Notassmartasithought, I’d like to respond to some things you said before (and I really don’t want to get back into the generic SDMB Modern Middle Eastern History 101 debate, because it’s fucking boring).
First of all, I’d like to think that Israel is giving the U.S. *something *for tour support. We’re providing you with a loyal ally, with an unequivocal supporter, with a means of putting pressure on other Middle Eastern players. We also provide the U.S. and the world with a disproportionate amount of science and knowledge - you’d be surprised to find how much hardware and software in the computer you’re looking at right now was developed and manufactured here in Israel.
All of the above is subjective, though, and you can ignore it if you want. One thing you can’t deny is that we’ve given you peace. Not a perfect peace, obviously, but compare it to the situation before the Israel-Egypt peace agreement - constant full-scale warfare, oil crises, the Suez Canal closed for a decade. Paying off both sides to keep them from fighting - which is basically what you’re doing - may not be all that noble, but in the long run, it’s a good investment.
Now I’m sure someone’s will now jump in and say that the U.S. should simply abandon Israel and let it be destroyed, or at least severely weakened. Fine: if you can live with abandoning a democracy, stabbing a friend in the back and letting millions of people die, then maybe you should. But consider this: we might not be destroyed. After all, we managed to win in 1948 and 1967 without U.S. assistance. What you’ll have then is a bitter, angry, paranoid, nuclear-armed rogue state smack dab in the middle of the world’s largest oil reserves. That won’t be good for America, and it certainly won’t be good for the Palestinians.
In the end, the best thing you get from your money is that we listen to you. We don’t necessary do what you ask, but at least we listen. We don’t listen to anyone else.
Second of all, about what you said about how a Palestinian state should be a precondition for negotiations. I humbly disagree. Do you go to a car dealership and immediately state that you won’t be leaving without a car? Of course not. You should express willingness to close the deal, but you should never make any promises.
Israel is in favor of a Palestinian state. We believe that it would be the best thing for both peoples, and we would be willing to make concessions to help it come into existence. However, we will not discard the possibility of there not being a Palestinian state as a precondition for talks. First because that’s not how we haggle here in the Middle East; and second, because many - some would say most - Palestinians are unwilling to accept the continued existence of Israel alongside their future country. We want them to have a state, but if the only choice we have is between a Jewish State and a Palestinian one, then we’ll choose the former.
We really want to buy that car, but we won’t give up our life savings for it.
We
No you didn’t. Like many other things you have quoted you have in fact misrepresented and over-simplified it.
You offer pages and pages of this kind of utterly empty, self-assertive vitriol. Then you have the courage to accuse me of the same, which I have specifically not engaged in! Nice projection, again.
The cite is not contradictory. Also, do provide a better cite if you have it, one that explicitly supports your claim/s. It should be pretty easy for you and more productive than snarling thousands of words that avoid the point.
I cannot parse a rational argument out of this line. If it is different from the next quote, restate your sentence in a way that makes sense and addresses the point you are trying to reply to.
I only ignore points when they are obviously worthless. Here you manage to state yourself in a comprehensible manner. I suspect we are using rather different definitions of the secular state. A secular state is when:
Do you maintain that the above definition fits Israel?
Freedom of religion: yes
Separation of religion and government: partial
Religiously inspired values in the absence of purely secular justification: yes
Neutrality in matters of religion: partial
All people considered equal: no
No preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion: no
No preferential treatment for institutions of a particular religion: no
And so forth. I have provided evidence for the above in previous posts. Israel is de facto not a secular state, nor has it ever been to my knowledge, for whatever reasons you may care to focus on.
As I have already noted, you are not willing to consider certain arguments. When you are, by all means discuss them.
I have observed that you really love to use dumbed-down analogies as rhetorical tools. I consider them a resort to idiocy and never touch them. Have fun playing with yourself.
What the vote for 181 showed (particularly to the seven hostile delegate nations mentioned) was that there was strong support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. It’s fairly rare for any nation - let alone seven - to storm out in this fashion during UN meetings. This episode illustrates how concerned they were with the direction things were heading, and how *worried *they were that they were losing the fight for Palestine.
