Holocaust denial

[Malthus]

I'd wager most Americans would have a hard time figuring out what Eritrea is, not to mention its location.

I'd wager most people not living in East Africa would have a similarly hard time.  How many Brazilians know about Eritrea?  Chinese?  Swedes?

Israel gets headlines around the world...Eritrea?  Not so much.

Which brings me back to another part of the analysis - the situation in Israel elicits more sympathy because Americans have many points of cultural convergance with Israelis.

For one, Americans are by and large Christian in religion, and moreso by those sects of Chistianity which were much more concerned by the sort of Old Testament utopianism that Zionism also fed into - the Pilgrim Fathers for example felt themselves very much to be a "chosen people". Though clearly not a huge percentage of Americans still feel that way, a strong sense of American exceptionalism and "manifest destriny" has lingered in the culture.

Israel's centrality to the major world monotheistic religions is also part of the reason that stuff happening there draws notice.

More prosaicaly, Israel is a first-world nation, with a triving high-tech sector. Lots of Israeli savants around.

[garbon]

Which brings me back to another part of the analysis - the situation in Israel elicits more sympathy because Americans have many points of cultural convergance with Israelis.

Should that really be part of your analysis though? After all, I think it is generally true that Americans have sympathy for nations we feel that we have cultural similarities to.  If that's the case, where's the need of the plucky nation hypothesis?

[Malthus]

This fact is not well-known, however, by the average American. When they think of Ethiopia/Eretria at all, they think of poor starving pesants, not of great Eretrian military victories; most Americans have only the vaguest notions of modern Eretrian history.

So Americans have a tendency to root for scrappy underdogs who demonstrate success on the battlefield and of which they are well-informed.  And I suppose these scrappy cocos should not have a history of conflict with the US, as that accounts for American indifference to the Vietnamese victory over China. 

So like I said before, you're arguing that the US supports Israel on the basis of a general tendency which is demonstrated only by its support for Israel.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of cultural reasons for exceptional interest on the part of Americans in Israel - as pointed out above.

It's a convergance of these two factors - support for the scrapper plus exceptional reasons for interest - which accounts for the American attitude.

Jews of the "traditional" European variety would never have aroused American admiration and interest - the overall impression of them was of mumbling Rabbis and effite moneylenders being beaten by Cossacks. Objects, in short, of pity rather than admiration. Note that the Israelis also had a similar image of themselves which they rejected - symbolized forefully by rejecting Yiddish as a language in favour of Hebrew, taking new names, etc. 

[alfred russel]

I'd wager most Americans would have a hard time figuring out what Eritrea is, not to mention its location.

I'd wager most people not living in East Africa would have a similarly hard time.  How many Brazilians know about Eritrea?  Chinese?  Swedes?

Israel gets headlines around the world...Eritrea?  Not so much.

Which brings me back to another part of the analysis - the situation in Israel elicits more sympathy because Americans have many points of cultural convergance with Israelis.

For one, Americans are by and large Christian in religion, and moreso by those sects of Chistianity which were much more concerned by the sort of Old Testament utopianism that Zionism also fed into - the Pilgrim Fathers for example felt themselves very much to be a "chosen people". Though clearly not a huge percentage of Americans still feel that way, a strong sense of American exceptionalism and "manifest destriny" has lingered in the culture.

Israel's centrality to the major world monotheistic religions is also part of the reason that stuff happening there draws notice.

More prosaicaly, Israel is a first-world nation, with a triving high-tech sector. Lots of Israeli savants around.

If 1967 is a key date, I'd say it has a lot to do with a first world democracy taking on a bunch of soviet equipped arabs. I'd leave the religious connections on the fringes. I don't know if the popular support for israel is stronger than that of taiwan, for instance.

[Malthus]

Which brings me back to another part of the analysis - the situation in Israel elicits more sympathy because Americans have many points of cultural convergance with Israelis.

Should that really be part of your analysis though? After all, I think it is generally true that Americans have sympathy for nations we feel that we have cultural similarities to.  If that's the case, where's the need of the plucky nation hypothesis?

