News Why is the security of Israel so important to the United States

[Benzoate]

I know the conflicts between Israel and other Arab and middle eastern countries have been mentioned many times in PF. Rarely is it ever mentioned why we should continue supporting Israel . Since the 1970''s , the United states has given is a total estimate of 1.3 trillion dollars of taxpayers money to finance Israel military.


Israel Is the largest recipient who receives a large sum of foreign policy money from the united states. CNS estimates that Israel's military has a very sophisticated weapons program(thanks to US taxdollars) with a nuclear arsenal composed of 100-200 nuclear weapons. Many experts believe that Israel nuclear weapons arsenal might even contained thermonuclear weapons. Israel is the size of my hometown and my hometown it's not very large. I am very confused when right wing political pundits say that Israel will be topple by Iran's military who we are not even sure are developing nuclear weapons and if they are they might only have one or two nuclear weapons. Iran will be stupid to attack the second largest military on the planet!

I know Mccain and Obama both want to continue to support Israel, I just don't understand why.

 

[Astronuc]

I know Mccain and Obama both want to continue to support Israel, I just don't understand why.

Because it's the politically expedient thing to do. If a politician diss's Israel, he/she will not progress.

Israel has a strong lobby in the US. There is both a financial and religious (Judeo-Christian) component, and there is no such strong link between Christianity and Islam, and in fact, there has a been an historical conflict going back to the Crusades, and who controls the 'Holy Land' which includes Palestine and Jerusalem. Israel's existence is probably owed to the guilt following WWII and the Holocaust.

I think this topic has been addressed in other threads.

 

[Benzoate]

Because it's the politically expedient thing to do. If a politician diss's Israel, he/she will not progress.

Israel has a strong lobby in the US. There is both a financial and religious (Judeo-Christian) component, and there is no such strong link between Christianity and Islam, and in fact, there has a been an historical conflict going back to the Crusades, and who controls the 'Holy Land' which includes Palestine and Jerusalem. Israel's existence is probably owed to the guilt following WWII and the Holocaust.

I think this topic has been addressed in other threads.

I understand why Israel wants supports from the United states. I don't understand why are politicians act as yesmen when it comes to Israel's concerns. Don't US politicians realized they put the lives of US citizens at risk when the United states is so involve in another country's political affairs? Why do we need to continue to financial back Israel if Israel has one of the most powerful Military on the planet? Why is it a concern of the United states to be involved in the historical conflict between Palestine and Israel as to which country gets first dibs on the Holy Land? I know you might say that the reason the United States might partake in this external conflict might be because if they continue to fight, it might be harder for US business men to drain oil from the United States because of the conflict over the Holy Land? However that still doesn't explain why the United states supports Israel more than any other country in the Middle East instead of playing the role of the mediator?

What is your take on the relationship between the United states and Israel? You think the US should still be supporting ISrael?

 

[NeoDevin]

Basically it doesn't actually matter what is best (or worst) for the US interests, it matter what will get the politicians elected.

 

[Hurkyl]

We do have a history of supporting our buddies (Kuwait, South Korea, Viet-Nâm, WWII, WWI)...

 

[Benzoate]

We do have a history of supporting our buddies (Kuwait, South Korea, Viet-Nâm, WWII, WWI)...

yes, but Israeli received the most financial support from the United States over any other country.

 

[russ_watters]

I am very confused when right wing political pundits say that Israel will be topple by Iran's military who we are not even sure are developing nuclear weapons and if they are they might only have one or two nuclear weapons.

I've never heard anyone say that - do you have any actual references?

Iran will be stupid to attack the second largest military on the planet!

Yes. So it's working.

yes, but Israeli received the most financial support from the United States over any other country.

Perhaps in direct money aid, but how much do the 40,000 soldiers we have in South Korea cost to keep there?

One thing not often mentioned is that the money also gives us leverage. Leverage to keep Israel out of conflicts such as the first Gulf war. It enhances the region's stability via deterrence to have Israel strong and it enhances the region's stability to have us maintaining a little control over what Israel does with that money.

 

[Benzoate]

I've never heard anyone say that - do you have any actual references? .

