I support Israel's right to exist, and their right to defend themselves against terrorism, including by making air-strikes against Hezbollah targets even though civilians may be caught in the crossfire (which is nevertheless still a tragedy) but I don't like the fact that they are bombing civilian infrastructure such as television stations (anti-Hezbollah ones at that) power stations and airports. I don't feel comfortble cheering on the mayhem caused by either side.

The following was written by me in response to the post above on a different forum. I offer it for your consideration
...........................................................................................

Israel does not have the right to exist...nor does America, France, Costa Rica or any other country or entity in the world. One either has the power to exist or one doesn't. Rights without power are useless and power doesn't need rights.

Contemporary use of the word 'right(s)' is very ambiguous and obfuscatory *. Here is a common definition of 'right': "Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality".

Justice is that which produces harmony and willingness to co-operate within a social group. The human species is divided into subsets called in-groups. An in-group, for our purposes here, is a group of genetically and culturally related individuals who practice altruism towards other members of the group in that such behavior promotes the survival of the in-group and thus enhances the individual's survivablity. The jews are the most geographically wide spread and perhaps the most successful of all in-groups.

Justice between in-groups, while not meaningless, is certainly attenuated **. There are occasions when in-groups co-operate but, ultimately they are in evolutionary competition and the co-operation tends to break down. For a member of one in-group to assert the 'right' or justice of the existence of another in-group is merely to assert that, at the present time, that in-groups existence is beneficial to one's own.

Is the existence of the jewish in-group and/or its geographical, political nation-state, Israel, beneficial to the various, closely related white, gentile in-groups? Let us look at that question with respect to the "moslem problem".

There are broadly speaking two groups (not in-groups as defined above) of moslems in the world. Those that live in predominantly moslem nations and those that live in predominantly white nations (ignoring white moslems as an insignificant group).

The moslems that live in white nations are a threat to the survival of both the white nations and the white race. They are out-breeding us at an alarming rate and, in Europe especially, their percentage of the population threatens to overwhelm the white population (in America, we have other more serious non-white threats but moslems are increasing here also).

Within the white nations, moslems are our enemies in the sense of evolutionary, in-group competition. They must be seen as such and removed...immediately.

The other group of moslems, those in moslem nations, are NOT our enemy and in fact might be temporary allies. No moslem nation in the world at present is even remotely a military threat to any white nation (Albania/Kosovo v. Serbia is an exception and that only with ignorant non-moslems assisting).

To whom are the moslem nations a threat? Israel, in its quest for Eretz Israel (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/greater-israel-map2.jpg ) as an expanded base for its world-wide financial and cultural hegemonic empire. The jewish in-group is widely dispersed over the world (The Diaspora) and like the cuckoo bird has learned to use other in-groups to further their own evolutionary agenda. It is in the interest of the jewish-in-group/Israel to portray the moslem nations to the white nations as a threat to the white nations in order to elicit assistance in THEIR, the jews, agenda.

The moslem nations are not at present a threat to the white nations.

That said, there are moslem individuals and organzations both in the moslem nations and within the white nations who see the white nations as a threat to the moslem nations. This perception on their part is not irrational. If one looks at white/moslem relations since the end of WWI, the white nations, induced by jewish financial, political and cultural influence, have in fact caused great harm to the moslem peoples, especially in the Middle-East. They see clearly, as too many white people do not, that the jews/Israel have used the white nations as instruments of violence and repression against their people.

It should be obvious to all observers that if America and the other white nations withdrew all financial and military aid from Israel and it were required to defend its existence with its own resources that it would not be as belligerent toward its neighbors as it has been. In fact, Israel might not even exist without past assistance from white nations. If not, so be it. I and my gentile fellow whites are not members of the jewish in-group.

The 'terrorist' threats that confront the white nations from moslem individuals and organizations would evaporate with a decline in the power of Israel to inflict harm on its neighbors. Combined with the removal of all moslems from the white nations, 'terrorist' acts, talk of world-wide jihad and the conversion of all humanity to islam would cease as the moslems would retreat into the insularity of their own nations and cultures. The Clash of Civilizations would dim to a nearly inaudible sound and be heard as nothing more than a very improbable scenario in some far distant future to be dealt with IF it occurs. Unlikely.

