. You could even point out that once the "terrorist regime" took over in South Africa, MK was even folded into the regular military.

Of course, no one really says these things about South Africa. People seem to realize that Africans who have suffered from centuries of colonization and repression might be justified in fighting back. People even seem to realize that Ireland can be its own country now, even if they were founded by terrorists who killed British people, and even if some of them tried to engage Germany in a round of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Funny to wonder why people are less understanding with Israel, isn't it?

I think kristopolous got your point, really. That is why he wrote such a long text about why Israel is evil, as an "answer".

Why, according to you, combined state should have non-Jewish PM is beyond me, giving that PM elections are democratic and even today both Israelis and Jews are majority in the area of former Brittish mandate of Palestine, and even much stronger majority when you talking about de-facto Israeli-controlled land, which excludes Gaza.

I'm supporter of giving Israeli citizenship to all residents of Judea and Samaria (so called West Bank), at least to those who will accept it.

Israel is not a South Africa were minority controlled majority.

Unlike USA or Japan, we do not have discrimination of who can be elected as a PM, except of-course criminal charges.

All your complaints should be directed to Greeks who invented this stupid system called democracy.