I don't have any written references. But if you listen to the radio talk show host, the Savage nation, whenever the topic of Iran comes up, Michael savage is always says Iran can be a threat to Israel security's and the world security and I find that absurd since Israel and the rest of the so called world leading nations has an arsenal of nuclear weapons exceeding the number of nuclear weapons Iran might have in its Arsenal.

There are a fair number of articles written by political pundits who see Iran as a threat to Israel and world peace of www.capmag.org[/URL] . Just do a search of 'Iran' on that site and you will quite a few articles of the " Iranian threat".

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Israel's existence is probably owed to the guilt following WWII and the Holocaust.

The Jewish state was thriving since before WWII. The Holocaust deprived it of much needed people and money. Israel exists because the Jews kicked the British out.

yes, but Israeli received the most financial support from the United States over any other country.

I believe Iraq gets more. Does anyone have numbers? Perhaps the difference is that when we give money to Iraq, it ends up in the hands of Halliburton, whereas the money that goes to Israel actually goes to Israel.

 

[edward]

I don't have any written references. But if you listen to the radio talk show host, the Savage nation, whenever the topic of Iran comes up, Michael savage is always says Iran can be a threat to Israel security's and the world security and I find that absurd since Israel and the rest of the so called world leading nations has an arsenal of nuclear weapons exceeding the number of nuclear weapons Iran might have in its Arsenal.

There are a fair number of articles written by political pundits who see Iran as a threat to Israel and world peace of www.capmag.org[/URL] . Just do a search of 'Iran' on that site and you will quite a few articles of the " Iranian threat".[/QUOTE]

The supposed threat to Israel escalated when that idiot in Iran proclaimed that Israel must be destroyed.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/04/dl0401.xml[/url]

Our support of Israel is/was heavily weighted by the presence of oil in the middle east. The Israel lobby is now the strongest lobby in this country. Politicians are afraid to vote against sending Israel more money.

The Irael Lobby and American foreign policy:

[URL]http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011[/URL]

[MEDIA=youtube]N294FMDok98[/MEDIA]

 

[Astronuc]

The Jewish state was thriving since before WWII. The Holocaust deprived it of much needed people and money. Israel exists because the Jews kicked the British out.

Before WWII, there was not really a Jewish state but an enclave under the British Mandate (1920–1948). Before that it was a territory under rule of Ottomans, Egyptians or other Arabic group. Immigration of Jews (in large numbers) from Europe would have been virtually impossible prior to WWII given the politics of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Certainly Israel is a strategic partner in the area. If Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or any other predominantly Muslim state closed its borders to the US military - there would still be Israel.

 

[Benzoate]

Before WWII, there was not really a Jewish state but an enclave under the British Mandate (1920–1948). Before that it was a territory under rule of Ottomans, Egyptians or other Arabic group. Immigration of Jews (in large numbers) from Europe would have been virtually impossible prior to WWII given the politics of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Certainly Israel is a strategic partner in the area. If Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or any other predominantly Muslim state closed its borders to the US military - there would still be Israel.

What reasons would those middle eastern countries have for closing its borders to the US military? Do those countries even have the military capabilities run US soldiers out of their countries?

 

[WarPhalange]

I don't have any written references. But if you listen to the radio talk show host, the Savage nation, whenever the topic of Iran comes up, Michael savage

Michael Savage is a Weiner.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Before WWII, there was not really a Jewish state but an enclave under the British Mandate (1920–1948).

You are right. It was a mistake for me to call the Jewish enclave a state when it was not a state.

Immigration of Jews (in large numbers) from Europe would have been virtually impossible prior to WWII given the politics of the 19th and 20th centuries.

It was virtually impossible, and yet it occurred. Here are some figures of the number of Jews in Palestine in given years.

* 1922: 83,790
* 1931: 174,606
* 1932: 192,137
* 1933: 234,967
* 1934: 282,975
* 1935: 355,157
* 1936: 384,078
* 1937: 395,836
* 1938: 411,222
* 1939: 445,457
* 1940: 463,535
* 1941: 474,102
* 1942: 484,408

Arab Palestine before 1948

But my remarks were aimed at the idea that Israel exists as a result of feelings of guilt. In spite of any such possible feelings, the British did all that they were capable of doing to prevent Jewish immigration. The book Exodus, by Leon Uris gives an example of this effort.

