What has Israel ever done for us?

[Giovenith]

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.

*** Warned for Trolling ***

[Punished UMN]

I've already shown quotes from Israel's founder and first head of state showing the intention was never to live in peace with the Arabs.

I replied to this twice before but it's important to note that Ben-Gurion's views in 37 were different from those in 47 and that so-called "population transfers" 1) were seen as moral and peaceful at the time (the Peel Comission even recommended both parties use it), so it seems odd to blame people for holding a globally very mainstream position. And Arabs had no intention of living in peace with Jews; in fact, 2) Hajj Amin al-Husseini, President of All-Palestine, was a literal Nazi who promised the Nazi leadership in Berlin in 43 that he'd orchestrate a second Holocaust.

1) So peaceful that they took place due to the extermination of entire villages, yeah?
2) "All-Palestine" was an Egyptian puppet state in the Gaza strip following the 1948 war and doesn't really reflect the entire Palestinian political situation.

[Punished UMN]

Apartheid states stick together.

Or, rather, the silent alliance between South Africa and many Western states, including Israel, was geopolitically manufactured by the OPEC in attempt to create a gap between Israel and African states. But I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative.

Ah, I see you've read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Riyadh.

[Punished UMN]

Israel's provided great fodder for military historians and armchair generals by miraculously winning a bunch of wars where logic dictated they should have been annihilated, or at least annexed. Imagine if China and India invaded Nepal during Dashain and lost.

Actually that's not really the case: recent studies of the 1948 War and Yom Kippur War have shown that in the first, the Israelis actually enjoyed a large advantage both numerically and in equipment, and that in the latter, the Israelis would have been defeated if not for shipments of weapons to replace whole armies which the Arabs wiped out.

[Salus Maior]

Riddle me this zionists, what was wrong with this plan here?

(Image)

Whoever thought borders like that would have ever worked must have been drunk.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Riddle me this zionists, what was wrong with this plan here?

(Image)

The Arabs rejected it.

Everything tbh. Jews being given 50% of the land when they weren't half the population and the borders being meme tier was always going to cause an immediate war.

There was indeed an Arab Palestine and it is known as “Transjordan”.

Gaza and Jordan being the two Palestinian states that already exist. The Palestinians can move there.

[Brulave]

I do see where some of you are coming from, but there's some other things in this also. Such as the Six Days war where Israel went to war with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, Egypt was a dictatorship sympathetic with the USSR. And yes, the Israelis did some bad things such as expelling Arab populations in the East Bank, but in Arab countries, Jews there were persecuted along with a mob attack in multiple middle eastern countries that resulted in the burning of multiple Synagogues along with a pogrom (An attack by the people against a population, typically against Jews, also common in Imperial Russia) that left 18 Jews dead and 25 injured, along with a mass arrest of Jews in egypt that resulted in a sizable portion of the Egyptian Jewish population being arrested. Also, many Jews in other Arab countries were exiled from the lands that they once lived in for sometimes centuries, and this is just in the 6 Days War. Now i may be just focusing on the Jews and i understand that Israel did similar things to the Arabs in Israel, The West Bank, and Gaza Strip, but we still need to acknowledge that the other sides did bad things too.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

I replied to this twice before but it's important to note that Ben-Gurion's views in 37 were different from those in 47 and that so-called "population transfers" 1) were seen as moral and peaceful at the time (the Peel Comission even recommended both parties use it), so it seems odd to blame people for holding a globally very mainstream position. And Arabs had no intention of living in peace with Jews; in fact, 2) Hajj Amin al-Husseini, President of All-Palestine, was a literal Nazi who promised the Nazi leadership in Berlin in 43 that he'd orchestrate a second Holocaust.

1) So peaceful that they took place due to the extermination of entire villages, yeah?
2) "All-Palestine" was an Egyptian puppet state in the Gaza strip following the 1948 war and doesn't really reflect the entire Palestinian political situation.

1/ I agree it isn't a peaceful practice. I'm saying the notion that it was a moral choice was mainstream at the time, as reflected by the events in 1923 and the Peel Commission.

2/ "All-Palestine" was backed by the Arab League as a whole. And Hajj Amin al-Husseini was, preceding his appointment as the President of All-Palestine, already the most important Palestine Arab politician—not least of which was because more moderate politicians were routinely gunned down by the Mufti's men.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Or, rather, the silent alliance between South Africa and many Western states, including Israel, was geopolitically manufactured by the OPEC in attempt to create a gap between Israel and African states. But I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative.

Ah, I see you've read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Riyadh.

See- Study Commission on U. S. Policy Toward Southern Africa. (1981). South Africa: Time running out. University of California Press.

