So...in the news Ahmadinejad is at it again.
One big question raised in my head over this though is; why?
Why on earth do so many gits deny the holocaust ever happened? Surely if you're to be anti-Jewish the better approach is 'The nazis were right, the Jews SHOULD be wiped out'.
It's an attempt to muddy the waters which is done because their true feelings are too controversial. Holocaust denial is the ID of anti-semitism.
It's not that he really denies the Holocaust, he just denies that it wasn't the Jews' fault.
The Holocaust never happened, it was a hoax dreamed up by Hollywood to sell movie tickets.
(Is it legal for Germans to read this post?)
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2009, 08:46:29 PM
It's an attempt to muddy the waters which is done because their true feelings are too controversial. Holocaust denial is the ID of anti-semitism.
I can understand that being the modus operandi from someone in the West who is constrained by a society which finds those beliefs repellent, but Iran is openly dedicated to Israel's destruction so I don't see what stops them from paying homage to the Holocaust as a good thing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2009, 09:00:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2009, 08:46:29 PM
It's an attempt to muddy the waters which is done because their true feelings are too controversial. Holocaust denial is the ID of anti-semitism.
I can understand that being the modus operandi from someone in the West who is constrained by a society which finds those beliefs repellent, but Iran is openly dedicated to Israel's destruction so I don't see what stops them from paying homage to the Holocaust as a good thing.
The OP asked about gits in general, Iran was just an example.
Well, it's fairly easy to answer, imo. The modern world (especially the modern West) is victim-centered - the best position, politically, to be is to be seen as a victim (all the current tensions between Poland, Russia, Germany and Ukraine, for example, that concern history, are about who was a bigger victim; and this is easily used by politicians as a playing card, both internally and internationally: remember Kaczynski's ridiculous demand that Poland should get more votes in the EU to account for all the people the Germans have killed? There are political movements of expelled Germans in Germany, too; and Russia is pretty much never coming down from the cross either).
By denying Holocaust, antisemites seek to accomplish two things: deny Jews one of the most powerful politically-charged victimhood status in history (which both Israel and Jewish communities around the world have been pretty happy to use as a bludgeon, tbh ;)), and at the same time paint themselves as victims of Jewish propaganda and lies. This is actually pretty smart on their part, since that's the only way they can actually hope to win the majority over - arguing for another Holocaust is a non-starter and they know it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2009, 09:00:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2009, 08:46:29 PM
It's an attempt to muddy the waters which is done because their true feelings are too controversial. Holocaust denial is the ID of anti-semitism.
I can understand that being the modus operandi from someone in the West who is constrained by a society which finds those beliefs repellent, but Iran is openly dedicated to Israel's destruction so I don't see what stops them from paying homage to the Holocaust as a good thing.
I think it is foolish to assume that Iranian leaders are not aware of international reception of their words. In fact, quite the contrary.
Besides, a lot of Westerners, imo, would have a much different view of existence of Israel, if Holocaust never happened. In a strictly political sense, it is a "crusader state", that is maintained with heavy contributions from the West and antagonizes the entire region. However, its existence is being viewed as a just attempt at compensation for the horrors of Holocaust. Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Disagree.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:20:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Disagree.
As do I.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:20:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Disagree.
Well, I am not arguing a position here, I am just saying how it would be viewed by a lot of people.
And Israelis are keenly aware of that - that is why they incorporate Holocaust-related rhetoric into their politics and diplomacy.
Isn't that a position? :unsure:
Anyways, Israel deserves to be wiped off the map, but as long as people carry guilt over doing nothing about the Holocaust, it will remain protected.
In reality though, if world order ever breaks down, the first nukes to hit Jerusalem won't be from Tehran, but Paris, or Berlin, or especially Poland if Russia decides to restation their arsenal there in their new empire.
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 01:27:48 AM
Isn't that a position? :unsure:
Anyways, Israel deserves to be wiped off the map, but as long as people carry guilt over doing nothing about the Holocaust, it will remain protected.
In reality though, if world order ever breaks down, the first nukes to hit Jerusalem won't be from Tehran, but Paris, or Berlin, or especially Poland if Russia decides to restation their arsenal there in their new empire.
Just in case anyone wanted to take Jaron seriously... :lol: :jaron:
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:11:52 AM
Well, it's fairly easy to answer, imo. The modern world (especially the modern West) is victim-centered - the best position, politically, to be is to be seen as a victim (all the current tensions between Poland, Russia, Germany and Ukraine, for example, that concern history, are about who was a bigger victim; and this is easily used by politicians as a playing card, both internally and internationally: remember Kaczynski's ridiculous demand that Poland should get more votes in the EU to account for all the people the Germans have killed? There are political movements of expelled Germans in Germany, too; and Russia is pretty much never coming down from the cross either).
By denying Holocaust, antisemites seek to accomplish two things: deny Jews one of the most powerful politically-charged victimhood status in history (which both Israel and Jewish communities around the world have been pretty happy to use as a bludgeon, tbh ;)), and at the same time paint themselves as victims of Jewish propaganda and lies. This is actually pretty smart on their part, since that's the only way they can actually hope to win the majority over - arguing for another Holocaust is a non-starter and they know it.
Good post, I agree.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:44:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 01:27:48 AM
Isn't that a position? :unsure:
Anyways, Israel deserves to be wiped off the map, but as long as people carry guilt over doing nothing about the Holocaust, it will remain protected.
In reality though, if world order ever breaks down, the first nukes to hit Jerusalem won't be from Tehran, but Paris, or Berlin, or especially Poland if Russia decides to restation their arsenal there in their new empire.
Just in case anyone wanted to take Jaron seriously... :lol: :jaron:
Care to ATTEMPT to refute my arguments or do you just have "I disagree" to throw out? Hope thats not how your Yukon Kangaroo courts operate.
"The defense has intends to show that the defendant, Lil' Runnin Polar Bear, was not drunk and did not strike that Mountie"
BB: "I disagree"
Judge: "The defendant is found: GUILTY"
<_<
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2009, 08:59:33 PM
The Holocaust never happened, it was a hoax dreamed up by Hollywood to sell movie tickets.
(Is it legal for Germans to read this post?)
Fuck you, I'll be shipped to a KZ in Poland in 10.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:11:52 AM
Well, it's fairly easy to answer, imo. The modern world (especially the modern West) is victim-centered - the best position, politically, to be is to be seen as a victim (all the current tensions between Poland, Russia, Germany and Ukraine, for example, that concern history, are about who was a bigger victim; and this is easily used by politicians as a playing card, both internally and internationally: remember Kaczynski's ridiculous demand that Poland should get more votes in the EU to account for all the people the Germans have killed? There are political movements of expelled Germans in Germany, too; and Russia is pretty much never coming down from the cross either).
By denying Holocaust, antisemites seek to accomplish two things: deny Jews one of the most powerful politically-charged victimhood status in history (which both Israel and Jewish communities around the world have been pretty happy to use as a bludgeon, tbh ;) ), and at the same time paint themselves as victims of Jewish propaganda and lies. This is actually pretty smart on their part, since that's the only way they can actually hope to win the majority over - arguing for another Holocaust is a non-starter and they know it.
I knew it had to happen eventually.
Marty writing a reasonable, thought through post without any direct reference to faggotry.