 

[falc39]

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
-Thomas Jefferson

Israel = entangling alliance. Sorry we let you down Thomas and the rest of the founding fathers...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Israel = entangling alliance.

How many countries are there with which we do not have entangling alliances?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't have any written references. But if you listen to the radio talk show host, the Savage nation, whenever the topic of Iran comes up, Michael savage is always says Iran can be a threat to Israel security's and the world security and I find that absurd since Israel and the rest of the so called world leading nations has an arsenal of nuclear weapons exceeding the number of nuclear weapons Iran might have in its Arsenal.

There are a fair number of articles written by political pundits who see Iran as a threat to Israel and world peace of www.capmag.org[/URL] . Just do a search of 'Iran' on that site and you will quite a few articles of the " Iranian threat".[/QUOTE]

It would probably be better stated that it is a matter of security and stability in the region in general. To some degree you might be able to relate it to the Blakan Powder Keg. If Iran attacked Isreal and it resulted in major fallout most likely all hell would break loose through out the region.

 

[quadraphonics]

There's an excellent article examining the history and present of US support for Israel (and Zionism more generally prior to 1948) in the current issue of Foreign Affairs:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87402/walter-russell-mead/the-new-israel-and-the-old.html

In particular, the authors take issue with the common misconception that support of Israel represents the triumph of a small lobby or foreign policy elite over mass preferences. In fact, they argue, exactly the opposite is true: support for Israel is wide and deep in the US, and has been for a long, long time.

 

[kyleb]

It would probably be better stated that it is a matter of security and stability in the region in general. To some degree you might be able to relate it to the Blakan Powder Keg. If Iran attacked Isreal and it resulted in major fallout most likely all hell would break loose through out the region.

Isn't this a case of putting the chicken before the egg? Iran doesn't have the means to effectively attack Israel. However, Israel continues to openly threaten to bomb Iran for it's uranium enrichment program, even in spite of the lack of any evidence of any nuclear weapons program. Where is any stability gained in backing Israel here?

Beyond that, Iran's opposition to Israel is grounded in Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank, which is actively denying the Palestinian people their right to a sovereign nation in what little they have left of their homeland. If our goal was stability here, then why would we not be working with Iran to create a balance of power in the region which would necessitate securing permanent boarders to end this conflict, rather than supporting Israel's dominance as they continue their unilateral expansion throughout the West Bank?

There's an excellent article examining the history and present of US support for Israel (and Zionism more generally prior to 1948) in the current issue of Foreign Affairs:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87402/walter-russell-mead/the-new-israel-and-the-old.html

In particular, the authors take issue with the common misconception that support of Israel represents the triumph of a small lobby or foreign policy elite over mass preferences. In fact, they argue, exactly the opposite is true: support for Israel is wide and deep in the US, and has been for a long, long time.

Best I can tell, the article is based on a false premise. Who denies that popular support for Israel is anything but wide and deep in the US? I don't recall ever seeing anyone do that, let alone enough to claim there is a common misconception on the matter.

 

[quadraphonics]

Best I can tell, the article is based on a false premise. Who denies that popular support for Israel is anything but wide and deep in the US? I don't recall ever seeing anyone do that, let alone enough to claim there is a common misconception on the matter.

Best I can tell, you haven't read the article. Feel free to try again after doing so, should you come up with anything valuable to contribute.

 

[kyleb]

I did read first five and a half pages of the article before posted. I have now finished the rest based on your implication that I missed the justification for its premise precariously stashed in the conclusion, only to find nothing of the sort. If I did somehow overlook the article citing anyone denying the girth and depth of popular support in the US for Israel, would you please quote it here?

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm glad that you read the article, but the idea that it is premised on popular attribution of policy to the "Jewish Lobby" is absurd. It is simply an examination of the history and present of US support for Israel. Full stop. This does not require any preexisting views on the Jewish Lobby, or whatever else, in order to be valuable and relevant. The value in the article is not in what views it refutes, but in the view it presents, and supports. That the authors reference widespread belief in the import of the Jewish Lobby has no bearing on the content of their ideas.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you that people believe in the power of the Jewish Lobby. It is manifest that this is the case (see the second post in this thread), as it is manifest that you are being argumentative here. After all, why create specious disputes to tar an article whose main points you agree with in the first place? This makes me suspect that you are motivated by some animus towards me. Which I suppose is always a risk one takes when Israel comes up in online discussions...