[Genivaria]

I'd say Israel is a bad ally who's continued violated of international law and human rights is a continued burden on foreign relations for the US by association.
The Israeli settlements in Palestinian land are illegal and need to be removed.

[Fahran]

1) For negotiations to be serious, the Israelis would have to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Palestinians, doing so would acknowledge that the Palestinians have sovereignty and therefore that the Israeli position on the borders is illegal. If the Israelis don't acknowledge the sovereignty of the Palestinians, the PA has zero legal right to make binding decisions on behalf of the Palestinians as a nation. The Israeli desire to both not acknowledge the Palestinian Authority as a sovereign entity, and to negotiate with them, is an irreconcilable difference. Palestinian sovereignty can't be used as a bargaining chip for good-faith negotiations.

Palestinian sovereignty was acknowledged to some extent in the Oslo Accords. The disagreements, slated to be addressed in future negotiations, revolved around where that sovereignty was applicable because, as has been stated, the territorial extent of Palestine remains in question and has not been formalized by a bilateral treaty. UN Resolutions state that the territorial extent of Palestine is at the 1967 borders, but not even the Palestinians accepted that at the time the resolution passed (they view it as the starting place for negotiations where they'd likely demand even more) and the Israelis have very few practical reasons to accept that at the moment given de facto borders haven't been that for over forty years.

2) Invading foreign countries is indeed a guarantee of security, that doesn't make it legal or right. This is a double-standard which you're willing to give in the Israelis' favor but not that of any other country.

I'm absolutely willing to extend that standard to other countries in the absence of a viable peace process. I don't even begrudge the Palestinians for engaging in a protracted insurgency given the peace process has failed. The issue is that they're losing that insurgency in the long-term as they lose more and more territory to the settlement policy. Had they come to the negotiating table at any point before now, most of the West Bank would be Palestine. Had they done it before 1967, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza would all be Palestine - without lingering disagreements. Beyond that, as stated, I don't support Israel's settlement policy. I think it's immoral. But I do see the utility in it.

[Fahran]

"Other states commit crimes against humanity so there's nothing wrong with this one doing it" is a pretty low moral bar.

Not the argument that was made. I don't believe states should engage in ethnic cleansing as a rule, though population transfers may be warranted to ensure mutual statehood at times. I simply find the notion of abolishing Israel because it engaged in apartheid and ethnic cleansing a touch strange when every Arab nation, including Palestine, is no less guilty. Or should I ask where they've hidden their Jews, Assyrians, Berbers, and Kurds? It feels like an attempt to rob Jews of self-determination and the one measure of protection they have in the region, and I have no reason to treat that as a good faith argument. Israelis have very, very good reasons for not wanting to be incorporated into a non-Jewish state, largely because non-Jewish states tend to have a bad track record on treating us like human beings. And that's been in the last century, so it's hardly ancient history.

[Salus Maior]

....though population transfers may be warranted to ensure mutual statehood at times.

Population transfers are also ethnic cleansing.

It's almost as if ethnic nationalism is pure cancer that simply destroys all relationships between peoples who have been neighbors for centuries.

[Fahran]

Riddle me this zionists, what was wrong with this plan here?

(Image)

It was categorically rejected by Arab leadership. Despite the assertions that it was unfair, which it was, the Arab leadership had no intention of accepting any partition as far as we can tell. Their aim was to subjugate or expel the Jewish population and, had they not lost the ensuing war, they likely would have succeeded to a significant degree.

[Fahran]

Also, does anyone remember the time Israel helped Apartheid South Africa obtain nuclear weapons?

Apartheid states stick together.

Well, no. Here we observe a bunch of apartheid states at each other's throats.

[Arvenia]

Apartheid states stick together.

Well, no. Here we observe a bunch of apartheid states at each other's throats.

I also think that apartheid-era South Africa might be anti-Jewish as well (since it was ruled by white nationalists).

[Fahran]

Population transfers are also ethnic cleansing.

It's almost as if ethnic nationalism is pure cancer that simply destroys all relationships between peoples who have been neighbors for centuries.

Ethnic nationalism is a protective measure in the case of Zionism. I would be a lot more considerate of the viewpoint that Jews should cease to pursue their own nation-state if we could have been accepted as something other than foreigners and villains consistently at any point prior to 1960. Euros and Arabs don't get to demand that Jews put down their sword after centuries of storming into the Jewish quarters with torches and pitch forks, after centuries of subjugation, jizya, and inquisition, and after centuries of not treating us as equals. The notion that such an outcome is just relies wholly on us putting good faith in local Gentiles to behave when they're not even behaving right now.

