What has Israel ever done for us?

[Garkland]

And I also don't even want Israel to cease to exist, that ship has sailed, but I want it to be able to live in peace with its neighbors, part of the issue is that Israel seems to have no interest in doing this, and if you read the works of its founders and its politicians, it seems clear that the interest was never in living in peace with their neighbors, but always an ethno-nationalist project.

I agree. Some people believe that Isreal has tried to reach a peaceful agreement and while this is true, they would break the agreements they made with Palestine. Both sides have blood on their hands, and there should be action to stop funding Israel.

[Adamede]

What period of Poland are we talking about? Because there were certainly plenty of Germans that would be easily considered native to places like Silesia and western Pomerania, not to mention Danzig.

The period after the defeat of Nazi Germany in which German settlers who emigrated to Poland and to the East during the German occupation were expelled by Poland.

They where hardly the only German residents of what was now Polish territory that was expelled. That seems like an important distinction to make.

[Fahran]

I agree. Some people believe that Isreal has tried to reach a peaceful agreement and while this is true, they would break the agreements they made with Palestine. Both sides have blood on their hands, and there should be action to stop funding Israel.

*To stop funding all non-American governments that do not adhere to very rigid standards and provide us with concrete advantages through our alliances with them.

Let's stop playing world police. Nobody wants us to play that role except when they're on the ropes and it benefits them directly. It's expensive and often leads to us participating in and condoning human rights abuses and political instability. We're not doing too well from it either. It's just kinda pointless.

[Routcher]

They liberated us from the burden of having to spend US tax dollars on Americans in need, and so that we might focus on an inflated defense budget and "foreign aid".

Also, this thread is considered "anti-Semitic" by a good chunk of the brain-dead US population that cannot separate Jews from the Israeli government.

[Punished UMN]

Oh yeah we all just love Arabs and hate Jews that’s the motivation, sorry should of made that clear at the beginning

I didn't really say that outright, but, yes, some people involved in these conversations and in making them a ubiquitous things hate Jews. I wouldn't really say they love Arabs because I doubt that most of them are UMN or me.

Thank you for acknowledging my love for the Arab people.

[Adamede]

I agree. Some people believe that Isreal has tried to reach a peaceful agreement and while this is true, they would break the agreements they made with Palestine. Both sides have blood on their hands, and there should be action to stop funding Israel.

*To stop funding all non-American governments that do not adhere to very rigid standards and provide us with concrete advantages through our alliances with them.

Thing is the nations that tend to give the Americans the best strategic advantage also tend to be the ones with the shittier governments.

[Fahran]

Thank you for acknowledging my love for the Arab people.

Given you keep sending me Arabic music and checking how Arabic the names I develop for characters are, I think you've graduated from Baathaboo to Araboo. And it's based and litty.

[Adamede]

They liberated us from the burden of having to spend US tax dollars on Americans in need, and so that we might focus on an inflated defense budget and "foreign aid".

Also, this thread is considered "anti-Semitic" by a good chunk of the brain-dead US population that cannot separate Jews from the Israeli government.

Yah I don’t think it’s Israel that’s making the American government not spend money on social services.

[Fahran]

They liberated us from the burden of having to spend US tax dollars on Americans in need, and so that we might focus on an inflated defense budget and "foreign aid".

1. We do not get into wars or spend an inordinate amount on our defense budget because of Israel. We can probably put more of the blame for that on our habit of dropping military bases everywhere, disarming formerly powerful states such as Germany and Japan, and having commitments in South Korea and else-where. Israel, as a rule, does not need American troops on the ground to defend its borders, especially not since 1973.

2. Israel does receive a lot of foreign aid, but is far from the largest recipient of foreign aid. If we account for long-term programs, we actually spend more funding Arab governments such as the Saudis, Qataris, and UAE than we do on Israel. South Korea also gets a lot of aid unsurprisingly. It really depends on what you want our broader geopolitical and economic strategy to be on whether or not you advocate turning the faucet off.