My point is that the Israelis have all of the following:

- Cultural similarities;

- Exceptional reasons for interest based on religious and cultural history; and

- Admiration for "armed Horatio Alger Myth" plucky success.

All three are seemingly required; Jews being beaten in Europe by Cossacks or Nazis arouse pity not admiration in spite of having 2 of the 3 factors; plucky nations that the average US person knows little about, like Eretria, do not arouse widespread interest.   

Convergance of these factors explains US sympathy much more effectively than "amazing Zionist lobby tactics" or "Religious lunatics and their armageddon fantasies".

[alfred russel]

I'd wager most Americans would have a hard time figuring out what Eritrea is, not to mention its location.

I'd be suprised if most americans could find israel on a map either.

[Malthus]

I'd wager most Americans would have a hard time figuring out what Eritrea is, not to mention its location.

I'd wager most people not living in East Africa would have a similarly hard time.  How many Brazilians know about Eritrea?  Chinese?  Swedes?

Israel gets headlines around the world...Eritrea?  Not so much.

Which brings me back to another part of the analysis - the situation in Israel elicits more sympathy because Americans have many points of cultural convergance with Israelis.

For one, Americans are by and large Christian in religion, and moreso by those sects of Chistianity which were much more concerned by the sort of Old Testament utopianism that Zionism also fed into - the Pilgrim Fathers for example felt themselves very much to be a "chosen people". Though clearly not a huge percentage of Americans still feel that way, a strong sense of American exceptionalism and "manifest destriny" has lingered in the culture.

Israel's centrality to the major world monotheistic religions is also part of the reason that stuff happening there draws notice.

More prosaicaly, Israel is a first-world nation, with a triving high-tech sector. Lots of Israeli savants around.

If 1967 is a key date, I'd say it has a lot to do with a first world democracy taking on a bunch of soviet equipped arabs. I'd leave the religious connections on the fringes. I don't know if the popular support for israel is stronger than that of taiwan, for instance.

I agree that '67 is the key date. Indeed, that's exactly what I was arguing.

I think that the US on average cares more about Israel than Taiwan. Taiwan lacks the " Exceptional reasons for interest based on religious and cultural history" factor.

[PDH]

I think that the US on average cares more about Israel than Taiwan. Taiwan lacks the " Exceptional reasons for interest based on religious and cultural history" factor.

They really do suck at being Jewish.

[alfred russel]

I agree that '67 is the key date. Indeed, that's exactly what I was arguing.

I think that the US on average cares more about Israel than Taiwan. Taiwan lacks the " Exceptional reasons for interest based on religious and cultural history" factor.

Americans care more about Israel than Taiwan because it is a more prominent world issue, but then support for Taiwan is probably more universal than Israel (there are significant numbers of Americans that do not approve of Israel--apparently including at least one former president--I don't know of anyone with any prominence who takes the Chinese side in the dispute over Taiwan).

If you are going to list the reasons for the US affinity for Israel, anti-communism should be at or very near the top, imo. During the cold war we had a fetish for anyone that would stand up to communism--be it south korea, taiwan, or west berlin.

[Malthus]

I agree that '67 is the key date. Indeed, that's exactly what I was arguing.

I think that the US on average cares more about Israel than Taiwan. Taiwan lacks the " Exceptional reasons for interest based on religious and cultural history" factor.

Americans care more about Israel than Taiwan because it is a more prominent world issue, but then support for Taiwan is probably more universal than Israel (there are significant numbers of Americans that do not approve of Israel--apparently including at least one former president--I don't know of anyone with any prominence who takes the Chinese side in the dispute over Taiwan).

If you are going to list the reasons for the US affinity for Israel, anti-communism should be at or very near the top, imo. During the cold war we had a fetish for anyone that would stand up to communism--be it south korea, taiwan, or west berlin.

Support for Taiwan is more universal, but considerably less passionate. It is true that few people take China's side, but few people would really and sincerely care all that much (other than in the sense of worrying about growing Chinese power) if China and Taiwan pulled a Hong Kong and amalgamated. 

I do not agree that anti-Communism should be at the top. For one, this fails to explain why support remains passionate even twenty years after Communism was swept into the dustbin of history. 

