Isakson Stands With Israel

Received the following press release from Isakson’s office. Consider this your opportunity to discuss foreign policy on this blog about Georgia Politics:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today released the following statement regarding Israel’s decision to board ships attempting to sail to Gaza.

“While the loss of life aboard the Gaza-bound ship is tragic, Israel is well within its rights to defend itself against Hamas and any terrorist organizations that continue to support violence against its people. Like so many, I continue to hope that indirect peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will continue and that peace in the region will finally come to fruition.”


  1. iamnotasocialist says:

    I need more information. I am an ardent Zionist, but I will not blindly follow Israeli actions. They are our ally, but they are not infallable. I think we as a nation need to critically look at what Israel does as a nation. I personally think that some of what they do is abhorring, and some of it is necessary. I think more facts need to come to light about this particular instance before we can truly judge.

    • kim000 says:

      I agree. Israel is a strong ally, but this blind following of Israel needs to stop. Watching how U.S. politicians behave toward Israel, sometimes I forget who’s the superpower in the relationship. I’m beginning to think that Israel can burn the American flag on top of Mt. Rushmore and yet U.S. politicians would be tripping over themselves to “stand with Israel”.

      Just because the two are allies, does not mean that America should run its foreign policy through Israel. As its clear that we have different foreign policy goals.

      We have troops in the region. We need Turkey in order to deal with Iran and Pakistan. So, yes, Israel, stop the ship as you have done countless times before by guiding the ship into port. But there was no need to go all commando in a way that puts American foreign policy in a bind.

  2. c_murrayiii says:

    If you watch the video, it is clear that the so-called “activists” were armed with clubs, knives, poles, and various other weapons and assaulted the Israeli’s the minute they boarded the vessel. Also, the ships were organized by a group from Turkey linked to Hamas and other terror groups. Cyprus wouldn’t even let them dock in their ports. These activists are nothing more than anti-semite terror sympathizers. The world’s reaction is also nothing but latent anti-semitism that has a convenient, albeit misguided, reason to rear its ugly head. If the people of Gaza insist on supporting a terrorist regime, they deserve to suffer. If Palestinians really wanted peace and their own state, they’d work with Israel, instead of against them. The “Palestinian Cause” is nothing more than an Arabic invention used to distract their own people from the corruption and oppression of their own governments. Seriously, does anyone in the world think for one second that Saudi Arabia, Syria, or even Turkey wouldn’t have just blown these boats out of the water without a second thought if the situation were reversed?

    I don’t just support Israel because they are God’s people, I support them because they are the only decent, free nation in the entire region. Thank you Senator Isakson, I wish our President had your convictions.

    • benevolus says:

      I would think that any ship being attacked in international waters might be expected to try to repel the boarders.

      Hamas is the democratically elected authority of their territory. What makes them any more of a terrorist organization than Israel attacking a ship in international waters?

      If Israel really wanted peace they would offer to be part of a greater middle-east nation that included Palestinian territories.

      • c_murrayiii says:

        Except they did offer that, in 99 if I recall, and Arafat turned them down, because the PLO and Hamas gain more from playing the victim. And so do all the despotic Arabic regimes. Israel did not “attack” a ship, they went to board a ship. The United States and many other nations do the same thing all over the world when they have legitimate suspicious about vessels that may be engaged in piracy or supplying terrorist groups, as Hamas is internationally recognized as. Its interesting you didn’t raise an issue of my allegation the ship was organized by a charity linked to terror groups…
        Oh, and the Nazi’s gained power through parliamentary means as well, so I guess they were ok too. I mean, Hamas wants to destroy Israel and deport the Jews much like Hitler did, so they are similar.

        • benevolus says:

          If Arafat and the PLO were somehow connected to this ship, you might have a point.
          But what is the fascination with the word “terrorist”? Would they be more legitimate in your eyes if they had tanks and jets instead of knives and homemade rockets?

          “Destroy Israel” means “get their land back”?
          “deport the Jews”? Maybe from the settlements they keep building on territory they don’t own, but other than that, I’m not so sure.

          I think The FoundersTM would say- one man’s terrorist is another mans patriot.