The suffering of Palestinians is unfortunate and tragic, but I wholly appreciate why Jewish people living in Israel has no intention of allowing their neighbors to ever get the upper hand or even have an unearned moment of respite. Because they don't expect to ever be given the same mercy, consideration, or courtesy.

[Fahran]

I also think that apartheid-era South Africa might be anti-Jewish as well (since it was ruled by white nationalists).

I was more so referring to how most Arab nations seem to be guilty of both ethnic cleansing and apartheid. I think even Lebanon and Iran can be accused given that their systems seem to deliberately advantage some groups over others on the basis of religion or ethnicity. South Africa's apartheid to my knowledge mostly had South Asians and Africans at the bottom of the racial/ethnic hierarchy, and Jews were probably below Anglos and Afrikaaners if I had to guess.

[Neutraligon]

I also think that apartheid-era South Africa might be anti-Jewish as well (since it was ruled by white nationalists).

I was more so referring to how most Arab nations seem to be guilty of both ethnic cleansing and apartheid. I think even Lebanon and Iran can be accused given that their systems seem to deliberately advantage some groups over others on the basis of religion or ethnicity. South Africa's apartheid to my knowledge mostly had South Asians and Africans at the bottom of the racial/ethnic hierarchy, and Jews were probably below Anglos and Afrikaaners if I had to guess.

I mean, the US can also have that charge laid at their doorstep.

[Caraani]

Actually, you (Americans) are in Afghanistan because you had the great idea of creating militant Islamic fundies back in the '80s.
As for Syria, you're there because Turkey and Saudi Arabia want you there.

What kind of historical revisionism is this lol. If anyone created militant Islamic fundies it was al-Otaybi when he took over Mecca. While his revolt failed it normalized hardline fundamentalism because the monarchy didn't want to fight them and found it easier to give them power.

Is this the sort of stuff Americans actually believe?

[Fahran]

I mean, the US can also have that charge laid at their doorstep.

Oh, absolutely. A lot of countries can. That's why the notion that we should abolish a particular country constituted specifically to prevent apartheid and ethnic cleansing from impacting the majority of its population because it engaged in apartheid and ethnic cleansing is a bit strange when said abolition is likely to result in apartheid and ethnic cleansing in the direction said country was trying to address if the country doesn't just reform the minute that happens. I feel like nobody is actually thinking through the ramifications of anything that's been said to this effect.

[Fahran]

Is this the sort of stuff Americans actually believe?

I mean... it's not just Americans.

[Caraani]

Is this the sort of stuff Americans actually believe?

I mean... it's not just Americans.

Not talking about that - I'm talking about the belief that the Americans didn't fund and basically bring into existence the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

[Fahran]

Not talking about that - I'm talking about the belief that the Americans didn't fund and basically bring into existence the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

The Taliban becoming a thing was the result of a number of factors coming together. You had the Grand Mosque Seizure and the "Arabization" of the Deobandi Movement in Pakistan, which was itself an Islamic fundamentalist project and the culmination of Aurangzeb's religious intolerance of Hindus and Sikhs. You had the Soviet-sponsored socialist revolution, superbly poor governance of Afghanistan by local socialist leaders, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in response to growing unrest, which put those Islamists and quite a lot of people who weren't hardline Islamists in a fighting mood. Then you had the US pouring funding into Pakistan who diverted it to angry young refugees studying in madrasas and other Islamist militias. Boom, Taliban.

Arguably, the last of these might have been a lot less important than the first two. The US played a role in equipping and training the Taliban, but they likely would still have existed without equipment or training. People don't tend to like foreign occupation.

[Caraani]

Not talking about that - I'm talking about the belief that the Americans didn't fund and basically bring into existence the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

The Taliban becoming a thing was the result of a number of factors coming together. You had the Grand Mosque Seizure and the "Arabization" of the Deobandi Movement in Pakistan, which was itself an Islamic fundamentalist project and the culmination of Aurangzeb's religious intolerance of Hindus and Sikhs. You had the Soviet-sponsored socialist revolution, superbly poor governance of Afghanistan by local socialist leaders, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in response to growing unrest, which put those Islamists and quite a lot of people who weren't hardline Islamists in a fighting mood. Then you had the US pouring funding into Pakistan who diverted it to angry young refugees studying in madrasas and other Islamist militias. Boom, Taliban.

Arguably, the last of these might have been a lot less important than the first two. The US played a role in equipping and training the Taliban, but they likely would still have existed without equipment or training. People don't tend to like foreign occupation.

The US had a direct hand in the rise of Islamic extremism, salafism, and the backing of the Wahabi Saudi Arabia, and any American denying it is either a product of US propaganda drilled into Americans since they're kids, or is an apologist of US imperialism.