Holocaust denial

[Barrister]

And where you can't give a second example of the "plucky nation" hypothesis,  I can think of an example for the "domestic politics" hypothesis.  The US was an early and vocal supporter of Irish independence.  This was driven almost entirely on domestic politics, and not at all on any greater strategic national interest.

And Cuba in the past 20 years at least.

Good one.

[Malthus]

And where you can't give a second example of the "plucky nation" hypothesis,  I can think of an example for the "domestic politics" hypothesis.  The US was an early and vocal supporter of Irish independence.  This was driven almost entirely on domestic politics, and not at all on any greater strategic national interest.

And Cuba in the past 20 years at least.

Good one.

The Cuban example is instructive in how it differs from the example of Israel.

In the case of Cuba, you have an extremely well-organized group powerful in key states who is very passionate on the topic - ex-Cuban exiles.

The issue in the case of Israel is why Americans who are not Jews apparently support Israel.

[The Minsky Moment]

The three additional factors you mention are reasonable factors; they also all happened to favor the Jewish state.

Fair enough - nonetheless I would take issue with the claim that the Partition Plan "heavily favored" the Jews, to the extent there is an implication that the process was somehow rigged in some respect.   You have reasonable people making reasonable calls based on the realities on the ground at the time.

Another reasonable approach would have been to assign areas of Jewish demographic dominance (i.e. Tel Aviv) to the Jews, areas of Arab demographic dominance (i.e. the West Bank and Gaza) to the Arabs, and divide the mixed areas proportionally on the ethnic ratios of the mixed area.  Then in pursuit of the goals that you mentioned, trade blocks of territory.  For example, a possibility would have been to trade the area around the Sea of Gallilea (Jewish majority??, isolated from Tel Aviv) for the Tel Aviv-West Jerusalem corridor.

That would have left the two single largest Jewish settlements completely cutoff from one another; even before the Berlin Airlift, the impracticalities of such an approach would have been apparent to the powers who just finished fighting a war that started in Europe in the Danzig enclave.  The UN recognized that even in the best case scenario there would be friction between the two new states - handing the Arabs the ability to completely cutoff 100,000 Jerusalemites (in addition to the keys to Palestines acquifers that the plan already gave the Arabs) would have been a guarantee of immediate conflict.

[Admiral Yi]

Fair enough - nonetheless I would take issue with the claim that the Partition Plan "heavily favored" the Jews, to the extent there is an implication that the process was somehow rigged in some respect.   You have reasonable people making reasonable calls based on the realities on the ground at the time.

I made no mention of rigging.  I pointed out that the plan awarded land out of proportion to the existing Jewish population, and posited that sympathy over the Holocaust could have factored into this.

That would have left the two single largest Jewish settlements completely cutoff from one another; even before the Berlin Airlift, the impracticalities of such an approach would have been apparent to the powers who just finished fighting a war that started in Europe in the Danzig enclave.  The UN recognized that even in the best case scenario there would be friction between the two new states - handing the Arabs the ability to completely cutoff 100,000 Jerusalemites (in addition to the keys to Palestines acquifers that the plan already gave the Arabs) would have been a guarantee of immediate conflict.

I think you misunderstood me.  My alternative was to cede the Gallilea area to the Arabs in exchange for the corridor.

[Barrister]

The Cuban example is instructive in how it differs from the example of Israel.

In the case of Cuba, you have an extremely well-organized group powerful in key states who is very passionate on the topic - ex-Cuban exiles.

The issue in the case of Israel is why Americans who are not Jews apparently support Israel.

I thought the question was why does the American government support Israel?

Various Christian Americans may have vaguely positive feelings towards Israel, or support it on the internet, or whatever.  That doesn't count for much however.  Most people "support" Tibet, but the government doesn't do a damn thing about it.

It is that combination of Jewish-American influence that influences policy towards Israel, much as the Cuban-American lobby influences American policy regarding Cuba.

This isn't meant to be a critique.  I do think Israel should be supported.  But I think you have to be honest about the realities of how and why nations act the way they do.

[Malthus]

The Cuban example is instructive in how it differs from the example of Israel.

In the case of Cuba, you have an extremely well-organized group powerful in key states who is very passionate on the topic - ex-Cuban exiles.

The issue in the case of Israel is why Americans who are not Jews apparently support Israel.

I thought the question was why does the American government support Israel?

Various Christian Americans may have vaguely positive feelings towards Israel, or support it on the internet, or whatever.  That doesn't count for much however.  Most people "support" Tibet, but the government doesn't do a damn thing about it.