It's a good question.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:20:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Disagree.
Well, I am not arguing a position here, I am just saying how it would be viewed by a lot of people.
And Israelis are keenly aware of that - that is why they incorporate Holocaust-related rhetoric into their politics and diplomacy.
Quite honestly - when you refer to Israeli diplomacy (as opposed to Jewish advocacy groups) you'll never hear them refer to the holocaust.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 02:50:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:20:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Disagree.
Well, I am not arguing a position here, I am just saying how it would be viewed by a lot of people.
And Israelis are keenly aware of that - that is why they incorporate Holocaust-related rhetoric into their politics and diplomacy.
Quite honestly - when you refer to Israeli diplomacy (as opposed to Jewish advocacy groups) you'll never hear them refer to the holocaust.
Oh please. It is pretty much a routine ritual for any foreign Head of State visiting Israel to either go to pray for the Holocaust victims at the Wailing Wall and/or visit the Yad Vashem (sp?) institute.
Only because it is in the area of symbology and imagery, rather than direct words, does not mean it is not very much present in the way Israel conducts diplomacy.
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 02:15:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:44:36 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 01:27:48 AM
Isn't that a position? :unsure:
Anyways, Israel deserves to be wiped off the map, but as long as people carry guilt over doing nothing about the Holocaust, it will remain protected.
In reality though, if world order ever breaks down, the first nukes to hit Jerusalem won't be from Tehran, but Paris, or Berlin, or especially Poland if Russia decides to restation their arsenal there in their new empire.
Just in case anyone wanted to take Jaron seriously... :lol: :jaron:
Care to ATTEMPT to refute my arguments or do you just have "I disagree" to throw out? Hope thats not how your Yukon Kangaroo courts operate.
"The defense has intends to show that the defendant, Lil' Runnin Polar Bear, was not drunk and did not strike that Mountie"
BB: "I disagree"
Judge: "The defendant is found: GUILTY"
<_<
LOL yeah he responded in the same way to my post. :lol:
Not to mention, we cannot exclude the possibility that many Holocaust deniers are saying Holocaust never happened because... they believe Holocaust never happened.
There are people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, that the Moon landing was staged and that God exists. Surely, neither of them is more sane than a typical Holocaust denier.
Martys post does explain it a bit. Still weird stuff though.
They must realise outright holocaust denial is ridiculous. Some of them do do this and say it just wasn't as bad as its painted, fair enough, but others still deny completely....
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 03:31:46 AM
Not to mention, we cannot exclude the possibility that many Holocaust deniers are saying Holocaust never happened because... they believe Holocaust never happened.
There are people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, that the Moon landing was staged and that God exists. Surely, neither of them is more sane than a typical Holocaust denier.
Believing the holocaust never happened though is just retarded.
Its becoming less so today than it was 20 years ago but still.
There's the testimonys of millions to rely on- not just Jews but other victims, various Germans, allied liberators, red cross people who moved in afterwards, etc...
Then of course there's the evidence you can still see today. I've been to Auschwitz, I can confirm it exists.
The Earth being 6000 years old -well its not so easy to believe, for many of us we just believe this because science tells us so. Sure there's a bit of direct evidence in fossils and then of course its just simple logic but...its not conclusive, you can see how people could delude themself that science is lying.
God...well. Thats covered elsewhere.
I completely agree with Marti on this as well. I pretty much was going to make the same post until I saw his. ;)
NB: I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel. :contract:
I really don't think Holocaust deniers actually exist. All those websites, etc. are just hoaxes left by blue Prussians, or something.
Quote from: Tyr on September 19, 2009, 05:56:31 AM
Believing the holocaust never happened though is just retarded.
Its becoming less so today than it was 20 years ago but still.
Well that is the whole point isn't it?
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
I don't know there were about two hundred thousand Jews in Palestine in 1939 I don't know if it would have been too immoral a statement later on that the area should be partitioned when the British left. Especially as there would be six million more living Jews to support them and generally the only significant real support Israel gets is from the Jewish Diaspora and their allies. I have not really noticed massive moral support for Israel because of the Holocaust at all really, but then this is now and things were probably different in 1948 in that regard.
I generally disagree very strongly that somehow the Holocaust created Israel since the project was already 50 years along at that point.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 02:50:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:20:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Disagree.
Well, I am not arguing a position here, I am just saying how it would be viewed by a lot of people.
And Israelis are keenly aware of that - that is why they incorporate Holocaust-related rhetoric into their politics and diplomacy.
Quite honestly - when you refer to Israeli diplomacy (as opposed to Jewish advocacy groups) you'll never hear them refer to the holocaust.
I will admit I don't really follow Israeli diplomacy, but the first Israeli response to this summer's Swedish-Israeli diplomatic fracas was "ZOMG! just like in WW2!!!111"
Quote from: Slargos on September 19, 2009, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 02:50:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2009, 01:20:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2009, 01:15:47 AM
Had this justification been removed, the moral case for supporting Israel would be much weaker.
Disagree.
Well, I am not arguing a position here, I am just saying how it would be viewed by a lot of people.
And Israelis are keenly aware of that - that is why they incorporate Holocaust-related rhetoric into their politics and diplomacy.
Quite honestly - when you refer to Israeli diplomacy (as opposed to Jewish advocacy groups) you'll never hear them refer to the holocaust.
I will admit I don't really follow Israeli diplomacy, but the first Israeli response to this summer's Swedish-Israeli diplomatic fracas was "ZOMG! just like in WW2!!!111"
Oh really? Care to provide a link?
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2009, 11:49:41 AM
I don't know there were about two hundred thousand Jews in Palestine in 1939 I don't know if it would have been too immoral a statement later on that the area should be partitioned when the British left. Especially as there would be six million more living Jews to support them and generally the only significant real support Israel gets is from the Jewish Diaspora and their allies. I have not really noticed massive moral support for Israel because of the Holocaust at all really, but then this is now and things were probably different in 1948 in that regard.
I generally disagree very strongly that somehow the Holocaust created Israel since the project was already 50 years along at that point.
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
Nah, thats New York.
Quote from: Tyr on September 19, 2009, 02:46:47 PM
Nah, thats New York.
The average American does not get lobbyed by AIPAC.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 19, 2009, 02:55:17 PM
Not sure I ever believed it, always seemed to unlikely given the culture and too efficient.
edit:
my bad, I thought the thead was about Roman underfloor heating. :blush:
For posterity.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 19, 2009, 02:55:17 PM
Not sure I ever believed it, always seemed to unlikely given the culture and too efficient.
edit:
my bad, I thought the thead was about Roman underfloor heating. :blush:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2009, 08:59:33 PM
The Holocaust never happened, it was a hoax dreamed up by Hollywood to sell movie tickets.
(Is it legal for Germans to read this post?)
Sure.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 19, 2009, 02:55:17 PM
Not sure I ever believed it, always seemed to unlikely given the culture and too efficient.
edit:
my bad, I thought the thead was about Roman underfloor heating. :blush:
I can sympathise with Hypocaust pity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2009, 11:49:41 AM
I don't know there were about two hundred thousand Jews in Palestine in 1939 I don't know if it would have been too immoral a statement later on that the area should be partitioned when the British left. Especially as there would be six million more living Jews to support them and generally the only significant real support Israel gets is from the Jewish Diaspora and their allies. I have not really noticed massive moral support for Israel because of the Holocaust at all really, but then this is now and things were probably different in 1948 in that regard.