 

[Benzoate]

I'm glad that you read the article, but the idea that it is premised on popular attribution of policy to the "Jewish Lobby" is absurd. It is simply an examination of the history and present of US support for Israel. Full stop. This does not require any preexisting views on the Jewish Lobby, or whatever else, in order to be valuable and relevant. The value in the article is not in what views it refutes, but in the view it presents, and supports. That the authors reference widespread belief in the import of the Jewish Lobby has no bearing on the content of their ideas.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you that people believe in the power of the Jewish Lobby. It is manifest that this is the case (see the second post in this thread), as it is manifest that you are being argumentative here. After all, why create specious disputes to tar an article whose main points you agree with in the first place? This makes me suspect that you are motivated by some animus towards me. Which I suppose is always a risk one takes when Israel comes up in online discussions...

Towards the end of the article, it is written that most liberals have much more sympathy towards the palestinians more so than support for Israel because they 've feel that the Paslestines are now the underdogs going up against the regional superpower that the United states have helped established is Israel ; many conservatives(probably former democrats who invaded the Republican Party) support maintaining the state of Israel; So I say its split; 50 % support Israel, 50 % do not support Israel


I think it is absurd to say that the Israeli Lobby in the US has no power over the decisions about Israeli affairs. And Israeli Lobby is mainly composed of Jews, so one might infer that decisions are being made to favored jewish interests rather than to served reasons to promote peace between Israel and other Arab nations. Just because a large sum of the American population might agree that the United States should continue to support Israel doesn't mean the Americans might approve of how the United states Governments might go about supporting Israel. Polls show that most Americans disapprove of foreign aid to other countries, so I doubt many Americans , both conservatives, liberals, independents or whatever, would favor to continue to finance Israel military if they knew how much money it cost Americans to finance Israel's military.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't this a case of putting the chicken before the egg? Iran doesn't have the means to effectively attack Israel. However, Israel continues to openly threaten to bomb Iran for it's uranium enrichment program, even in spite of the lack of any evidence of any nuclear weapons program. Where is any stability gained in backing Israel here?

Beyond that, Iran's opposition to Israel is grounded in Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank, which is actively denying the Palestinian people their right to a sovereign nation in what little they have left of their homeland. If our goal was stability here, then why would we not be working with Iran to create a balance of power in the region which would necessitate securing permanent boarders to end this conflict, rather than supporting Israel's dominance as they continue their unilateral expansion throughout the West Bank?

I wasn't offering any support for the US policy on Isreal but only pointing out that the possiblity of war in the region that could destroy Isreal (maybe or eventually) does exist. It's not just a matter of Iran destroying Isreal but an all out war in the region between multiple states which would percipitate involvement from bigger world powers.
As for the logic (or illogic) in the US supporting Isreal Russ points out that our support and their desire for our continued support gives the US some control over the situation. Ditching support of Isreal for support of Palestine or Iran is not going to keep Isreal from visiting its wrath upon its enemies (perceived or otherwise).

 

[Benzoate]

I wasn't offering any support for the US policy on Isreal but only pointing out that the possiblity of war in the region that could destroy Isreal (maybe or eventually) does exist. It's not just a matter of Iran destroying Isreal but an all out war in the region between multiple states which would percipitate involvement from bigger world powers.
As for the logic (or illogic) in the US supporting Isreal Russ points out that our support and their desire for our continued support gives the US some control over the situation. Ditching support of Isreal for support of Palestine or Iran is not going to keep Isreal from visiting its wrath upon its enemies (perceived or otherwise).

I don't understand how Israel will be destroyed easily if war broke out since Israel has one of the most powerful on the face of the planet?? I agree that support for Palestine or/and Iran is equally dubious. However, I can't picture a nation with one of the most powerful Army on Earth being vunerable to the "wrath" of Iran and Palestine.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't understand how Israel will be destroyed easily if war broke out since Israel has one of the most powerful on the face of the planet?? I agree that support for Palestine or/and Iran is equally dubious. However, I can't picture a nation with one of the most powerful Army on Earth being vunerable to the "wrath" of Iran and Palestine.