The 'right' of Israel to exist asserted by too many WNs based on their advocacy of nationalism is ill founded. If Israel has the power to exist as a nation then it will. It does not need the 'right' to. The question becomes: What is the source of Israeli power? If it is their own resources, then I am not one to question the historical reality of the evolutionary process. If I have no dog in the fight, then I will be a mere observer. I might personally choose to participate on one side or the other based on my own personal sense of justice but I would not want my in-group to involve itself in actions contrary to the best interests of my in-group. Those who champion the 'right' of Israel to exist are free to go there and contribute their own resources and blood to that cause.

If Israel can exist as a nation without assistance from the white, gentile nations, then that is what will happen and I have no quarrel with the evolutionary process. But when my in-group and other closely related white in-groups are endangered by collusion with the jews/Israel, then I must take sides.

With respect to the jews/Israel vis-a-vis the moslem nations, I advocate withdrawing all support from Israel and offering financial and military assistance to the moslem nations sufficient only to correct the harm that white nations have done them since WWI and to enable them to defend themselves from an Israel which has been excessively financed and armed by the white nations.

Then White Nationalists can sit back and observe true nationalism in action. If the two sides continue to fight, then we will see which nation deserves to survive the evolutionary struggle. Perhaps they will come to their senses and learn to co-exist peacefully but in any case it would no longer be a problem for the white nations.

The jews as a nation exhibit two aspects. Israel and the Diaspora are like the roots and leaves of a spreading weed. Israel the root should be left to contend for survival on its own soil and with its own resources. The Diasporic leaves need to be contained within the soil which Israel is able to control with its own resources. All jews to Israel and Israel left to its own devices.

For the good of the white race.
...........................................................................................

If I may have your attention for one more moment, I would like to finish my discussion of the word "right' from above. The other two words relating to 'right' are relevant to the discussion about Israel.

Law (in the social, not scientific, sense) refers to behavior and conditions which are permitted or prohibited by decree by some political entity backed by the threat of force. Thus Israel's 'right' to exist in this sense would imply that there is some political entity which has decreed that to be the case and has the power to enforce that 'right' or law.

Only nations make laws and only for their own people. Nations may agree to treaties which 'legally' bind them to some conditions but in the end there is no third party to enforce those agreements and thus they are not truly laws or 'rights'.

Whatever one may think of the UN, it does not make laws and thus can not confer 'rights' in that sense of the word.

Morality is a set of learned principles (from mos, mores; Latin: habits, customs) which have served to enhance the evolutionary survival of some in-group. They may be codified or not but are in any case understood or expected to be understood by all members of the in-group. Morality and law may overlap in many instances but generally are not indentical. In-groups can and usually do have both similarities and differences in their moral codes but morality is not universal. It is particular to each in-group.

Justice, law and morality, and by extension 'rights', are primarily concepts that apply to in-groups and their evolutionary survival. When applied to relations between in-groups, they are tenuous and temporary. Those relations are only useful in so far as they promote the survival of the in-group.

Thus Israel's 'right' to exist can be seen as neither just, lawful nor moral from the perspective of white in-group survival. If Israel's existence benefits white in-groups, then whites ought to support that existence; but, as I have shown above, on the contrary, Israel's existence (with white support) is not beneficial to white in-groups.

If Israel's existence does no harm to white in-groups, then it is irrelevant.

If Israel's existence harms white in-groups, then the evolutionary imperative demands that white in-groups do whatever is necessary to prevent that harm being done.

I am a member of a white, gentile in-group...not the jewish in-group. The consequences following from that condition are really very simple.

* Obfuscate:To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest). obfuscation, obfuscatory

** attenuate: To reduce in force, value, amount, or degree; weaken

I'm sorry if providing these definitions offends anyone but I know that if I don't, I will get complaints.