I generally disagree very strongly that somehow the Holocaust created Israel since the project was already 50 years along at that point.
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
I'd say that was true in, say 1948-1955, but today it's more the view that Isreal is basically the only country in the Middle East that can be considered basically democratic that is the foundation of American support for Isreal.
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2009, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2009, 11:49:41 AM
I don't know there were about two hundred thousand Jews in Palestine in 1939 I don't know if it would have been too immoral a statement later on that the area should be partitioned when the British left. Especially as there would be six million more living Jews to support them and generally the only significant real support Israel gets is from the Jewish Diaspora and their allies. I have not really noticed massive moral support for Israel because of the Holocaust at all really, but then this is now and things were probably different in 1948 in that regard.
I generally disagree very strongly that somehow the Holocaust created Israel since the project was already 50 years along at that point.
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
I'd say that was true in, say 1948-1955, but today it's more the view that Isreal is basically the only country in the Middle East that can be considered basically democratic that is the foundation of American support for Isreal.
Turkey is a "basic" democracy. and is also a member of NATO, unlike Israel. How come Turkey does not figure in common perceptions of the Middle East?
Quote from: saskganesh on September 19, 2009, 09:23:29 PM
Turkey is a "basic" democracy. and is also a member of NATO, unlike Israel. How come Turkey does not figure in common perceptions of the Middle East?
Turkey don't have neighbours many times their size and population dedicated to their annihilation.
Also, nobody talks about Turks in the Bible.
they are not in the Koran either.
this makes them doubly useful.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 19, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
they are not in the Koran either.
this makes them doubly useful.
Americans don't care about what's in the Koran. But they do remember thoes plucky Israelites in those stories they heard at Sunday school.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 19, 2009, 09:23:29 PM
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2009, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2009, 11:49:41 AM
I don't know there were about two hundred thousand Jews in Palestine in 1939 I don't know if it would have been too immoral a statement later on that the area should be partitioned when the British left. Especially as there would be six million more living Jews to support them and generally the only significant real support Israel gets is from the Jewish Diaspora and their allies. I have not really noticed massive moral support for Israel because of the Holocaust at all really, but then this is now and things were probably different in 1948 in that regard.
I generally disagree very strongly that somehow the Holocaust created Israel since the project was already 50 years along at that point.
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
I'd say that was true in, say 1948-1955, but today it's more the view that Isreal is basically the only country in the Middle East that can be considered basically democratic that is the foundation of American support for Isreal.
Turkey is a "basic" democracy. and is also a member of NATO, unlike Israel. How come Turkey does not figure in common perceptions of the Middle East?
From the American perspective, Turkey being a NATO member makes them part of Europe, not part of the Middle East.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
I disagree about America I think we would have supported Israel anyway both because of our native Jews and the conservative Christian elements for their own rather odd reasons.
There were certainly some "positives" that came out of the holocaust for Israel but I think it was overall a net negative. You just cannot replace six million warm bodies when numbers count for so much in the game.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 19, 2009, 09:23:29 PM
Turkey is a "basic" democracy. and is also a member of NATO, unlike Israel. How come Turkey does not figure in common perceptions of the Middle East?
Not Arab? I am not sure really.
QuoteRussia condemns Iran's Holocaust denier
Published: Sept. 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Russia has denounced as "completely inadmissible" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest Holocaust denial.
"Similar statements, no matter where they come from, violate the truth and are completely inadmissible," said Andrei Nesterenko, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman.
Nesterenko's condemnation came after Ahmadinejad once again called the Holocaust "a lie" in a televised address Friday.
Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died, was "a false pretext to create Israel" and urged Muslims to confront the "Zionist regime (as) a national and religious duty."
"Attempts to rewrite history, especially as the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II is being marked this year, are an offense to the memory of all victims and all those who fought fascism," Nesterenko said.
He also warned that Ahmadinejad's denial "does not contribute to creating an international atmosphere that would foster a fruitful dialogue on issues concerning Iran."
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
I disagree about America I think we would have supported Israel anyway both because of our native Jews and the conservative Christian elements for their own rather odd reasons.
There were certainly some "positives" that came out of the holocaust for Israel but I think it was overall a net negative. You just cannot replace six million warm bodies when numbers count for so much in the game.
I have to take your word for America about this; Holocaust made antisemitism pretty much politically toxic in the West, so if your position is true, there was no significant antisemitism in the US pre-WW2. I find it hard to believe but sure let's assume that the US would still overwhelmingly support Israel was it not for the Holocaust.
The situation would have been much different in Europe, though. I'd say was it not for the Holocaust, most Europeans would regard Israel as a rogue/unfair state, that was formed from the land taken from its rightful owners, the Palestinians. I don't think Israel would have survived (or in fact, came to life) if Europeans believed it should be destroyed, notwithstanding American lunatic belief in Armageddon.
Quote from: citizen k on September 20, 2009, 02:43:44 AM
QuoteRussia condemns Iran's Holocaust denier
Published: Sept. 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Russia has denounced as "completely inadmissible" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest Holocaust denial.
"Similar statements, no matter where they come from, violate the truth and are completely inadmissible," said Andrei Nesterenko, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman.
Nesterenko's condemnation came after Ahmadinejad once again called the Holocaust "a lie" in a televised address Friday.
Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died, was "a false pretext to create Israel" and urged Muslims to confront the "Zionist regime (as) a national and religious duty."
"Attempts to rewrite history, especially as the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II is being marked this year, are an offense to the memory of all victims and all those who fought fascism," Nesterenko said.
He also warned that Ahmadinejad's denial "does not contribute to creating an international atmosphere that would foster a fruitful dialogue on issues concerning Iran."
Anyone else finds Russians condemning attempts to rewrite history pretty ironic? :lol:
This is the same ministry that few weeks ago published papers claiming that the Katyn massacre was carried out by Germans, and that Stalin didn't have a secret pact with Hitler, unlike Poland which planned to invade the Soviets. :lol:
When will the Jews reach the Holocaust acceptance stage?
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:57:40 AM
Anyone else finds Russians condemning attempts to rewrite history pretty ironic? :lol:
This is the same ministry that few weeks ago published papers claiming that the Katyn massacre was carried out by Germans, and that Stalin didn't have a secret pact with Hitler, unlike Poland which planned to invade the Soviets. :lol:
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'
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2009, 01:17:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
I disagree about America I think we would have supported Israel anyway both because of our native Jews and the conservative Christian elements for their own rather odd reasons.
There were certainly some "positives" that came out of the holocaust for Israel but I think it was overall a net negative. You just cannot replace six million warm bodies when numbers count for so much in the game.
I have to take your word for America about this; Holocaust made antisemitism pretty much politically toxic in the West, so if your position is true, there was no significant antisemitism in the US pre-WW2. I find it hard to believe but sure let's assume that the US would still overwhelmingly support Israel was it not for the Holocaust.
The situation would have been much different in Europe, though. I'd say was it not for the Holocaust, most Europeans would regard Israel as a rogue/unfair state, that was formed from the land taken from its rightful owners, the Palestinians. I don't think Israel would have survived (or in fact, came to life) if Europeans believed it should be destroyed, notwithstanding American lunatic belief in Armageddon.