[alfred russel]

Support for Taiwan is more universal, but considerably less passionate. It is true that few people take China's side, but few people would really and sincerely care all that much (other than in the sense of worrying about growing Chinese power) if China and Taiwan pulled a Hong Kong and amalgamated. 

A bit of a red herring--if conditions were such that Israel and Jordan could join, I think the overall sentiment would be relief that the geopolitical disaster that is the arab-israeli conflict was going away. Of course that can't happen so long as a determined number want to kill all the jews in the middle east (or worldwide, for that matter).

I do not agree that anti-Communism should be at the top. For one, this fails to explain why support remains passionate even twenty years after Communism was swept into the dustbin of history.

True--I was only discussing the reason the public got behind Israel. Had Israel aligned with the Communist bloc, you can bet that there would have been little to no public support in this country. Had the soviets not aligned with the Syrians/Egyptians, 1967 would never have been able to take place.

[garbon]

True--I was only discussing the reason the public got behind Israel. Had Israel aligned with the Communist bloc, you can bet that there would have been little to no public support in this country. Had the soviets not aligned with the Syrians/Egyptians, 1967 would never have been able to take place.

I think it would be a mistake to ignore the notion that reasons to support Israel have changed over time.  As you've suggested, one reason now is that Israel is at the front line of America's war with the middle east.

[Jaron]

True--I was only discussing the reason the public got behind Israel. Had Israel aligned with the Communist bloc, you can bet that there would have been little to no public support in this country. Had the soviets not aligned with the Syrians/Egyptians, 1967 would never have been able to take place.

I think it would be a mistake to ignore the notion that reasons to support Israel have changed over time.  As you've suggested, one reason now is that Israel is at the front line of America's war with the middle east.

You are AN MORON

[Barrister]

I agree that '67 is the key date. Indeed, that's exactly what I was arguing.

I think that the US on average cares more about Israel than Taiwan. Taiwan lacks the " Exceptional reasons for interest based on religious and cultural history" factor.

And that's what I disagree with - US support for Zionism and Israel pre-dates 1967.

Earlier in the thread I quoted wiki, and you replied:

Your own link makes it clear that there were numerous pressures on Britian to end the Mandate, of which US opinion concerning DPs was merely one, and that fully in line with "world opinion". Note the mention of Zionist backers gaining support in the US and "... other Western governments".

I think you missed the fact that one of the key inquiries into the future of Palestine was the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.  Or the fact that since in the immediate post WWII world the US was essentially financing the British balance of trade they had enormous sway over Britain.  Wiki again pointed out that the restrictions on jewish immigration into palestine almost single-handedly held up the british loans in congress.

Essentially the debate in this thread has been "what is the source of western and/or american support for israel".

You are arguing the "plucky nation" hypothesis.  It is interesting, but you seem to be unable to point to any other examples where the west has supported another "plucky nation".  And in fact Yi has pointed to a couple of other "plucky" nations that the West has singularily not given a damn about.  As well it doesn't explain the support for israel most evident in the US pre-1967.

Martinus and a few others have argued the "holocaust pity" hypothesis.  Again I don't think that adequately (or at all) explains the support for zionism that existed before or during the war.  It also doesn't explain the distinct falling of support for Israel in the last few decades - it's not as if the holocaust has now been called into question.  It also doesn't explain why the countries more involved in the holocaust have become more hostile to Israel.  (Germany may be the singular exception to this - Israel's relationship with Germany is largely driven by holocaust guilt).

It's hard to come up with other examples to see if the "holocaust guilt" hypothesis holds true, as the holocaust is somewhat unique.  But the other examples of large-scale genocide that I can think of do not seem to have driven US or European foreign affairs to any great extent.  Armenia gets no great US support.  Nor does Cambodia.

I, and I think Yi, are argueing the domestic politics hypothesis.  This does explain why support for zionism and Israel pre-dates both 1967 and the holocaust.  It explains why the US is far more supportive of Israel than Europe is (many more Jews).

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.

[Admiral Yi]

Nonononono.  I'm the founding father of the Holocaust pity thesis.