Please read my posts a little more thuroughly. I said "maybe or eventually" and not necessarily at the hands of Iran or Palestine. There are several states in the area that are not friendly to Isreal and may take any weakness from attack or preoccupation with another enemy as an opening and excuse for attack.. If you look at the history of Isreal you will see just how many of them they had to fight off to maintain their state. And there is also the matter of what larger nations may wind up involved if such a war occured. See similarities with the Balkan Powder Keg. My primary point however was not that Isreal is the one to worry about but the entire region, Isreal simply being the primary hub for conflict.

 

[kyleb]

I'm glad that you read the article, but the idea that it is premised on popular attribution of policy to the "Jewish Lobby" is absurd. It is simply an examination of the history and present of US support for Israel. Full stop. This does not require any preexisting views on the Jewish Lobby, or whatever else, in order to be valuable and relevant. The value in the article is not in what views it refutes, but in the view it presents, and supports. That the authors reference widespread belief in the import of the Jewish Lobby has no bearing on the content of their ideas.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you that people believe in the power of the Jewish Lobby. It is manifest that this is the case (see the second post in this thread), as it is manifest that you are being argumentative here. After all, why create specious disputes to tar an article whose main points you agree with in the first place? This makes me suspect that you are motivated by some animus towards me. Which I suppose is always a risk one takes when Israel comes up in online discussions...

I did not suggest that the article was "premised on popular attribution of policy to the "Jewish Lobby". Rather, I agreed with your characterization of the article as focusing on disputing claims "that support of Israel represents the triumph of a small lobby or foreign policy elite over mass preferences." However, having never seen any such claims for myself, I'm requesting examples. I don't see the claim exemplified in Astronuc's post though; nothing he said implied that the Israel lobby circumvents popular opinion, quite to the contrary he acknowledges the means by which it has benefited from that support. So, again, I'm still left wondering where can one see examples of this common misconception that we agree the article proposes to take issue with?

 

[drankin]

Whether one believes it is good or bad, Isreal is our most secure military foothold in the middle east. It will always be a point of contention. Apparently, the US has always figured that it is worth the hassle.

Dr Savage is the man.

 

[kyleb]

As for the logic (or illogic) in the US supporting Isreal Russ points out that our support and their desire for our continued support gives the US some control over the situation. Ditching support of Isreal for support of Palestine or Iran is not going to keep Isreal from visiting its wrath upon its enemies (perceived or otherwise).

I'm acknowledging Russ's claim in my question. Again, I'm curious to know working to create a balance of power in the region which would necessitate securing permanent boarders could be considered anything but more conducive to stability in the region in comparison to our current backing of Israel as they expand their colonization of the West Bank?

 

[waht]

I suppose that the Evangelists have strong influence higher up the ladder as well, and have been pushing to aide Israel solely because of religious beliefs.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm acknowledging Russ's claim in my question. Again, I'm curious to know working to create a balance of power in the region which would necessitate securing permanent boarders could be considered anything but more conducive to stability in the region in comparison to our current backing of Israel as they expand their colonization of the West Bank?

I can't say that it's an entirely logical position. There is some logic in the idea that the US can hold the "leash" for Isreal and try to keep it out of trouble. Much of the motivation to do this is just as selfserving as it is for promotion of stability in the region, which is likely a major element in its simultaneous destabilizing effect. Its sort of a catch 22. So long as the US works with Isreal the other nations in the area will be less willing to work diplomatically with the US. But if the US were to stop working with Isreal to work with the other nations its quite possible that all bets will be off on keeping Isreal at bey.

 

[quadraphonics]

So long as the US works with Isreal the other nations in the area will be less willing to work diplomatically with the US. But if the US were to stop working with Isreal to work with the other nations its quite possible that all bets will be off on keeping Isreal at bey.

We should also keep in mind that the US did originally try to strike a more balanced (or, even, pro-Arab) stance, to the extent of undermining not only Israel, but also France and the UK, in the Suez Crisis. Such an approach did not yield the desired cooperation from the Arab states, who instead jumped into bed with the Soviets, leaving a very bitter taste in America's mouth. Part of the calculus now seems to be the assumption that the Arab states are too politically fragile and disfunctional to make worthwhile diplomatic partners, whereas Israel is not, and that one gains more leverage over the Arab states by keeping Israel on-side anyway.