European support or lack thereof was almost completely irrelevant to the creation and survival of Israel. When Israel was formed, most of Europe was still in charred ruins, occupied by "lunatic" Americans and Russians. The only European nation of any import in the region was Britian, which was at that time mostly hostile to the whole Zionist project in spite of the holocaust.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2009, 11:49:41 AM
I don't know there were about two hundred thousand Jews in Palestine in 1939 I don't know if it would have been too immoral a statement later on that the area should be partitioned when the British left. Especially as there would be six million more living Jews to support them and generally the only significant real support Israel gets is from the Jewish Diaspora and their allies. I have not really noticed massive moral support for Israel because of the Holocaust at all really, but then this is now and things were probably different in 1948 in that regard.
I generally disagree very strongly that somehow the Holocaust created Israel since the project was already 50 years along at that point.
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.
Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.
I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.
At no time in history has holocaust pity been the "bedrock" of support for Israel in America.
During the time of Israel's founding, the holocaust was by no means as big a public deal as it is now; nor was US support for Israel exactly overwhelming. In fact, America played small part in the formation of the state.
During the '50s anf early 60s, Israel had much closer ties with the UK and France (they conspired together in '56 to attack Egypt, a plan which America squashed).
It was only with the seemingly-miraculous '67 war that the US stepped up as Israel's main partner. The primary gounds of sympathy, I contend, is the exact mirror-image of why the Europeans do
not sympathize - Americans by and large love a plucky winner against great odds, who seems culturally similar to themselves; Europeans in contrast tend to sympathize with the underdog who easily fits the role of the 'colonial oppressed'.
America sees Israel in the role of hard-working Pilgrims or Cowboys in a mid-east populated with savage "Indians". Europeans see Israel as a bunch of European colonialist overlords of the sort they have been taught to dispise. The holocaust simply throws another element into this mix - on the American side it adds marginally to the sympathy; on the European side, it adds guilt and resentment resentment (as in "why are you still blaming us for this?") and an understandable desire to paint the Israelis as "just as bad" as the Europeans used to be.
On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 02:09:03 PM
On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.
This is the kind of thing that's hard to prove, but I think you have it wrong.
The "bedrock" of American support for Israel is the powerful jewish lobby/voting interest in key states, combined with the vague religious sentiment.
There are plenty of other 'plucky' states that the US may think fondly of, but the US does little to support. And US support for Israel goes back much further than '67 - it was the US that supported increased jewish immigration to Palestine that led to the eventual founding of Israel.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 02:15:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 02:09:03 PM
On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.
This is the kind of thing that's hard to prove, but I think you have it wrong.
The "bedrock" of American support for Israel is the powerful jewish lobby/voting interest in key states, combined with the vague religious sentiment.
There are plenty of other 'plucky' states that the US may think fondly of, but the US does little to support. And US support for Israel goes back much further than '67 - it was the US that supported increased jewish immigration to Palestine that led to the eventual founding of Israel.
It was?
I think you have it quite wrong. The US had very little to do with immigration to Palestine/Israel.
Certainly, American
Jews funded such immigration, but it was of very little interest to America as a country. Indeed, America did not support immigration of Jews to
America prior to WW2, let alone
Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
Jewish support in key states plus the religious wackjob constituency is simply insufficient to explain why the vast majority of Americans appear to support Israel.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 02:09:03 PM
At no time in history has holocaust pity been the "bedrock" of support for Israel in America.
During the time of Israel's founding, the holocaust was by no means as big a public deal as it is now; nor was US support for Israel exactly overwhelming. In fact, America played small part in the formation of the state.
During the '50s anf early 60s, Israel had much closer ties with the UK and France (they conspired together in '56 to attack Egypt, a plan which America squashed).
It was only with the seemingly-miraculous '67 war that the US stepped up as Israel's main partner. The primary gounds of sympathy, I contend, is the exact mirror-image of why the Europeans do not sympathize - Americans by and large love a plucky winner against great odds, who seems culturally similar to themselves; Europeans in contrast tend to sympathize with the underdog who easily fits the role of the 'colonial oppressed'.
America sees Israel in the role of hard-working Pilgrims or Cowboys in a mid-east populated with savage "Indians". Europeans see Israel as a bunch of European colonialist overlords of the sort they have been taught to dispise. The holocaust simply throws another element into this mix - on the American side it adds marginally to the sympathy; on the European side, it adds guilt and resentment resentment (as in "why are you still blaming us for this?") and an understandable desire to paint the Israelis as "just as bad" as the Europeans used to be.
On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.
Your plucky underdog thesis (which I think has *some* merit) has a lot of trouble squaring with the historical facts. As you yourself pointed out US support for Israel was the lowest when they were at their pluckiest and their underdoggiest, and only picked up steam when they had demonstrated their military dominance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 02:30:47 PM
Your plucky underdog thesis (which I think has *some* merit) has a lot of trouble squaring with the historical facts. As you yourself pointed out US support for Israel was the lowest when they were at their pluckiest and their underdoggiest, and only picked up steam when they had demonstrated their military dominance.
Not at all.
Americans like "plucky underdogs" who have
demonstrated outstanding success. It is exactly their demonstration of miltary dominance which grounds the sympathy. Winning the war of Independance got them *some* kudos in America, but what really did the trick was the seemingly miraculous victories of '67.
The world is filled with would-be "plucky underdogs" who get ground beneath the heel of the oppressor. Americans by and large have pity on, but do not admire or particularly sympathize, with suchlike (in Europe as I've said the equation is very different).
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 02:29:20 PM
It was?
I think you have it quite wrong. The US had very little to do with immigration to Palestine/Israel.
Certainly, American Jews funded such immigration, but it was of very little interest to America as a country. Indeed, America did not support immigration of Jews to America prior to WW2, let alone Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
Jewish support in key states plus the religious wackjob constituency is simply insufficient to explain why the vast majority of Americans appear to support Israel.
You're missing the point. It was precisely because they did not support increased immigration of Jews to America that they supported Jewish immigration to Palestine. It played very well to Jewish voters, and the US didn't actually have to do much other than pressure Britain.
I have better sources in some books on hand, but this is a very brief wiki summary:
QuoteFollowing the war, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that 100,000 Jews be immediately granted entry to Palestine, the British maintained the ban on immigration. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several terrorist attacks and bombings against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.
Following the bombing, the British Government began interning illegal Jewish immigrants in Cyprus.
The negative publicity resulting from the situation in Palestine meant the mandate was widely unpopular in Britain, and caused the United States Congress to delay granting the British vital loans for reconstruction. At the same time, many European Jews were finding their way to the United States. An increasing growing influence in American politics, many Zionist backers won over sympathizers in the American and other Western governments. The Labour party had promised before its election to allow mass Jewish migration into Palestine. Additionally the situation required maintenance of 100,000 British troops in the country. In response to these pressures the British announced their desire to terminate the mandate and withdraw by May 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#The_Holocaust.2C_illegal_immigration_and_the_Jewish_Revolt
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 02:38:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 02:29:20 PM
It was?
I think you have it quite wrong. The US had very little to do with immigration to Palestine/Israel.
