What has Israel ever done for us?

[East Blepia]

Bruh, I think you're an Antisemite because believing that Israel is responsible for all American entanglements in the Middle East is horribly misinformed and because it parrots older Antisemitc tropes about Jews being responsible for all the world's wars. You're also grasping at straws to dismiss Israeli accomplishments when American support for Israel is explained in terms of concrete geopolitical, humanitarian, and technological advantages. We've also glossed over the fact that Arab nations receive even more foreign aid than Israel despite providing comparatively less. If your criticisms of Israel were more rooted in geopolitical realities or in the morality of, say, Israel's settlement policy, I'd likely be far more inclined to take your arguments seriously.

Why should we be in Syria if not for Israel? It is certainly not American policy to dispose all dictatorships. Why should we be concerned with Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons if not for Israel? The regional conflict between them is comparable to that between Pakistan and India. Since one is nuclear-armed (and they are mortal enemies), the other is threatened. But for some reason the Iranian nuclear program is a threat to the United States. And ever once did I say Jews were responsible for all wars. Also, the claim that Arabs receive more aid than Israel is false (see here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ons-get-t/) My criticism of Israel is rooted in American interests.

Also, it takes a very strange Arab indeed to support Israel so strongly as you do. How did you come to hold these opinions?

[Fahran]

I am not saying that Israelis should act against their interests, because I do not like when such statements are made about my people. I am arguing that, without American support, the Arab states would defeat Israel in honorable combat, and that this ought to be allowed to occur.

1. Combat isn't honorable in most instances. Do you know how many wars in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict have begun with well-considered preemptive strikes and surprise attacks?

2. Arab military forces likely could not defeat Israel in a conventional war because of serious issues that they have in terms of command structure, cohesion, the integration of more advanced military technology, and broader cultural factors. The one Arab force that has been consistently capable of holding its own against the Israelis has been the Arab Legion which benefited from borrowing heavily from British command structures and techniques for creating cohesion in deracinated military forces. Beyond that, the US didn't intervene in the 1948 War, intervened against Israel to support Egypt in 1957, and didn't intervene in the Six-Day Wa r (1967) War except perhaps to provide intelligence to the Egyptians and Syrians (USS Liberty Incident has been hypothesized to be one such instance). The US did support Israel in the Yom Kippur War, but that's the one significant conventional war where that occurred.

3. A serious Israeli defeat in a conventional war would likely result in a significant humanitarian crisis given how blatant a lot of the Antisemitism coming out of local propaganda mills is. I'm thinking Gaza on steroids potentially. One wonders if the UN would take the same approach they've taken to Palestine of writing stern letters and making lofty declarations.

[East Blepia]

I know this isn’t what your post was implying, but to those posters who are saying that Israel shouldn’t have a right to exist, they have as much a right as Palestine or any other country. Any group of considerable size has a right to self-determination, no matter what, if a majority wish for independence.

And as for the US supporting Israel, it’s likely because it’s not a dictatorship (though with Bibi it is getting closer and closer), not a monarchy, and generally pro-West.

And for perspective, I am an American Zionist Jew who believes that Palestinians have a right to a state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem and who is also very much against Netanyahu and pretty progressive and left-wing.

I believe that nations have a right to self-determination. I believe that Israel is not an ordinary 'nation', though Jews do constitute an ethnicity, rather it is a colonial project and the principle of self-determination does not apply to it. Of course, this is up for debate.

[Punished UMN]

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.

Conflating Israel with all Jews, as you are doing, is kind of anti-Semitic as well, Israel doesn't have the entire Jewish population of the world and does not act in the interests of the whole Jewish population. To say that Israel is the sole legitimate representative of Judaism is, if anything, a legitimizing of antisemitism because it makes Judaism innately a political entity rather than a group of people.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

Conflating Israel with all Jews, as you are doing, is kind of anti-Semitic as well, Israel doesn't have the entire Jewish population of the world and does not act in the interests of the whole Jewish population. To say that Israel is the sole legitimate representative of Judaism is, if anything, a legitimizing of antisemitism because it makes Judaism innately a political entity rather than a group of people.

To add onto this, there are anti-Zionist Jews who very explicitly oppose Israel's existence.

[East Blepia]

1. Combat isn't honorable in most instances. Do you know how many wars in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict have begun with well-considered preemptive strikes and surprise attacks?