          • c_murrayiii says:

            you said that if Israel wanted peace they’d offer to be part of a greater middle eastern nation with the Palestinians, well in 99 they offered Palestine the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, everything the Palestinians had asked for to start their own nation, and Arafat turned them down. The PLO and Hamas then launched the second intifada. So…since the two parties Israel would have to deal with to accomplish your goal are still both Hamas and the PLO, why should Israel offer them anything, much less the very thing they already offered and was rejected with violence intended only to prop up criminal regimes who can’t govern peacefully?

            You really need to do some research and quit seeing the Mid East situation through your Anti-Jewish prism. Is this Cynthia McKinney?

            Also, it wouldn’t be “getting their land back” Israel was legally created by the UN, and at first Israel was just going to consist of the predominately Jewish inhabited territories, but the Arabs and Palestinians wouldn’t have, so they started a war. Israel won and took some spoils. Over the last 60 years, Israel has won every time they were attacked and has relinquished nearly all the land they took in their victories. What other victorious nation in the history of the world has willingly returned as much territory gained through legitimate victory?

            As for my use of the word “terrorist”, you really need help with this. If you think a group who advocates murdering innocent civilians with car bombs, suicide bombers, and randomly fired rockets is a group of “freedom fighters” then you clearly know nothing of our Founders. They met the British on the battlefield, face to face. They fought other soldiers, not civilians. Hamas is a terrorist group. They intentionally target civilians. To even have to explain this to you proves you have a low intelligence or that you are simply making a disingenuous attempt to excuse the brutal, disgusting tactics of these racist groups.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Israel predates the UN, but being ‘re-created’ might be a better term. “What other victorious nation in the history of the world has willingly returned as much territory gained through legitimate victory?” Considering that Japan (or anther random country such as Grenada) is not a US territory, I would say the United States has.

              Other than that, I agree with everything you just said. Preach on.

              • c_murrayiii says:

                It is sad that the two countries most vilified in the world, the US and Israel, are also the two who have been most gracious in victory militarily and the most generous with their charity and foreign aid.

    • Game Fan says:

      I don’t just support Israel because they are God’s people, I support them because they are the only decent, free nation in the entire region. Thank you Senator Isakson, I wish our President had your convictions.

      -And you think an attitude like that helps Israel long term?

      • c_murrayiii says:

        I don’t understand what you mean, because they receive support based on the fact they are the only free country in the region, this somehow undermines their future? Or is it that the fact they are the only free country in the region that threatens their future? If its number two, that’s not an attitude but an unfortunate reality for which Israel is not to blame for. If its number one, again I don’t see how that is Israel’s fault. Also, my attitude towards Israel probably has little to do with their long term viability and security, I’m not that important….j/k

        • Game Fan says:

          Your “analysis” of Israel is probably the single biggest most widespread foreign policy talking point regurgitated by millions of Americans that I know of. Not sure where it originated. Pat Robertson? If you were a Muslim or an Arab, you might be offended. Hence, the “blowback” effect on Israel.

  3. MSBassSinger says:

    I don’t get whay any rational person would criticize Israel for what they did. They are blockading a known enemy that attacks them over and over, no different than we blockaded Germany in WWII, and Kennedy’s blockade during the Cuba missle crisis. All were lawful blockades.

    The ship was carrying terrorists and weapons. Israel regularly handles tons of non-military supplies for Gaza through their ports, and sends it on to Gaza. This ship was not on a humanatarian mission – it was on a mission to help stop the blockade so Hamas can get more weapons to use against Israel.

    I wonder how long before Israel says “Enough!” and takes back the buffer lands. “Land for peace” has had years to work, and it only brought more attacks on Israel.

    If the US was being attacked by outsiders like Israel is, we would not stand for it. Why should Israel?

    • benevolus says:

      Many Palestinians have never recognized Israel. The nation was carved out of and divided ancient clan territories. There is no moral authority to the claim. It is a brute force action. Support it if you will.
      Peace is achievable.

      • MSBassSinger says:

        You should try studying history.

        First, Israel has existed for many centuries. The only people with a heritage in Israel are the Jews. All other native non-Jews were wiped out many centuries ago by other nations. Only the Jewish tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained.

        Second, there is no actual native people group “Palestinians”. They are mostly of Jordanian and Egyptian origin.