Certainly, American Jews funded such immigration, but it was of very little interest to America as a country. Indeed, America did not support immigration of Jews to America prior to WW2, let alone Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
Jewish support in key states plus the religious wackjob constituency is simply insufficient to explain why the vast majority of Americans appear to support Israel.
You're missing the point. It was precisely because they did not support increased immigration of Jews to America that they supported Jewish immigration to Palestine. It played very well to Jewish voters, and the US didn't actually have to do much other than pressure Britain.
I believe it is you who is missing the point. There is no doubt that stunts like the "Exodus" raised the pressure in America to prevent stuff like the British interning escaped DPs on Cyprus. However, it was not US pressure which ended the British Mandate, but the obvious fact that the British were facing a situation spiralling out of control in Palestine and, war-weary after WW2, the Brits had enough of such troubles.
This isn't the same and has very little to do with heavy US support for Israel, which came later. It was more along the lines of the occasional US proddings of China over Tibet - an easy (and cheap) expression of outrage at absurdly bad treatment of the downtrodden DPs. To extrapolate from this a military and social alliance lasting more than 40 years, which happened after 1967 (20 years after foundation of the state), is going too far.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 02:41:55 PM
I have better sources in some books on hand, but this is a very brief wiki summary:
QuoteFollowing the war, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that 100,000 Jews be immediately granted entry to Palestine, the British maintained the ban on immigration. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several terrorist attacks and bombings against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.
Following the bombing, the British Government began interning illegal Jewish immigrants in Cyprus.
The negative publicity resulting from the situation in Palestine meant the mandate was widely unpopular in Britain, and caused the United States Congress to delay granting the British vital loans for reconstruction. At the same time, many European Jews were finding their way to the United States. An increasing growing influence in American politics, many Zionist backers won over sympathizers in the American and other Western governments. The Labour party had promised before its election to allow mass Jewish migration into Palestine. Additionally the situation required maintenance of 100,000 British troops in the country. In response to these pressures the British announced their desire to terminate the mandate and withdraw by May 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#The_Holocaust.2C_illegal_immigration_and_the_Jewish_Revolt
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". Such support was
limited - to agitation over the Brits internment of refugees. It was not the "basis for the formation of the state" as you have alleged; that lies elsewhere.
It is not a very good explaination of US
exceptionalism in its approach to Israel.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 02:35:38 PM
Not at all.
Americans like "plucky underdogs" who have demonstrated outstanding success. It is exactly their demonstration of miltary dominance which grounds the sympathy. Winning the war of Independance got them *some* kudos in America, but what really did the trick was the seemingly miraculous victories of '67.
The world is filled with would-be "plucky underdogs" who get ground beneath the heel of the oppressor. Americans by and large have pity on, but do not admire or particularly sympathize, with suchlike (in Europe as I've said the equation is very different).
You're creating a tendency out of one data point. Where's the American admiration for the plucky Eritreans? The plucky white Rhodesians?
I think Malthus has hit right on the nose, a great analysis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 02:35:38 PM
Not at all.
Americans like "plucky underdogs" who have demonstrated outstanding success. It is exactly their demonstration of miltary dominance which grounds the sympathy. Winning the war of Independance got them *some* kudos in America, but what really did the trick was the seemingly miraculous victories of '67.
The world is filled with would-be "plucky underdogs" who get ground beneath the heel of the oppressor. Americans by and large have pity on, but do not admire or particularly sympathize, with suchlike (in Europe as I've said the equation is very different).
You're creating a tendency out of one data point. Where's the American admiration for the plucky Eritreans? The plucky white Rhodesians?
I wasn't aware that Eritreans and White Rhodesians had this sort of success. I assume most Americans, when they think of Eritreans, think of pitiful starving folk, and when they think of White Rhodesians, think of bitter exiles. In short, more the recipients of pity than admiration.
In any event, there are lots of Americans on this very site who support Israel. Why not ask *them* if they are influenced by the Zionist lobby, pity over the Holocaust, or by armageddon-style religious fervour?
I'm guessing that by and large most of 'em would say "not really any of these things".
I support them killing Arabs.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2009, 03:21:51 PM
I support them killing Arabs.
Because of the Zionist lobby, we know.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:11:16 PM
I wasn't aware that Eritreans and White Rhodesians had this sort of success. I assume most Americans, when they think of Eritreans, think of pitiful starving folk, and when they think of White Rhodesians, think of bitter exiles. In short, more the recipients of pity than admiration.
Eritrea fought and won a grueling war of indepence against a country with 10 times its own population.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:11:16 PM
I wasn't aware that Eritreans and White Rhodesians had this sort of success. I assume most Americans, when they think of Eritreans, think of pitiful starving folk, and when they think of White Rhodesians, think of bitter exiles. In short, more the recipients of pity than admiration.
Eritrea fought and won a grueling war of indepence against a country with 10 times its own population.
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.
I'd wager most Americans would have a hard time figuring out what Eritrea is, not to mention its location.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
I'd wager most Americans would have a hard time figuring out what Eritrea is, not to mention its location.
I'd agree with that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 03:26:45 PM
Eritrea fought and won a grueling war of indepence against a country with 10 times its own population.
And anybody who knows this obscure fact would feel admiration for them.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2009, 03:38:21 PM
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.
I think it has been proven that all citizens of non-American nations know of every nation and can point them all out on a map, as well provide a brief history.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:32:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2009, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
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.
Oh don't get me wrong, that wasn't a dig at the abysmal state of education in the US.
I doubt more than 3 of my friends, almost all college-educated, know about the place. There's one guy who I used to play geography quizzes with when we were kids who knows for sure (since I told him in 1993 and there's an inside joke on the subject). Probably the diplomat knows as well. Then there's another guy who works for the UN in conflicted areas.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2009, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:48:32 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:32:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:48:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2009, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2009, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:48:32 PM
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".
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 20, 2009, 04:00:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 03:48:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2009, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 20, 2009, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:19:16 PM
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).
Quote
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 20, 2009, 04:38:54 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2009, 04:42:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 20, 2009, 04:38:54 PM
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
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
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:
Quote from: MalthusYour 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.
Nonononono. I'm the founding father of the Holocaust pity thesis.
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2009, 05:34:32 PM
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. :console:
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.
The ultimate justification for Israel (as is true of any other state) is that they have the strength and will to dominate other peoples.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
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:
Quote from: MalthusYour 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 ...
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 06:52:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on September 20, 2009, 07:39:59 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 09:06:55 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
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.
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).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews.
In what respect?
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 10:55:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on September 21, 2009, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 10:55:02 AM
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.
Isn't modern ethiopian food out of a UN care package?
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 09:06:55 AM
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 ...
First I wouldn't say that support for Israel "increased enormously". What increased was direct aid to Israel, and that is easily explained. Neighboring states, namely Syria and Egypt, started getting a lot of aid from the Soviet Union. That was all cold war.
And your comment that support for Jewish DPs doesn't equal support for Israel. But as you pointed out - the US wasn't accepting the DPs, and wasn't promoting them emigrating somewhere else. It was pushing for immigration into Palestine. I think that sentiment translated directly into support for the state of Israel.
And yes, there is a lot of general sentiment for the downtrodden, and usually nothing comes of it. But US support for the Jews was remarkable, and not just muttering a few nice words.