 

[mheslep]

Before WWII, there was not really a Jewish state but an enclave under the British Mandate (1920–1948). Before that it was a territory under rule of Ottomans, Egyptians or other Arabic group. Immigration of Jews (in large numbers) from Europe would have been virtually impossible prior to WWII given the politics of the 19th and 20th centuries...

You are right. It was a mistake for me to call the Jewish enclave a state when it was not a state...

Certainly there was a Jewish state in Palestine before the Middle Ages, on and off up until, say, 70AD and the Roman destruction of the temple.

 

[mjolnir80]

in laymans terms Israel is Americas strongest military base in the middle east
also IMHO jewish people are some of the wealthiest in the world (yes this is kind of stereotypical but its true) and they control many of the worlds biggest companies. America wants to have good relations with these people by seeming to support their "homeland"

and the only reason politicians are saying that iran is a threat is because they are planning on changing the currency which they use for international transactions from american dollars to euros
this change will cause the american dollar to drop significantly. its not a military threat its a financial threat

 

[sketchtrack]

Maybe It is a lot to do with the Freemasons. They have a history that traces back to Israel, and they are said to have a considerable amount of power not only in the U.S., but world wide.

 

[wildman]

and the only reason politicians are saying that iran is a threat is because they are planning on changing the currency which they use for international transactions from american dollars to euros
this change will cause the american dollar to drop significantly. its not a military threat its a financial threat

There are theories that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with that also. Basically the US Government is trying to prop up the dollar with military action. Unfortunately, it eventually will not work no matter what we do. We have moved our industry offshore which is causing the current accounts deficit to balloon. Along with our dependence on foreign oil, this will eventually cause the dollar to collapse.

As a wag once said: "Off shoring results in lower prices... for a while!". (Then the dollar collapses and everything becomes very expensive forever).

 

[Astronuc]

Maybe It is a lot to do with the Freemasons. They have a history that traces back to Israel, and they are said to have a considerable amount of power not only in the U.S., but world wide.

Somewhat inaccurate!

They were stonemasons who built castles and cathedrals in England and Scotland. Because of the inherent danger of their work, many stonemasons formed local organizations, called lodges, to take care of sick and injured members as well as the widows and orphans of those who were killed on the job. The masons also used the lodges as places to meet, receive their pay, plan their work, train new apprentices, and socialize.

In 1717, the first Grand Lodge was established in London. Within the next two decades, English Freemasonry spread throughout Europe and eventually made its way to the American colonies. The first lodge organized on American soil appeared in Philadelphia around 1730. By 1733 a Provincial Grand Lodge was organized in Boston. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and other founding fathers were among the first Masons in America. Of the 39 men who signed the U.S. Constitution, 13 were Masons.

http://www.freemason.org/about_us/history.php

Freemasons have as much common history with Israel as any person who is not a Freemason.

 

[Astronuc]

Just a reminder - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

Please refrain from innuendo and stereotyping or otherwise gross generalizations of groups of people, otherwise posts will be deleted and/or the thread will be locked.

 

[sketchtrack]

Just a reminder - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

Please refrain from innuendo and stereotyping or otherwise gross generalizations of groups of people, otherwise posts will be deleted and/or the thread will be locked.

"The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (Latin: Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici), commonly known as the Knights Templar or the Order of the Temple (French: Ordre du Temple or Templiers), were among the most famous of the Western Christian military orders.[3] The organization existed for approximately two centuries in the Middle Ages. It was founded in the aftermath of the First Crusade of 1096, its original purpose to ensure the safety of the many Christians who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem after its conquest.
Officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church around 1129, the Order became a favored charity throughout Christendom and grew rapidly in membership and power. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles quartered by a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades.[4] Non-combatant members of the Order managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, innovating financial techniques that were an early form of banking,[5][6] and building many fortifications throughout the Mediterranean and the Holy Land.
The Templars' success was tied closely to the Crusades; when the Holy Land was lost, support for the Order faded. Rumors about the Templars' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action against the Order. In 1307, many of the Order's members in France were arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and then burned at the stake.[7] In 1312, Pope Clement, under continuing pressure from King Philip, disbanded the Order. The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the societal infrastructure gave rise to speculation and legends, which have kept the "Templar" name alive into the modern day."