2. Arab military forces likely could not defeat Israel in a conventional war because of serious issues that have in terms of command structure, cohesion, the integration of more advanced military technology, and broader cultural factors. The one Arab force that has been consistently capable of holding its own against the Israelis has been the Arab Legion which benefited from borrowing heavily from British command structures and techniques for creating cohesion in deracinated military forces. Beyond that, the US didn't intervene in the 1948 War, intervened against Israel to support Egypt in 1957, and didn't intervene in the Six-Day Wa r (1967) War except perhaps to provide intelligence to the Egyptians and Syrians (USS Liberty Incident has been hypothesized to be one such instance). The US did support Israel in the Yom Kippur War, but that's the one significant conventional war where that occurred.

Israel has received a great deal of support (over $200 billion) from the United States. Meanwhile we embargo Iran and Syria, its main enemies. We invaded Iraq in part due to its opposition to Israel, we are currently involved in Syria for that same reason. Concern about authoritarianism, though righteous, does not actually exist in U.S. foreign policy, and concern about Russian involvement and Assad 'killing his own people' (though no reason has yet been provided why a combatant in a civil war would choose to do that) only emerged after the war had already begun.

And yes, I agree - modern combat is not usually honorable. What I mean is that we should not involve ourselves, and instead let the Middle East resolve Middle Eastern issues.

And for point 3, he who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind.

[Dozahkistan]

Foreign policy as a whole is based on appeasement. Geopolitics is full of hypocritical behaviour from countries on the basis of international interests. It's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as Saudi Arabia having excellent diplomatic and defence ties with the West despite being a modern draconian nation where human rights violations take place on a daily basis. If there's ever been a country that deserved the Iraq/Syria/Libya/Afghanistan treatment it's the Kingdom.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Israel is actually a very old concept.

If Israel is an old concept why was the Zionist movement necessary? It goes without saying that Greece should exist, that Poland should exist, etc. But conventions had to be held and books had to be written to advocate for Zionism. So the modern Israel is clearly not the same as most other states.

Also, yes, Nigeria itself is new, but there was no great migration or political movement that caused it to come into existence, it was simply the result of decolonialization.

Uh. What exactly do you think Greek National Awakening was about? Whether Greece or Poland should exist was definitely debatable. Prussia for example argued that Poland should not exist. Jewish people wrote books and held conventions since intellectuals are very overrepresented among them hence they did what intellectuals like to do.

Nigeria came into existence as a British product. It is way more arbitrary than Israel. Why shall some Yorubas be Beninese while others are Nigerians? Does that make much sense? Nigeria first existed. Then Nigerians as a cultural group were then gradually created through shared colonial and republican history that separated them from Beninese. Nigeria is not illegitimate but it is clearly not as legitimate as Israel or Poland.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Conflating Israel with all Jews, as you are doing, is kind of anti-Semitic as well, Israel doesn't have the entire Jewish population of the world and does not act in the interests of the whole Jewish population. To say that Israel is the sole legitimate representative of Judaism is, if anything, a legitimizing of antisemitism because it makes Judaism innately a political entity rather than a group of people.

To add onto this, there are anti-Zionist Jews who very explicitly oppose Israel's existence.

Yes and that’s also a legitimate stance.

[Picairn]

To add onto this, there are anti-Zionist Jews who very explicitly oppose Israel's existence.

And they are as old as Zionist Jews themselves.

[Monsone]

Non-British arguing for an end of the British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

No, it isn't. A non-British person arguing for the end of the British Empire is arguing for the end of an empire that caused nations untold suffering, and that still is causing geopolitical issues to this day. It is hardly anti-English or anti-white, and anyone who uses those arguments has a sorely misguided view of history since it was the British (and white people serving under and/or for the British flag) who were oppressors for the majority of the time.

You can't play the racial discrimination card when you are the oppressor.

That also applies to Israel and criticism of it. Jews are not a singular race, nor are Israel people a singular race. And while Israel may claim to be a Jewish state, it also has very sizable Muslim and Christian populations, many of whom have lived in the lands in question for several centuries. Saying all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic patently disregards the portion of Israeli society that doesn't consider itself Jewish.

Anyone can criticize any nation, whether that criticism is valid or even merited is a different question altogether, but you can't simply disregard it and claim it's something it isn't because it discredits you and your arguments.