Wiki isn't going to cut it, so I'll see what I can dig up tonight. A couple of books come to mind...
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:01:29 PM
Convergance of these factors explains US sympathy much more effectively than "amazing Zionist lobby tactics" or "Religious lunatics and their armageddon fantasies".
I see your argument, but I do think you are underestimating the armageddon fantasies. That is a very significant and powerful bedrock of support.
Another factor in American support both official and unoffical is the *lack* of sympathy for Israel's enemies. When Americans see the likes of Arafat, Black September, Hamas, Hezbollah on the other side, they don't get excited about national liberation movements, they get disgusted. You don't need an all powerful lobby to get the people in Congress to pick you over that. Even a thug like Bibi knows how to clean up and speak decent English on TV; the only Palestinian spokesmen that don't make one's nose curl are powerless academic types like Ashwari or the late Edward Said.
Americans also don't engage in self-deception about what they would do if a weaker neighbor started lobbing rockets over the border. When right-thinking Euros look at Lebanon 06 or Gaza 08, they think "disproportionate response". When Americans look at those interventions they think "got what was coming."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 10:54:06 AM
In what respect?
The Jewish part was something like 60% Jewish; the Arab part was something like 97% Arab.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 11:12:26 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 10:54:06 AM
In what respect?
The Jewish part was something like 60% Jewish; the Arab part was something like 97% Arab.
Your conclusion does not follow from that fact.
The majority Jewish areas were primarily coastal and urban and by their nature more heterogeneous. Assuming that a partition was going to take place, how would you have done it differently?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2009, 04:01:29 PM
Convergance of these factors explains US sympathy much more effectively than "amazing Zionist lobby tactics" or "Religious lunatics and their armageddon fantasies".
I see your argument, but I do think you are underestimating the armageddon fantasies. That is a very significant and powerful bedrock of support.
Another factor in American support both official and unoffical is the *lack* of sympathy for Israel's enemies. When Americans see the likes of Arafat, Black September, Hamas, Hezbollah on the other side, they don't get excited about national liberation movements, they get disgusted. You don't need an all powerful lobby to get the people in Congress to pick you over that. Even a thug like Bibi knows how to clean up and speak decent English on TV; the only Palestinian spokesmen that don't make one's nose curl are powerless academic types like Ashwari or the late Edward Said.
Americans also don't engage in self-deception about what they would do if a weaker neighbor started lobbing rockets over the border. When right-thinking Euros look at Lebanon 06 or Gaza 08, they think "disproportionate response". When Americans look at those interventions they think "got what was coming."
The armageddon fantasies explain popular religious support but don't explain the support that ordinary not-particularly-religious Americans tend to provide.
I agree that having unattractive enemies is an extremely significant factor: that's all part and parcel of the 'they are guys like us facing people who are not like us'.
The crux of it is that Americans are simply more open to the narrative of a group moving into some new land and setting themselves up in it, for the simple reason that this is part of the *American* mythological narrative, too - often using the exact same cultural terminology. Europeans invaded other places it is true, but to hold them as *colonies* of the metropolitan - hence their mythological narrative is all about "colonialism" and they see everything through that lens. Americans naturally enough tend to view the Israeli situation through the lens of their own history.
Quote from: Caliga on September 21, 2009, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 10:55:02 AM
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.
Those people are scrawny and have no meat on them. Also kinda gamy.
I don't think the Armageddon fantasies have a great deal to do with it. I think that's fairly recent.
Quote from: Caliga on September 21, 2009, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 10:55:02 AM
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.
I wasn't a big fan of Ethiopian. Seemed like a sort of stew served on a big bread platter. Instead of cutlery, you were supposed to use bits of the bread to scoop up the stew.
Not my favorite.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 11:33:40 AM
I wasn't a big fan of Ethiopian. Seemed like a sort of stew served on a big bread platter. Instead of cutlery, you were supposed to use bits of the bread to scoop up the stew.
Not my favorite.
Now this I can agree with. I've had Ethiopean (but only once or twice) and didn't think much of it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 11:19:15 AM
Your conclusion does not follow from that fact.
The majority Jewish areas were primarily coastal and urban and by their nature more heterogeneous. Assuming that a partition was going to take place, how would you have done it differently?
How I would have done it and how it could have been done more evenly are two seperate questions.
I don't think you're right when you say urban areas in mandatory Palestine were more heterogeneous. I believe Tel Aviv was overwhelmingly Jewish and Haifa was (and still is) overwhelmingly Arab. My hunch (derived from Exodus and other academic sources) is that the heterogeneity was in the countryside, where you had kibbutzes cheek by jowl with Arab farms. So you could do it through a mathematical process, similar to gerrymandering, in which you slice off smaller bits of territory with slim Arab majorities as you approach the goal roughly equal proportions of each ethnic group assigned to foreign rule.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 11:33:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 21, 2009, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 10:55:02 AM
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.
I wasn't a big fan of Ethiopian. Seemed like a sort of stew served on a big bread platter. Instead of cutlery, you were supposed to use bits of the bread to scoop up the stew.
Not my favorite.
I once ate ethiopian and was told after the meal part of it was raw pork. Kind of gross.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2009, 11:38:06 AM
I once ate ethiopian and was told after the meal part of it was raw pork. Kind of gross.
I very much doubt it. They have a raw beef dish called kitfo; I'll bet that's what you had.
It's just the underdog syndrome. Israel is a small patch of plucky democracy in the desert trying to survive surrounded by a sea of enemies. With a good lobbying organization. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
I think there is a tendency to misunderstand the true nature of the role played by the Holocaust in the creation of the State of Israel. It was not a matter of people feeling bad for the Jews and wanting to give them something as recompense. It was a lot more realpolitik. The Allied Powers faced a real problem in having to deal with the surviving Jewish refugees. Keeping them in camps was not desriable from many POV, of which the echoes of the Nazi concentration camps was only one. They couldn't be sent back to their places of origin, which were predominantly under the Soviet zone and in utter ruin - any thought that might go in that direction would be finished off by the "little pogroms" in Poland in 46. The exhausted western European "victors" had no interest in taking in masses of Jewish refugees. The US took in many, but there were practical limitations to what even the Americans were prepared to do.
In that practical context, the prospect of being able to dump off masses of refugees into Palestine was very attractive. It was in a sense a true solution to the "Jewish Problem." The Jews couldn't be heard to complain, b/c that is what they said they wanted. It saved the Allied Powers from the burdens of dealing with them. And if bad things happened to them in Palestine, well then, it would be a shame, but couldn't be helped - they had a fair shot.
Partition happened b/c it was convenient for the victorious powers (other than the UK which as mandatory power was caught in a tricky position). Had it been otherwise, it wouldn't have happened. Holocaust or no.
Quote from: Caliga on September 21, 2009, 11:00:29 AM
Never had Eritrean, but I've had Ethiopian which I agree is delicious.
I don't think its particularly delicious / I like using utensils.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 11:20:34 AM
The crux of it is that Americans are simply more open to the narrative of a group moving into some new land and setting themselves up in it, for the simple reason that this is part of the *American* mythological narrative, too - often using the exact same cultural terminology. ... Americans naturally enough tend to view the Israeli situation through the lens of their own history.