Also, this thread is considered "anti-Semitic" by a good chunk of the brain-dead US population that cannot separate Jews from the Israeli government.

I mean... Blaming Israel for wars that have nothing to do with Israel strikes me as Antisemitic.

[Fahran]

Thing is the nations that tend to give the Americans the best strategic advantage also tend to be the ones with the shittier governments.

Broadly speaking, that's true. Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Poland, and Saudi Arabia are probably the most blatant examples on that front, but there governments are unappealing to us for different reasons. Really, a lot of the "nicer" governments have the advantage of not having to deal with serious secessionist movements, simmering ethnic conflicts, or long-standing border conflicts. Given how France acted in their last serious war, arguably the Algerian War for Independence, I think it's a safe bet to argue that they wouldn't be too far removed from Israel or Turkey in similar circumstances. Really, Poland is the one outlier here, and that's more a product of neoliberalism being so cringe that Catholic nationalism/populism seems based and litty.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

As to the ethnic cleansing and Ben-Gurion's comments in 1937, I would restate my earlier point on this:

1/ Ben-Gurion was known for changing his opinion often on matters related to the conflict [including, eg, binationalism], so it's not natural to assume his position in 1947 was the same as in 1937.
2/ While ethnic cleansing is obviously wrong, it was at the time not regarded as such. Quite the opposite actually, ethnic cleansing (or "population transfers") were seen as both morally and practically sound policies. See for example the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, which involved the ethnic cleansing of 1.6M people, and was endorsed by the League of Nations and Western diplomats. In fact, the very Peel Comission recommended both parties use ethnic cleansing to ensure majorities in their own state. So you're blaming Ben-Gurion for holding a position that was mainstream at the time? Will you also blame 1700s politicians for opposing gay marriage?
3/ The Arab effort was lead by Hajj Amin al-Husseini. al-Husseini worked for the Nazi regime during WW2, lobbying against the release of Jewish children from Italian concentration camps, recruiting Muslims to the SS, etc. In fact, he declared he wanted a new Holocaust in Palestine while visiting Berlin in 1943 (when he met Hitler and Himmler). Does genocide sound like self-defence to you? Odd morals, that would be.

As to the US's role on a global scale: Robert Kagan wrote a good piece for Foreign Affairs on this, A Superpower, Like It or Not: Why Americans Must Accept Their Global Role.

[Yawkland]

Israel is an adversarial state that routinely meddles in our domestic politics and has attempted to influence elections going back to the 1980s. It's telling that when Trump was president, Democrats accused him of colluding with Russia in thw 2016 election, where there were mountains of open evidence that Israel has funnelling millions into both campaigns and waging a rather open narrative war.

But of course we know why nobody with any power in the US will go after Israel. To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

[Fahran]

To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

Those darn children with leukemia?!? I knew it!!!

[Kubra]

To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

Those darn children with leukemia?!? I knew it!!!

kids with leukemia suck and are bad
it was nice knowing you guys, I hear the helicopters already....

[Adamede]

Israel is an adversarial state that routinely meddles in our domestic politics and has attempted to influence elections going back to the 1980s. It's telling that when Trump was president, Democrats accused him of colluding with Russia in thw 2016 election, where there were mountains of open evidence that Israel has funnelling millions into both campaigns and waging a rather open narrative war.

But of course we know why nobody with any power in the US will go after Israel. To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

All I know is that whenever I criticize Turkey for anything online I’m swamped by comments calling me a racist and an Islamophobe.

Thing is the nations that tend to give the Americans the best strategic advantage also tend to be the ones with the shittier governments.

Broadly speaking, that's true. Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Poland, and Saudi Arabia are probably the most blatant examples on that front, but there governments are unappealing to us for different reasons. Really, a lot of the "nicer" governments have the advantage of not having to deal with serious secessionist movements, simmering ethnic conflicts, or long-standing border conflicts. Given how France acted in their last serious war, arguably the Algerian War for Independence, I think it's a safe bet to argue that they wouldn't be too far removed from Israel or Turkey in similar circumstances. Really, Poland is the one outlier here, and that's more a product of neoliberalism being so cringe that Catholic nationalism/populism seems based and litty.