It is that combination of Jewish-American influence that influences policy towards Israel, much as the Cuban-American lobby influences American policy regarding Cuba.

This isn't meant to be a critique.  I do think Israel should be supported.  But I think you have to be honest about the realities of how and why nations act the way they do.

I think I *am* being honest. The notion that America as a nation preserves the relationship with Israel simply because of the power of the lobby is simply incorrect. Without widespread public support, that lobby would not achieve anything.

[Barrister]

I think I *am* being honest. The notion that America as a nation preserves the relationship with Israel simply because of the power of the lobby is simply incorrect. Without widespread public support, that lobby would not achieve anything.

I think that's, well, incorrect.

Take Sheilbh's example of Cuba.  The Cuban embargo in fact does not have widespread public support.  Public opinion is mixed at best, and hostile at worst, to the embargo.  But whether they support or oppose the embargo, the average American doesn't care all that much about the issue.

But you do have a small lobby that does care, and passionately so.  And so the embargo remains.

[Admiral Yi]

I think that's, well, incorrect.

Take Sheilbh's example of Cuba.  The Cuban embargo in fact does not have widespread public support.  Public opinion is mixed at best, and hostile at worst, to the embargo.  But whether they support or oppose the embargo, the average American doesn't care all that much about the issue.

But you do have a small lobby that does care, and passionately so.  And so the embargo remains.

I think you're wrong and Malthus is right.  The average American does feel supportive of Israel IMO.

[Barrister]

The average American does feel supportive of Israel IMO.

I agree with that.  But I don't think that is what drives American policy towards Israel.

[Agelastus]

I think you misunderstood me.  My alternative was to cede the Gallilea area to the Arabs in exchange for the corridor.

Before this goes any further, can you provide me with the Arab leaders who are going to sit down and negotiate with Israel for this sort of territorial exchange in 1948?

I am not an expert on the subject, but your suggestion of what could have been done does rather pre-suppose that both sides would have been willing to sit down and negotiate a deal; the Israelis might have been willing to, but I am sure the majority of the Palestinians would not. In which case, it would just have been a different split by UN/Western fiat.

As history proves, it takes two sides to make, and keep, a deal.

[alfred russel]

The average American does feel supportive of Israel IMO.

I agree with that.  But I don't think that is what drives American policy towards Israel.

I'm with Malthus on this one too. Regardless of merit, the political situation requires politicians to be pro Israeli, and not because of a narrow interest group lobby.

[The Minsky Moment]

I made no mention of rigging.  I pointed out that the plan awarded land out of proportion to the existing Jewish population, and posited that sympathy over the Holocaust could have factored into this.

For the reasons previously stated, I agree that the Holocaust played a role, but not one based on "sympathy", rather one based on the crude self-interest of the involved parties.  The Partition Plan specifically assumed that there would be a big immediate boost in Jewish immigration and explicitly took that into account in making the land allocations.

I think you misunderstood me.  My alternative was to cede the Gallilea area to the Arabs in exchange for the corridor.

oh I see.  Only problem with that is that it would leave the Jewish area entirely bereft of access to fresh water.

[Admiral Yi]

Before this goes any further, can you provide me with the Arab leaders who are going to sit down and negotiate with Israel for this sort of territorial exchange in 1948?

No.

I am not an expert on the subject, but your suggestion of what could have been done does rather pre-suppose that both sides would have been willing to sit down and negotiate a deal; the Israelis might have been willing to, but I am sure the majority of the Palestinians would not. In which case, it would just have been a different split by UN/Western fiat.

As history proves, it takes two sides to make, and keep, a deal.

It presupposes nothing of the kind.  One can debate the fairness of a plan, as we have been doing, without any reference to the parties' willingess to accept it.

[The Minsky Moment]

One can debate the fairness of a plan, as we have been doing, without any reference to the parties' willingess to accept it.

Yes although majority opinion among the united nations was that there probably would be conflict and the Jews would probably lose.  So the initial allocation may have been made in part with the thought that it would be whittled down by war.

[Sheilbh]

I think you're wrong and Malthus is right.  The average American does feel supportive of Israel IMO.

I think they're both right

Positive supportive feeling of Israel combined with very effective lobbying.

I'm with Malthus on this one too. Regardless of merit, the political situation requires politicians to be pro Israeli, and not because of a narrow interest group lobby.

So you don't think this whole J-Street attempt could change things?  They argue that AIPAC etc have a pretty Likudnik view of policy that creates a damagingly limited discourse, because a lobby is seen as the representative of that whole issue, so the Israeli perspective is limited.