[Punished UMN]

If Israel was primarily concerned with its national security and genuinely wanted to reward good-faith negotiations, it would have done so, but it never has. The Israelis say the Palestinians could have a state whenever they choose to negotiate, but the Palestinians have negotiated, and the Israelis have never kept their side of the bargain. The Israelis say "oh, if Hamas didn't launch rockets, there would be no need to hurt the people of Gaza", okay, then why does Israel keep hurting the people of the West Bank? Because it's not about security but about expansion, and the talk of security is a red herring. The Israelis could have peace if they would reward those who cooperate with them, but they do not do this. There's no incentive for the Palestinians to cooperate because even those who cooperate are forced off their land and replaced with settlers. Peace is a two-way street, but the Israelis want peace from the Palestinians while they themselves continue to wage war.

[Picairn]

Non-British arguing for an end of British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

Lmao do you know how ridiculous that sounds? I tell you what, go to India or any other African country that used to be a colony of Britain and spout these lines. You'll be ridiculed as an imperialist and white supremacist before you can finish the last word. The British Empire has caused untold suffering with millions of deaths across the world, and thus the end of the British Empire is good for the oppressed peoples under the British yoke.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Non-British arguing for an end of the British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

No, it isn't. A non-British person arguing for the end of the British Empire is arguing for the end of an empire that caused nations untold suffering, and that still is causing geopolitical issues to this day. It is hardly anti-English or anti-white, and anyone who uses those arguments has a sorely misguided view of history since it was the British (and white people serving under and/or for the British flag) who were oppressors for the majority of the time.

You can't play the racial discrimination card when you are the oppressor.

That also applies to Israel and criticism of it. Jews are not a singular race, nor are Israel people a singular race. And while Israel may claim to be a Jewish state, it also has very sizable Muslim and Christian populations, many of whom have lived in the lands in question for several centuries. Saying all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic patently disregards the portion of Israeli society that doesn't consider itself Jewish.

Anyone can criticize any nation, whether that criticism is valid or even merited is a different question altogether, but you can't simply disregard it and claim it's something it isn't because it discredits you and your arguments.

Well, we have very different world views. To me being called an oppressor is honorable while being called oppressed is shameful and has to be rectified. Better be alive and hated than be dead and cried over. Guess what? I was born in amoral China where life actually goes along these lines.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Non-British arguing for an end of British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

Lmao do you know how ridiculous that sounds? I tell you what, go to India or any other African country that used to be a colony of Britain and spout these lines. You'll be ridiculed as an imperialist and white supremacist before you can finish the last word. The British Empire has caused untold suffering with millions of deaths across the world, and thus the end of the British Empire is good for the oppressed peoples under the British yoke.

Yup. Do you know why they behave like that? It’s precisely because it is ordinary people’s interests at stake. Whether a place is called Danzig or Gdańsk, Konigsberg or Kaliningrad, Leopoldville or Kinshasa does have serious implications. Renaming Konigsberg Kaliningrad or renaming Toyohara Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk implies ethnic cleansing. A place suddenly becoming Leopoldville means the Congolese are no longer in control and that stuff such as cutting off human hands in rubber plantations will happen.

[Picairn]

Well, we have very different world views. To me being called an oppressor is honorable while being called oppressed is shameful and has to be rectified. Better be alive and hated than be dead and cried over. Guess what? I was born in amoral China where life actually goes along these lines.

Mask off everybody! Nekostan is a Jewish Nazi and an imperialist.

[East Blepia]

Non-British arguing for an end of British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

What ?

Are you really arguing in favor of the British Empire ?

I am not really angry - I would not hate anyone on account of his beliefs - I am just shocked. How many people in this day and age support the British Empire ?

I am sitting in my chair and staring at the screen and I can not believe my eyes.

Are you messing with us

How can you support the BRITISH EMPIRE ?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Non-British arguing for an end of British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

What ?

Are you really arguing in favor of the British Empire ?

I am not really angry - I would not hate anyone on account of his beliefs - I am just shocked. How many people in this day and age support the British Empire ?

I am sitting in my chair and staring at the screen and I can not believe my eyes.

Are you messing with us

How can you support the BRITISH EMPIRE ?

I do and I also support the Empire of Japan. Deal with it.

[Picairn]

I do and I also support the Empire of Japan. Deal with it.

Cringe. Imagine supporting empires massacring and oppressing innocent civilians.

[East Blepia]

What ?

Are you really arguing in favor of the British Empire ?