I don’t doubt it. I don’t think any government is authoritarian for the hell of it, but rather because as Machiavelli noted it is better to be feared than it is to be loved when it comes to preserving your power.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Israel is an adversarial state that routinely meddles in our domestic politics and has attempted to influence elections going back to the 1980s. It's telling that when Trump was president, Democrats accused him of colluding with Russia in thw 2016 election, where there were mountains of open evidence that Israel has funnelling millions into both campaigns and waging a rather open narrative war.

But of course we know why nobody with any power in the US will go after Israel. To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

Israel's long standing interference in US politics doesn't trouble people that much, because it's quite open. It's not illegal for foreigners to lobby politicians directly, BUT they're supposed to register as foreign agents.

Russia being immensely more powerful, and lacking clear distinction between secret agencies, military and government itself, makes them a more valid threat than Israel.

The public acceptance of Israeli interference is still notable, and I really wonder if similar open attempts to influence the US would be at all acceptable if they came (even) from better allies like the UK or Japan. I think the US has always had a protective attitude towards Israel, for no religious reason, but only a sense of ownership of the Zionist mission. You have to remember that back when modern Israel was founded, the reality and extent of the Holocaust was still very fresh in the minds of all Allies. "Defeating Nazism" was a convenient justification for the war crimes of the Allies, it was better justification than "defeating Germany, again" anyway, and being able to compensate Jews in some way was a silver lining to an otherwise very dark cloud over Europe.

Anyway, I'm saying Israel's unique place in American politics goes right back to the end of WW2, and American Jews who emigrated after the war, though supportive of Israel, are by definition anti-Zionist. They chose America over Israel, and repeatedly since, and not having personally put their asses on the line to defend Israel's existence, there's an element of shame and defensiveness about Israel's behavior in the region. They support the existence of Israel, with as much peace as possible, but they generally don't support wars of aggression or conquest by Israel. Which is about where I am now: the time has passed when the Israelis all moving out was a just or peaceful option.

[Neutraligon]

Israel is an adversarial state that routinely meddles in our domestic politics and has attempted to influence elections going back to the 1980s. It's telling that when Trump was president, Democrats accused him of colluding with Russia in thw 2016 election, where there were mountains of open evidence that Israel has funnelling millions into both campaigns and waging a rather open narrative war.

But of course we know why nobody with any power in the US will go after Israel. To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

Israel's long standing interference in US politics doesn't trouble people that much, because it's quite open. It's not illegal for foreigners to lobby politicians directly, BUT they're supposed to register as foreign agents.

Russia being immensely more powerful, and lacking clear distinction between secret agencies, military and government itself, makes them a more valid threat than Israel.

The public acceptance of Israeli interference is still notable, and I really wonder if similar open attempts to influence the US would be at all acceptable if they came (even) from better allies like the UK or Japan. I think the US has always had a protective attitude towards Israel, for no religious reason, but only a sense of ownership of the Zionist mission. You have to remember that back when modern Israel was founded, the reality and extent of the Holocaust was still very fresh in the minds of all Allies. "Defeating Nazism" was a convenient justification for the war crimes of the Allies, it was better justification than "defeating Germany, again" anyway, and being able to compensate Jews in some way was a silver lining to an otherwise very dark cloud over Europe.

Anyway, I'm saying Israel's unique place in American politics goes right back to the end of WW2, and American Jews who emigrated after the war, though supportive of Israel, are by definition anti-Zionist. They chose America over Israel, and repeatedly since, and not having personally put their asses on the line to defend Israel's existence, there's an element of shame and defensiveness about Israel's behavior in the region. They support the existence of Israel, with as much peace as possible, but they generally don't support wars of aggression or conquest by Israel. Which is about where I am now: the time has passed when the Israelis all moving out was a just or peaceful option.

