Holocaust denial

[Razgovory]

Barrister makes a good point with the Irish thing.  Though I admit I'm a believer in the internal politics approach when considering why nations do things on the national stage.  The book "the Essence of Decision" is an excellent study of it.

[Josquius]

I think a big part of the western support for Israel is down to bible love.
The Israelites are the plucky heroes who always have bad crap happening to them. In the old testemant they are 'us', the good guys. We're in modern times now so we should give them their rightful country.
Its a bit of a silly way to manage the world and I'm not claiming its the only reason but I do think its a big part of it- the British support for Greece in the 19th century heavily drew from a love of classicalism and the Brits seeing themselves as the new Greeks.

[Barrister]

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

I humbly stand corrected.

But as the founding father of the Holocaust Pity thesis, you're wrong.



I dunno - ultimately I think the "holocaust guilt" thesis is fundamentally anti-Israel.  The holocaust can not morally justify the state of Israel.  If Israel's existence is based on the holocaust, the ultimate justification for Israel is therefore 'we were hurt, so we can hurt someone else'.

Which is why, to go back to my original point, Israeli diplomats have never relied on the holocaust as the basis for their diplomacy.  They know that it isn't enough to justify their state.

[Neil]

The ultimate justification for Israel (as is true of any other state) is that they have the strength and will to dominate other peoples.

[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.

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.

Unfortunately, your thesis has a major hole in it - it does not explain why US support for Israel increased enormously after 1967.

The "support" that Jewish immigration to Palestine received from America has plently of precidents - it is similar to the fashionable support than any downtrodden group receives if it has the ability to broadcast its plight to key opinion-makers. Think for example of the Tibetans. In point of fact, the supporters of Jewish DPs mostly came from the political left at the time.

Point is that we are talking about two different things. You are talking about support for the plight of Jewish DPs. That is not the same thing as support for the nation of Israel. The people doing the supporting are not the same (mostly the political Right as opposed to Left), the object of support is not the same (a mass of miserable DPs vs. a successful modern nation). 

There are lots of examples of support for the downtrodden. Not so many examples of support for a nation on the ascendant, for the simple reason that there are very few examples of a nation which has the same mixture of characteristics, as I discussed above.

Demanding that one produce other examples with the same mixure of characteristics isn't a very fruitful exercise, as we are discussing history and not natural science. Certainly the situation with Israel is pretty well unique and it is the reasons for this uniqueness which must be explained. The existence of a minority group with a powerful lobby is simply not sufficient, as Washington swarms with powerful lobby groups - why don't all of them enjoy such success? Holocaust pity isn't sufficient, because there are plenty of groups which have suffered genocide - why don't Americans care about them? 

It is obviously a mixure of important factors which leads to this unique result, and I submit that a key factor is the mythology of Israeli military successes against great odds. This would not be sufficient unto itself, but mixed together with cultural, historic and religious factors ...

[Malthus]

Which is why, to go back to my original point, Israeli diplomats have never relied on the holocaust as the basis for their diplomacy.  They know that it isn't enough to justify their state.

Israelis are not interested in "justifying their state". That seems to be a game played mostly by non-Israelis.

[DGuller]

Thats a remarkably bright Russian, he recognises the start of WW2 in '39 rather than the usual 'Nooooo the Soviets were invited into Poland, there was cake and fun was had by all till the Germans invaded us and started WW2'

I don't think Soviets ever disputed that WWII started in '39.  You may be thinking of Great Patriotic War, but that was never a synonym of WWII, it always referred to just the part that started in June 22, 1941.

[Jaron]

I think the justification of the state of Israel is a valid question that needs to be addressed though. I am not at all against Israel, but I think the righteous attitude that it has some inherent right to exist based upon faint biblical ties to the area are not enough to justify it politically.

The other line of reasoning being of course that we created the monster and now must endure the pain of our own labor.

[alfred russel]

Unfortunately, your thesis has a major hole in it - it does not explain why US support for Israel increased enormously after 1967.

The "support" that Jewish immigration to Palestine received from America has plently of precidents - it is similar to the fashionable support than any downtrodden group receives if it has the ability to broadcast its plight to key opinion-makers. Think for example of the Tibetans. In point of fact, the supporters of Jewish DPs mostly came from the political left at the time.

Point is that we are talking about two different things. You are talking about support for the plight of Jewish DPs. That is not the same thing as support for the nation of Israel. The people doing the supporting are not the same (mostly the political Right as opposed to Left), the object of support is not the same (a mass of miserable DPs vs. a successful modern nation). 

There are lots of examples of support for the downtrodden. Not so many examples of support for a nation on the ascendant, for the simple reason that there are very few examples of a nation which has the same mixture of characteristics, as I discussed above.

Demanding that one produce other examples with the same mixure of characteristics isn't a very fruitful exercise, as we are discussing history and not natural science. Certainly the situation with Israel is pretty well unique and it is the reasons for this uniqueness which must be explained. The existence of a minority group with a powerful lobby is simply not sufficient, as Washington swarms with powerful lobby groups - why don't all of them enjoy such success? Holocaust pity isn't sufficient, because there are plenty of groups which have suffered genocide - why don't Americans care about them? 

It is obviously a mixure of important factors which leads to this unique result, and I submit that a key factor is the mythology of Israeli military successes against great odds. This would not be sufficient unto itself, but mixed together with cultural, historic and religious factors ...

You know what I would provide as a parallel to the increase in support for israel in 1967? The dramatic interest in and support for the mujahideen in afghanistan post soviet invasion.

[Malthus]

You know what I would provide as a parallel to the increase in support for israel in 1967? The dramatic interest in and support for the mujahideen in afghanistan post soviet invasion.

Heh good point; what came to bite us all in the ass, of course, was that these people were culturally and religiously unlike us.

[alfred russel]

FWIW, I'd say initially there was some political support simply in order to appeal to jewish concerns, and also some support due to the holocaust. What tipped the balance were the cold war considerations brought to the forefront in 1967. The major issues that followed pushed us even more to the Israeli side: the oil shock, the Iran Hostage Crisis, the bombing in Lebanon, gulf war 1, and of course terrorism.

Culture does play a part, but not a deterministic one--if it did the relationship between europe and Israel should be parallel to the US. Plus we don't necessarily love countries just because they have a similar culture (see France, and to a much lesser degree Canada).

[The Minsky Moment]

The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews.

In what respect?

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Too bad b/c Eritrean food is great.  Like Ethiopian (which is delicious) but with more Italian influence.

[Razgovory]

The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews.

In what respect?

It allowed Israel to exist.

[Caliga]

Too bad b/c Eritrean food is great.  Like Ethiopian (which is delicious) but with more Italian influence.

Never had Eritrean, but I've had Ethiopian which I agree is delicious.