        Third, the name “Palestine” was given by a Roman general as insult to Israel. He was calling the nation by the same name as the land of the Philistines, which is present-day Gaza.

        Fourth, Jews have lived in the land of Israel going back thousands of years.

        Fifth, there will never be a lasting peace between Israel and the barbarians who seek to eliminate her. There is a single-mindedness across the varieties of Islam that Israel cannot be allowed to exist. No matter what Israel does to gain peace, her enemies will not stop trying to destroy her. Israel’s only hope is to retake Gaza and the West Bank, and allow those who will not live under Israeli law to leave and return to their original homelands.

        You might be surprised to learn many Israeli Arabs live peaceably in Israel. Israel, unlike her Islamic neighbors, allows freedom of worship. The freest Moslems in the Middle East are those who live peaceably in Israel.

        • “Fifth, there will never be a lasting peace between Israel and the barbarians who seek to eliminate her.”

          Certainly not as long as hardline true believers refer to those who oppose their policies as “barbarians”.

          While (IMHO) the creation of Israel was a horrible mistake that has led to countless lives lost on both sides, as well as the spending of billions of our tax dollars to support it, it’s there now. Despite the fantasies of Helen Thomas, the modern-day Israelis aren’t going to leave. Neither are those who were dispossessed of their land. The only way to move forward is for BOTH sides to sit down and honestly negotiate a settlement. That’ll require BOTH sides to give up some things that they value. Unfortunately, the hardliners on BOTH sides are working very hard to prevent this from happening – the hardliners would rather stubbornly insist that the “barbarians” on the other side jump in the ocean, and they work hard to whip their supporters and the citizens of their respective territories into a frenzy of support for them and hatred of those “other guys”.

          Needless to say, this sort of rhetoric (on BOTH sides) isn’t getting us anywhere.

  4. hugoblacksupreme says:

    Do some people forget that our interests and Israeli interests are not always aligned?

    And when has “Indirect” negotiations ever worked?

  5. Jimbo says:

    I don’t get it. Israel is 75% Jewish and only 20% Arab. It is SMALLER THAN NEW JERSEY. It has a population density of about 950 people per square mile. So why should Israel have to give up land for an independent Palestinian state? Here is data for surrounding countries:

    Syria – 90% Arab, 307 people/square miles, 9 times larger than Israel
    Jordan – 98% Arab, 140 people/square miles, 11.5 times larger than Israel
    Saudi Arabia – 90% Arab, 31 people/square miles, >100 times larger than Israel

    You get the idea.
    My question is this: if all of the countries surrounding Israel are so much larger and so much more Arab, why should Israel be forced to give up land for a Palestinian state? Why don’t the Palestinian’s Muslim, Arab buddies give them some land?

    • benevolus says:

      OK. How about if Namibia were to offer you a hut on 1/8 of an acre? Would you take it?

      • Jimbo says:

        I don’t quite get your point. If a Palestinian state is needed and will lead to peace, why is the burden on Israel to give them land? Why isn’t there international pressure on any other Middle Eastern nations to give up some of their land? All of the other nations are so much larger, so they have more land to give the Palestinians. Palestine wouldn’t have to worry about overcrowding as much.

        • ByteMe says:

          The Palestinians had land. It was on the EAST bank of the Jordan… in what is now Jordan. Jordan doesn’t want them back either.

        • benevolus says:

          My point is, presumably you have family somewhere, and friends, and property, and a history and a cultural connection to that area. Why should you be expected to just give all that up and start someplace new?
          A closer analogy would be if Mexico reclaimed Texas and occupied it by force (OK, perhaps with the help of China!). Of course the Texans would never accept this situation and would resist from day one. So then the Mexicans have to disarm the populace, move them all out of their homes and businesses and send them to a small area near Galveston where they can be reasonably controlled. You are saying they should then be happy if they are all offered a chunk of Oaxaca, Mexico to move to.
          Many of those people would NEVER view Texas as part of Mexico. They would ALWAYS resist and they would feel like patriots doing it.

          • ByteMe says:

            Not a great analogy. In your analogy vs. reality, Texas would not only want their land back, but also to push all Mexicans in Mexico into the Pacific and claim Mexico as part of a “Greater Texas”. And the Texans would actually have actually had to have been there first, which is not quite true either.