I am not really angry - I would not hate anyone on account of his beliefs - I am just shocked. How many people in this day and age support the British Empire ?

I am sitting in my chair and staring at the screen and I can not believe my eyes.

Are you messing with us

How can you support the BRITISH EMPIRE ?

I do and I also support the Empire of Japan. Deal with it.

Can we get mods? This is absurd.

[Fahran]

Why should we be in Syria if not for Israel?

An ongoing humanitarian crisis that has killed more Arabs in the past ten years than Israel has killed in its entire existence and a massive inflow of refugees into Europe that will likely never be repatriated given that many of them are specifically fleeing Bashar al-Assad or ISIL, and both forces seem likely to remain influential for the foreseeable future.

It is certainly not American policy to dispose all dictatorships.

Spreading democracy and nation-building have more often than not been a component of American foreign policy since the Second Persian Gulf War began in 2003 as evidenced by the stubborn desire to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into liberal democracies despite the local populations not really seeming to like liberal democracy all that much. It's an important shift away from Cold War politics and likely has antecedents in the fact that getting the American public to support Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam was a PR nightmare that ultimately failed. Americans really used to like the notion of "fighting for freedom" though. It's a significant part of what pulled us through World War II - with an abundance of propaganda.

Why should we be concerned with Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons if not for Israel?

Saudi Arabia mostly. The relationship between Israel and Iran is a good deal more convoluted than most people acknowledge. The Israelis were one of rather few local states that provided support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, likely because Iran tends to treat Jews better than Israel's Arab neighbors and because mutual enemies were involved.

The regional conflict between them is comparable to that between Pakistan and India.

The regional conflict between Israel and Palestine is, yes. Saudi Arabia and Iran are far more implacable enemies than Israel and Iran though, largely because both have some chance of exercising hegemonic power. Israel can't really do that.

Since one is nuclear-armed (and they are mortal enemies), the other is threatened.

Israel isn't going to nuke Iran. Iran is investing in nukes largely as a deterrent to potential invasions and a propaganda symbol. Iran probably isn't going to nuke Israel either for that matter. Because Iran isn't governed by complete idiots.

But for some reason the Iranian nuclear program is a threat to the United States. And ever once did I say Jews were responsible for all wars. Also, the claim that Arabs receive more aid than Israel is false (see here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ons-get-t/) My criticism of Israel is rooted in American interests.

Did you read the article you shared?

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers from the USAID database, calculated in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars: From 2000 through 2009, Israel received $32.3 billion in U.S. assistance — 82 percent of which was military assistance.

We compared that figure with the 10-year aid total for the seven major Arab or Muslim recipients. Their take during those years: $136.4 billion, more than four times Israel’s. Their military component: 42 percent.

Israel received approximately $26.5 billion in military aid. Arab nations (largely three of them - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE) received $57.3 billion in military aid. So, not only did a small number of Arab nations receive more than double the aid Israel received, they also received twice as much military aid. The fact that Politifact doesn't mention that most of the aid to Muslim nations went to three specific Muslim nations actually understates the point somewhat. But, in any case...

We rate the statement Mostly True.

Also, it takes a very strange Arab indeed to support Israel so strongly as you do. How did you come to hold these opinions?

I'm Sephardi.

In any case, I actually wouldn't mind decreasing aid to Israel so long as we do so with a clear policy objective and can keep China or Russia from courting Israel as an ally the minute we remove our tendrils from the region. Israel doesn't really need our aid to survive at this point. They barely needed it in 1973.

[Kowani]

Non-British arguing for an end of British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

What ?

Are you really arguing in favor of the British Empire ?

I am not really angry - I would not hate anyone on account of his beliefs - I am just shocked. How many people in this day and age support the British Empire ?

I am sitting in my chair and staring at the screen and I can not believe my eyes.

Are you messing with us

How can you support the BRITISH EMPIRE ?

trust me
it only goes downhill from here

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I do and I also support the Empire of Japan. Deal with it.

Can we get mods? This is absurd.

It is not an illegal stance here.

[Fahran]

Mask off everybody! Nekostan is a Jewish Nazi and an imperialist.

I don't believe Neko is Jewish. I thought he was Iranian actually.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Mask off everybody! Nekostan is a Jewish Nazi and an imperialist.

I don't believe Neko is Jewish. I thought he was Iranian actually.

I’m not Jewish nor am I Iranian.