Um, no that is not how the US felt about Israel in the early days. And a large part of the support for Israel was due to anti-semitism, namely that other countries where not willing to accept Jewish immigrants, and the refugees from the war could not return to where they where from since those places would either kill them, or there was nothing left since it had all been stolen and no one was willing to return the possessions.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Israel is an adversarial state that routinely meddles in our domestic politics and has attempted to influence elections going back to the 1980s. It's telling that when Trump was president, Democrats accused him of colluding with Russia in thw 2016 election, where there were mountains of open evidence that Israel has funnelling millions into both campaigns and waging a rather open narrative war.

But of course we know why nobody with any power in the US will go after Israel. To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

All I know is that whenever I criticize Turkey for anything online I’m swamped by comments calling me a racist and an Islamophobe.

I'm very conflicted on Turkey. They've always been warlike, though not always aggressive. More like a short temper that causes wars (or now, regional conflict with just a bit of formal military backing), but in either way excessive in self-defense. I do not like their military history, nor their recent forays in Syria.

However, they are charitable to other Muslim nations. Their economy is reasonable, and better than any other majority-Muslim nation (discounting the oil-fueled ones). There are concerns about the deterioration of church/state under Erdogan, but Turkey is by no means a theocracy like many Arab states, or even divided regionally by religion, like Indonesia.

As a secular developed nation, Turkey is pretty bad. But as a majority-Muslim nation, they're among the best. That's why I don't like to be too critical: there is no cure for religion and every government just has to work with what it's got among the people. Full economic development relies on greed and self-interest among the people, and if that is limited by religious beliefs then maybe full economic development isn't necessary after all.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Israel's long standing interference in US politics doesn't trouble people that much, because it's quite open. It's not illegal for foreigners to lobby politicians directly, BUT they're supposed to register as foreign agents.

Russia being immensely more powerful, and lacking clear distinction between secret agencies, military and government itself, makes them a more valid threat than Israel.

The public acceptance of Israeli interference is still notable, and I really wonder if similar open attempts to influence the US would be at all acceptable if they came (even) from better allies like the UK or Japan. I think the US has always had a protective attitude towards Israel, for no religious reason, but only a sense of ownership of the Zionist mission. You have to remember that back when modern Israel was founded, the reality and extent of the Holocaust was still very fresh in the minds of all Allies. "Defeating Nazism" was a convenient justification for the war crimes of the Allies, it was better justification than "defeating Germany, again" anyway, and being able to compensate Jews in some way was a silver lining to an otherwise very dark cloud over Europe.

Anyway, I'm saying Israel's unique place in American politics goes right back to the end of WW2, and American Jews who emigrated after the war, though supportive of Israel, are by definition anti-Zionist. They chose America over Israel, and repeatedly since, and not having personally put their asses on the line to defend Israel's existence, there's an element of shame and defensiveness about Israel's behavior in the region. They support the existence of Israel, with as much peace as possible, but they generally don't support wars of aggression or conquest by Israel. Which is about where I am now: the time has passed when the Israelis all moving out was a just or peaceful option.

Um, no that is not how the US felt about Israel in the early days.

Feel free to explain how they did, then. Particularly those Americans who would later have the most influence, immigrant Jews.

And a large part of the support for Israel was due to anti-semitism, namely that other countries where not willing to accept Jewish immigrants, and the refugees from the war could not return to where they where from since those places would either kill them, or there was nothing left since it had all been stolen and no one was willing to return the possessions.

"End of the war" isn't meant so precisely as a day or month, and the "foundation of Israel" began years before its international recognition. But still, feel free to provide more detail.

[Neutraligon]

Um, no that is not how the US felt about Israel in the early days.

Feel free to explain how they did, then. Particularly those Americans who would later have the most influence, immigrant Jews.

And a large part of the support for Israel was due to anti-semitism, namely that other countries where not willing to accept Jewish immigrants, and the refugees from the war could not return to where they where from since those places would either kill them, or there was nothing left since it had all been stolen and no one was willing to return the possessions.

"End of the war" isn't meant so precisely as a day or month, and the "foundation of Israel" began years before its international recognition. But still, feel free to provide more detail.