Really? Is that what I do?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 11:36:57 AM
I don't think you're right when you say urban areas in mandatory Palestine were more heterogeneous. I believe Tel Aviv was overwhelmingly Jewish and Haifa was (and still is) overwhelmingly Arab. My hunch (derived from Exodus and other academic sources) is that the heterogeneity was in the countryside, where you had kibbutzes cheek by jowl with Arab farms.
Your hunch would be wrong. In 1946, Haifa city had a Jewish population of 74,320 (compared to 41,000 arab moslem and 29,910 chirstian). Jews made up almost exactly one-half of Palestine's total urban population but only 1/6 of the rural population. Literature, film and romance may play up the roles of the Kibbutzes, but comparatively speaking they were not where most of the Jews lived. The general picture of an urbanized Jewish population living cheek-to-jowl with a large Arab urban minority combined with overwhelming Arab majorities in the countryside (punctuated here and there by kibbutznik "settlement blocs" )is more accurate.
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2009, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 11:20:34 AM
The crux of it is that Americans are simply more open to the narrative of a group moving into some new land and setting themselves up in it, for the simple reason that this is part of the *American* mythological narrative, too - often using the exact same cultural terminology. ... Americans naturally enough tend to view the Israeli situation through the lens of their own history.
Really? Is that what I do?
Mal has a point there, I think. Israel's advocates in the US learned how to frame their position in terms amenable to an American mindset early on. No you, specifically, but in general terms.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2009, 11:38:06 AM
I once ate ethiopian and was told after the meal part of it was raw pork. Kind of gross.
I very much doubt it. They have a raw beef dish called kitfo; I'll bet that's what you had.
I hope so. But I was definately told raw pork--beef wouldn't have bothered me so much.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 11:36:57 AM
I don't think you're right when you say urban areas in mandatory Palestine were more heterogeneous. I believe Tel Aviv was overwhelmingly Jewish and Haifa was (and still is) overwhelmingly Arab. My hunch (derived from Exodus and other academic sources) is that the heterogeneity was in the countryside, where you had kibbutzes cheek by jowl with Arab farms.
Your hunch would be wrong. In 1946, Haifa city had a Jewish population of 74,320 (compared to 41,000 arab moslem and 29,910 chirstian). Jews made up almost exactly one-half of Palestine's total urban population but only 1/6 of the rural population.
Someone is compiling population figures, classifying people, drawing up lists... probably as preparation for some kind of logistics operation. Classy.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2009, 12:22:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2009, 11:38:06 AM
I once ate ethiopian and was told after the meal part of it was raw pork. Kind of gross.
I very much doubt it. They have a raw beef dish called kitfo; I'll bet that's what you had.
I hope so. But I was definately told raw pork--beef wouldn't have bothered me so much.
Poef? Berk?
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2009, 12:34:16 PM
Someone is compiling population figures, classifying people, drawing up lists... probably as preparation for some kind of logistics operation.
The someone would be the British Mandate and the logistics operation the cessation of mandatory rule.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2009, 12:34:16 PM
Someone is compiling population figures, classifying people, drawing up lists... probably as preparation for some kind of logistics operation.
The someone would be the British Mandate and the logistics operation the cessation of mandatory rule.
Have you ever actually been on a mandate? No? Then STFU.
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2009, 12:39:35 PM
Have you ever actually been on a mandate? No? Then STFU.
He's a liberal New Yorker. Isn't that requisite?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 12:06:00 PM
Your hunch would be wrong. In 1946, Haifa city had a Jewish population of 74,320 (compared to 41,000 arab moslem and 29,910 chirstian). Jews made up almost exactly one-half of Palestine's total urban population but only 1/6 of the rural population. Literature, film and romance may play up the roles of the Kibbutzes, but comparatively speaking they were not where most of the Jews lived. The general picture of an urbanized Jewish population living cheek-to-jowl with a large Arab urban minority combined with overwhelming Arab majorities in the countryside (punctuated here and there by kibbutznik "settlement blocs" )is more accurate.
I stand corrected about Haifa. The rest of your post doesn't necessarily refute my point however. In addition to Jewish majority Tel Aviv and barely Jewish majority Haifa the UN awarded rural areas where we know, by simple mathematical deduction, that Jews were either a bare majority or even possibly in the minority.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2009, 12:22:40 PM
I hope so. But I was definately told raw pork--beef wouldn't have bothered me so much.
That person may have been wrong. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church expressly forbids the consumption of Pork, and obviously the Ethiopian Muslims don't eat it either. Raw beef seems more likely (and much less likely to kill you).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 12:46:10 PM
In addition to Jewish majority Tel Aviv and barely Jewish majority Haifa the UN awarded rural areas where we know, by simple mathematical deduction, that Jews were either a bare majority or even possibly in the minority.
In addition to raw population counts the UN also considered: (1) the expected immediate influx of a couple hundred thousand Jewish refugees once partitition took place; (2) the desirability to minimizing the degree to which the partitioned areas consisted of small intermittant enclaves as opposed to continuous territorial blocs; (3) the desirability of allocated to both sides some mix of urban and rural areas to provide some semblance of viaibility.
If you were to draw a density dot graph of Jewish population in palestine c. 1947 and blend the dots together you would roughly get the partioned area for the Jewish state (sans the Negev). Again, what specifically would you have done differently? You have given a general methology but one that if applied would have resulted in two states of scattered dots and blotches. Focusing on the options realistically available, what would you have done?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 01:23:06 PM
In addition to raw population counts the UN also considered: (1) the expected immediate influx of a couple hundred thousand Jewish refugees once partitition took place; (2) the desirability to minimizing the degree to which the partitioned areas consisted of small intermittant enclaves as opposed to continuous territorial blocs; (3) the desirability of allocated to both sides some mix of urban and rural areas to provide some semblance of viaibility.
If you were to draw a density dot graph of Jewish population in palestine c. 1947 and blend the dots together you would roughly get the partioned area for the Jewish state (sans the Negev). Again, what specifically would you have done differently? You have given a general methology but one that if applied would have resulted in two states of scattered dots and blotches. Focusing on the options realistically available, what would you have done?
The three additional factors you mention are reasonable factors; they also all happened to favor the Jewish state.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 01:58:45 PM
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.
QuoteAnother 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 03:56:47 PM
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.
QuoteThat 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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 03:54:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 04:14:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 03:54:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 04:19:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 04:36:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 04:51:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 04:06:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 05:04:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 04:51:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 04:06:11 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 21, 2009, 05:07:21 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 05:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 04:51:58 PM
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.
QuoteI'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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
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.
I've read a couple articles about J Street and got the impression that they're trying to get the tail of Jewish support for liberal domestic policies to wag the dog of Israel policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 06:16:24 PM
I've read a couple articles about J Street and got the impression that they're trying to get the tail of Jewish support for liberal domestic policies to wag the dog of Israel policy.
They argue that basically AIPAC are right-wing and that Israel policy is overly dominated by them, by Evangelicals and so on and that their position (which J-Street argue is effectively Likud politics) doesn't jibe with mainstream Jewish opinion in the US. So you could be right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 06:29:23 PM
They argue that basically AIPAC are right-wing and that Israel policy is overly dominated by them, by Evangelicals and so on and that their position (which J-Street argue is effectively Likud politics) doesn't jibe with mainstream Jewish opinion in the US. So you could be right.