I guess the connection between Nights Templar and Freemasonry isn't fact, and I watch to much history channel.

 

[Astronuc]

"The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (Latin: Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici), commonly known as the Knights Templar or the Order of the Temple (French: Ordre du Temple or Templiers), were among the most famous of the Western Christian military orders.[3] The organization existed for approximately two centuries in the Middle Ages. It was founded in the aftermath of the First Crusade of 1096, its original purpose to ensure the safety of the many Christians who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem after its conquest.
Officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church around 1129, the Order became a favored charity throughout Christendom and grew rapidly in membership and power. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles quartered by a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades.[4] Non-combatant members of the Order managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, innovating financial techniques that were an early form of banking,[5][6] and building many fortifications throughout the Mediterranean and the Holy Land.
The Templars' success was tied closely to the Crusades; when the Holy Land was lost, support for the Order faded. Rumors about the Templars' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action against the Order. In 1307, many of the Order's members in France were arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and then burned at the stake.[7] In 1312, Pope Clement, under continuing pressure from King Philip, disbanded the Order. The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the societal infrastructure gave rise to speculation and legends, which have kept the "Templar" name alive into the modern day."

To simplify the story without attempting to elaborate or quote various researchers, all we know is that when Templary emerged in the early 1700's it was a part of Freemasonry. THERE IS NO PROOF OF DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ANCIENT ORDER AND THE MODERN ORDER KNOWN TO DAY AS THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR.

http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq1.html#connection

I guess the connection between Nights Templar and Freemasonry isn't fact, and I watch to much history channel.

There is no apparent connection between the modern day Knights Templar and the older order, which was established in 1096 - except perhaps the name.

When the original Knights Templar was formed - there was no kingdom or state of Israel from 125 CE on. It had been part of the Roman and Byzantine empires as well as various caliphates of different Muslim groups.

 

[sketchtrack]

I'm not against masonry, and I didn't mean to misinform anyone. Maybe the two do have no connection, but still, the 13th degree of masonry is called "The Royal Arch of Solomon", and the 15th is called "Prince of Jerusalem"

I can gather that Jerusalem is a sacred place to masons.

 

[quadraphonics]

France is one of the most pro-palestinian country in Europe.

Ignoring the implication that one cannot be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, it bears mentioning that for the formative years of Israel's history as an independent state, France was their best friend and patron. There would be no Israel if France had not pushed so hard for it, and Israel's relations with the Arab states might be markedly different if France hadn't used Israel as a launching pad for attacks on Egypt aimed at controlling the Suez Canal. France and the UK spent most of the 20th century royally screwing up the entire Middle East in the name of colonial glory, and then dumped it into America's lap when it all blew up in their faces. Now they sit around complaining about how evil Israel is, and how bad America is for dealing with the situation (*cough* Vietnam *cough*), apparently oblivious to their leading roles in creating the situation, and the fact that Israel has been much more peaceful and restrained under American patronage than it ever was under Franco-British patronage, who literaly used Israel as a military base for imperialist aggression.

Also, when it comes to respect for one's neighbors, I'd spend a few minutes thinking about Algeria before casting stones at the United States.

 

[Coldcall]

Whats interesting is that it was not always like this. Initially the US did not really support Israel and instead countries like France were far more supportive. Its really when the cold war spread to the Middle East that the US started funding and supporting Israel. If one recalls 67 was not just about the Middle East but was about the big powers (US & Soviet Union) manipulating their proxies, such as Israel, Egypt, Syria etc..

So today's strong US support for Israel stems from the cold war where Israel was the most loyal, democratic ally in the region. If anything, Al Qaeda and the new "Islamist" form of terrorism has in fact only tightened that Israeli/US relationship from a military-security perspective, as Israel has been combatting Palestinian miltants/terrorists for much longer.

Other contributing factors are a strong US Jewish lobby, the US Christian right, and no doubt some feeling of protection of Jews re the Holocaust.

So its a pretty rational relationship when people lose the "jewish cabal" stereoyped concepts which normally invade these sorts of discussions.

 

[Evo]

There seems that there is nothing left to discuss, so thread closed.