Sure, until the 1960s the US was rather neutral on Israel, including the fact they had an arms embargo. This was in part trying to keep Egypt out of the hands or Russia. It wasn't until the 60s that the idea of a special relationship with Israel formed, partially because Russia was pushing relationships with the Arab neighbors. Israel was intended to be a check on Russia spreading its influence into the Middle East. I mean if you are talking about the Dryfus affair as well as the Balfour declaration then yes you are somewhat correct. The support among Jews in America for Israel was actually somewhat split, since the Orthodox Jews thought that god, not man was intended to refound Israel. That and the people who where founding the country here rather secular rather then religious in nature.

[Picairn]

With you always saying of how killing a few civilians when they kill terrorists,here is a phrase you should go study.

“Governments should benefit the most amount of people,even if it hurts a few people”

Sure,1 or 2 people may die,but hundreds are saved by taking out these terrorists.

Ah yes, killing unarmed children is now justified because Israel is killing terrorists.

Do you know how evil that sounds?

Excusing killing children, what a godawful argument.

[Atheris]

To know the truth, know who you are not allowed to criticize.

Those darn children with leukemia?!? I knew it!!!

God damn those Alzheimer's patients! They're the true deep state!

[East Blepia]

Those darn children with leukemia?!? I knew it!!!

God damn those Alzheimer's patients! They're the true deep state!

This is a very cheap joke but it is not funny. 'Antisemite' nowadays is just a cheap attack against any opponent of Israel. Consider this: If somebody opposed China, as many here do and for legitimate reasons (occupation of East Turkestan and Tibet, authoritarianism, censorship, nine dash line, etc.), would your first assumption be that his real motive was hatred of Chinese people? No; that would be ridiculous. Just as the current Chinese government is not synonymous with Chinese people as a whole, Israel is not synonymous with Jews as a whole. (Both have only existed for about 70 years.) Many Orthodox Jews oppose Israel as a whole, believing that it ought to have been restored by God and not men. So anti-Zionism is not necessarily inseparable from, or even caused by, anti-Semitism.

[Atheris]

God damn those Alzheimer's patients! They're the true deep state!

This is a very cheap joke but it is not funny. 'Antisemite' nowadays is just a cheap attack against any opponent of Israel. Consider this: If somebody opposed China, as many here do and for legitimate reasons (occupation of East Turkestan and Tibet, authoritarianism, censorship, nine dash line, etc.), would your first assumption be that his real motive was hatred of Chinese people? No; that would be ridiculous. Just as the current Chinese government is not synonymous with Chinese people as a whole, Israel is not synonymous with Jews as a whole. (Both have only existed for about 70 years.) Many Orthodox Jews oppose Israel as a whole, believing that it ought to have been restored by God and not men. So anti-Zionism is not necessarily inseparable from, or even caused by, anti-Semitism.

what

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

God damn those Alzheimer's patients! They're the true deep state!

This is a very cheap joke but it is not funny. 'Antisemite' nowadays is just a cheap attack against any opponent of Israel. Consider this: If somebody opposed China, as many here do and for legitimate reasons (occupation of East Turkestan and Tibet, authoritarianism, censorship, nine dash line, etc.), would your first assumption be that his real motive was hatred of Chinese people? No; that would be ridiculous. Just as the current Chinese government is not synonymous with Chinese people as a whole, Israel is not synonymous with Jews as a whole. (Both have only existed for about 70 years.) Many Orthodox Jews oppose Israel as a whole, believing that it ought to have been restored by God and not men. So anti-Zionism is not necessarily inseparable from, or even caused by, anti-Semitism.

There is a huge distinction here. Israel is a legitimate Jewish state that does care about the Jewish people, hence an attack on Israel IS an attack on the Jewish people. On the other hand China which is illegitimate and authoritarian clearly does not represent the Chinese people hence an attack on China and an attack on Chinese people are very different.

In democracies the people and the policies of the state correlate. The more democratic a state is the more responsible its citizens are for the stuff it has done.