            • benevolus says:

              Well, we can argue about what has happened, but the goal should be peace.

              The creation of Israel is the root of the problem. Until Israelis (or the rest of us) are willing to confront that, it’s hard to see the end of this.

              But alas, we are not going to solve the problem here.

              • ByteMe says:

                The “root” of the problem goes back centuries before the creation of the state of Israel.

                • MSBassSinger says:

                  Correct. It goes back to Abraham listening to Sarah’s advice, and his lack of faith at the time, and having a child (Ishmael) by Sarah’s handmaiden, Hagar, instead of waiting on God’s time.

                  It is Ishmael’s descendants who have fought to destroy Isaac’s descendants for centuries.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            Texas was part of Spanish colonies, the French colonies, then controlled by a Mexican government, declared it’s independence, and then joined the Union.

            Israel has also been controlled by various nations, including by the Romans.

            Texas is part of the US and Israel is it’s own nation. Everyone who has a problem with that or who want things to go back to the way they used to be can get over it.

            My family has been in the US about 14 generations. That doesn’t mean I can go back to Germany, or England depending on which ancestor I follow, and start making pipe bombs until they give me some land.

          • c_murrayiii says:

            They might resist, the Texans, but I doubt they’d blow themselves up in a marketplace filled with women and children. I doubt they’d launch rockets indiscriminately into neighborhoods. I doubt they’d celebrate in the streets if airplanes crashed into Chinese office towers killing 3,000 innocent people (using your analogy, China would be like the US, right?)

            • benevolus says:

              Of course they would. We routinely accept “collateral damage” in our killing as a cost of doing business.

              It’s too hard to have this discussion here. We shouldn’t be generalizing about “Palestinians” because there is a range of beliefs among them just like there are among us.

              • c_murrayiii says:

                “Collateral Damage” is when there is a military target and civilian casualties occur in pursuing that military objective. Hamas, the main Palestinian group I’m talking about, and the reason for the blockade of Gaza which is what this post is about, targets Israeli citizens unconnected to a military objective. There is a huge difference. And I doubt the good people of Texas would allow an organization to act “on their behalf” by killing innocent civilians with no military objective. But this is all speculative…

  6. chamblee54 says:

    According to press reports ( which can be wrong), a United States citizen was killed on the flotilla. He had four gunshot wounds in the head, from a weapon fired at close range.
    I will repeat this…a United States citizen was killed on the flotilla. He had four gunshot wounds in the head, from a weapon fired at close range.
    Mr. Isakson is up for re election. He needs campaign money. He cares more about being re elected than an United States citizen with four gunshot wounds in the head, from a weapon fired at close range.
    With friends like Israel, who needs enemies?

    • c_murrayiii says:

      So just because he’s an American citizen he should be immune from the consequences of his own potentially violent behavior? He should be immune from any consequences related to his support of a know terrorist organization (Hamas)? Granted, I’d rather he had been detained, deported to the US and arrested immediately when he got of the plane and brought up on charges of treason for giving aid and comfort to an enemy or at least conspiring with terrorists, but considering it is a WAR on terrorism and not a police action, maybe that would be a bit too much to ask.

      If you don’t want to get shot at, don’t attack a soldier/policeman, that’s not too much to ask.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        If he was aiding terrorists….. well, if you lie down with dogs you will get fleas. Maybe he was trying to beat someone with a pipe or throw an Israeli overboard? Let’s hear some more of the story before we come to final conclusions. Maybe he earned a gunshot wound to the head.

    • Mozart says:


      Ever heard of the American who joined the Taliban? What was the American doing on the boat? Don’t consider thinking too much beyond the facts you may read or hear about…I can see it would be a stretch for you and you might strain something.

      • bowersville says:

        Richard Reid, the shoe bomber

        Nidal Hasan, Major, US Army and Ft. Hood shooter

        Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma City bomber

        Commonality of the three, all US citizens

        Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the key financiers of the Gaza aid flotilla is the same Muslim cleric proposing the construction of a Mosque on the grounds of NYC Ground Zero.

        Circumstanstial? Possibly, but there is no need to jump to conclusions condemning Israel on the loss of life of a US citizen on the flotilla until the whole story is out.

Comments are closed.