That would be arguing Israel policy on its own merits. I'm talking causal chains like
Jews like health care reform, Obama supports health care reform, Obama wants settlements to stop, we should want settlements to stop.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 05:32:39 PM
oh I see. Only problem with that is that it would leave the Jewish area entirely bereft of access to fresh water.
are the arabs supposed to trust people like seigebreaker with the water supply!?!
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
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.
AIPAC-style lobbies have the most influence on members of Congress; on what issue for which Congress has any relevance is J-Street going to differ from AIPAC? I assume both favor strong trade relations, access to military hardware, and continuing aid.
Ultimately the WH decides the big policy questions on ME diplomacy and while AIPAC may be able to get a few minutes of Rahm's ear, realistically their role in determining WH policy is not going to be that great. OTOH domestic considerations of how public opinion will view the policy and its likely consequences could be significant.
Quote from: Fate on September 21, 2009, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 05:32:39 PM
oh I see. Only problem with that is that it would leave the Jewish area entirely bereft of access to fresh water.
are the arabs supposed to trust people like seigebreaker with the water supply!?!
are the israelis suppesed to trust people like Amin al-Husayni with their lives?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 22, 2009, 12:17:00 AM
Quote from: Fate on September 21, 2009, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 05:32:39 PM
oh I see. Only problem with that is that it would leave the Jewish area entirely bereft of access to fresh water.
are the arabs supposed to trust people like seigebreaker with the water supply!?!
are the israelis suppesed to trust people like Amin al-Husayni with their lives?
yes
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 03:54:03 PM
The issue in the case of Israel is why Americans who are not Jews apparently support Israel.
Many jews in america, not so many muslims. Why make enemies of people near you to support people far away?
In European countries with large muslim populations, the same thinking produces the opposite result.
There's around equal numbers of Jews and Muslims in this country.
Perhaps in absolute numbers, how about many influential jews, few influential muslims? I'm sure you understand what I mean.
edit: though I was under the impression that there were only 2-3 million muslims in America, and many of them lived concentrated in places such as Detroit, but if you say I'm wrong I'll take your word for it
Well, let's see, Muslim President with Jewish Chief of Staff. :P
But really, that explains nothing. Support for Israel goes way beyond whatever influence teh :Joos have on us.
I'm not saying it's influence - more us vs. them-thinking. Jews are, as prominent members of american society, more part of the "us" than muslims are.
Well, sure. But Israel is also part of "us" (the West) and Europe doesn't seem to care for some reason.
I don't see Israel as part of my "us". Nor do I the palestinians for that matter. I can only speak for myself, and not other Europeans, but if I seem not to care it is because I don't, at least not much. Why do you care so much that they are rich, like you are?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
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.
Such an attempt makes a good experiment for the thesis. If J-street is able to "change things" it would go to show that lobbying is the significant factor. If it isn't, it would be evidence in the other direction.
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 05:49:37 AM
I don't see Israel as part of my "us". Nor do I the palestinians for that matter. I can only speak for myself, and not other Europeans, but if I seem not to care it is because I don't, at least not much. Why do you care so much that they are rich, like you are?
It isn't the "rich", it's the shared values and institutions.
Europeans and Americans simply differ in this respect: Americans tend to view Jews as "of them", whereas historically at least many Europeans did not - even when said Jews looked exactly like them, spoke the same languages, etc.
Perhaps I am unfair to the secular humanists of Israel in my assessment, who I'm sure I could feel all kinds of kinship with, but there is much in Israeli culture and values which is, at least to me, decidedly middle-eastern. I don't think we have to look very far away to find examples of this.
edit: And as a preventive measure I will reiterate that I can only speak for myself, and to some extent Sweden, but I will not be able to speak for other Europeans, or, indeed, other Eurasians or other inhabitants of the GMT +1 time zone.
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 05:26:58 AM
edit: though I was under the impression that there were only 2-3 million muslims in America, and many of them lived concentrated in places such as Detroit, but if you say I'm wrong I'll take your word for it
The US Census Bureau (which is barred from asking religious questions during the decennial census) did a 2007 study that found Jewish people as 1.7% of the population (5.2 million), with Muslims as 0.6% of the population (1.8 million): http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0074.pdf
The Muslim numbers are somewhat disputed, with a 2001 study claiming that there were 6 million Muslims in the US. See http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 07:24:08 AM
Perhaps I am unfair to the secular humanists of Israel in my assessment, who I'm sure I could feel all kinds of kinship with, but there is much in Israeli culture and values which is, at least to me, decidedly middle-eastern. I don't think we have to look very far away to find examples of this.
edit: And as a preventive measure I will reiterate that I can only speak for myself, and to some extent Sweden, but I will not be able to speak for other Europeans, or, indeed, other Eurasians or other inhabitants of the GMT +1 time zone.
It depends on the Israeli. About half of Israelis are in point of fact from the ME. The other half are from Europe, and are basically indistinguishable from Europeans; with the exception of a minority of the religious (the majority of Ashkenazim or Israelis of European descent are in point of fact atheists or agnostic).
In terms of institutions, Israel is pretty well all European. There is very little "middle eastern" about it.
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2009, 07:04:29 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
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.
Such an attempt makes a good experiment for the thesis. If J-street is able to "change things" it would go to show that lobbying is the significant factor. If it isn't, it would be evidence in the other direction.
When I argue that American supprot for Israel is due to the large jewish-american population, that goes well beyond the organized lobbying efforts of groups like AIPAC.
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 10:27:10 AM
When I argue that American supprot for Israel is due to the large jewish-american population, that goes well beyond the organized lobbying efforts of groups like AIPAC.
The argument for J-street is that the views of the Jewish-American population are not being represented by AIPAC. If they are correct in this, and if you are right, then their success would be some evidence that you are correct, and their failure will be some evidence that either you and/or they are wrong.
Humanism is monstrous.
Quote from: Neil on September 23, 2009, 12:46:58 PM
Humanism is monstrous.
Better Vegetarianism than Humanism.
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2009, 10:30:20 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 10:27:10 AM
When I argue that American supprot for Israel is due to the large jewish-american population, that goes well beyond the organized lobbying efforts of groups like AIPAC.
The argument for J-street is that the views of the Jewish-American population are not being represented by AIPAC. If they are correct in this, and if you are right, then their success would be some evidence that you are correct, and their failure will be some evidence that either you and/or they are wrong.
I see.
But still that has more to do with the direction and nature of US support for Israel, not whether the US does or does not contribute significant support to Israel.
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2009, 07:07:25 AM
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 05:49:37 AM
I don't see Israel as part of my "us". Nor do I the palestinians for that matter. I can only speak for myself, and not other Europeans, but if I seem not to care it is because I don't, at least not much. Why do you care so much that they are rich, like you are?
It isn't the "rich", it's the shared values and institutions.
Europeans and Americans simply differ in this respect: Americans tend to view Jews as "of them", whereas historically at least many Europeans did not - even when said Jews looked exactly like them, spoke the same languages, etc.
I believe this to be true. Hell, I wouldn't doubt that the Israelis are more like Americans then Europeans are like Americans.