181 was one of the factors involved in the creation of Israel. The country’s declaration of independence unequivocally cites the UN resolution as an item that recognizes the right of the Jewish People to establish a national homeland, whether you like to talk it down or not. The UN was a strong element in this process, having worked for years on the goal of establishing the Jewish nation - also cited in the declaration.
There were many factors, including Arab foolishness and lack of vision, Zionist perseverance, even Hitler played a very indirect part by providing a boost of goodwill capital towards Jews. I am not enough of a historian to separate each factor and calculate and compare its exact worth in terms of influence. And neither are you, apparently.
Everything at the UN is “mere rhetoric”, even the proceedings of the UNSC. The UN is a forum for discussion and *lengthy *negotiation, not a world government. For the General Assembly to discuss something and reach a conclusion about it that allows the issuing of a resolution is remarkable progress indeed. In fact, the UNGA is the only universal global global forum at the UN, where all countries are represented. It was a perfect forum to discuss a Jewish homeland, rather than the restricted elite club of the UNSC.
You do not consider the UN a diplomatic body that engages in diplomacy?
Yes, but not by UNSC 50, and not quite the way you described it. My original statement seems more accurate.
The Arab states would have been cited for aggression under article 39 and 40 in Chapter 7, and not on the basis of UNSC #50, but #54. USNC resolutions by themselves are not very useful unless they invoke a relevant article in the charter. Notice that 50 is rather vague on this, saying if the “resolution is rejected by either party or by both, or If, having been accepted, it is subsequently repudiated or violated, the situation in Palestine will be reconsidered with a view to action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations;”
Which is a threat but only means a referral to a resolution with sharper teeth, which ended up being #54 of July 15, a resolution that singled out the Arab states:
So yes, the Arab states were diplomatically threatened with citations for aggression under the UN Charter and they wisely backed down. But this was July 15, by which time there had already been a UN negotiated truce.
The truces, mediation, negotiation, and even the eventual recognition of Israel were organized and backed by the UN. That’s in addition to laying out the plan for a Jewish state and backing the goals of the state’s founders, which we have already discussed.
Incorrect, because you are looking at the wrong resolution. UNSC 54, which as I have already explained singled out the Arab states as aggressors, was direct and incontrovertible support for Israel, containing a direct recourse to citation of aggression under Chapter 7, articles 39 and 40. It was, at least in the world of diplomacy, a serious threat indeed.
The facts show nothing of the kind.
You cannot continue to argue that the document that provided the legal foundation for the state of Israel and that legitimized the concept of a two-state solution “did” nothing.
Resorting to parrotting now? If you can’t maintain originality, at least do try to make sure you have a basis for such comments.
I was referring to aliyah bet: **illegal **immigration. That was in response to your bringing up the fact that for a period of time Jews were not allowed to immigrate to Palestine. When I said “land to which they had no claim” I was referring not to individual plots of land but to Palestine in general, over which the clear majority of Jews certainly had no claim (except for a putative spiritual one, and excepting the Jews already living there).
A great concern for the British was that the Zionist movement might overwhelm the economic capacity of Palestine. Another grave concern was the gross destabilization of the Mandatory territory - which did happen. When an indigenous population revolts as a result of immigration by another population, it seems only logical to apply the brakes and try sort out the problem before it gets worse.
I must also note that while “ravenous hordes of Zionists descended upon British territory with the plan of taking it over” is one of your typical exaggerated comments, this was in fact the goal of Zionism, and it is what ended up happening (minus your distortive and inflammatory language).
It was up to the British to keep control and order of the territory. They had a substantial population of Arabs and a small minority of Jews, with hundreds of thousand more Jewish immigrants seeking entry into Israel (not all at once, of course).
The problem, in their perspective, was the influx of Jewish immigrants that was destabilizing the area. This problem they attempted to solve with *some *fairness and equanimity by review, commissioning scientific studies to look into land use existing capacity and potential yield, and setting immigration quotas.
No one is justifying what happened. And there’s little doubt the Arabs were unreasonable (had they sought to grasp less, they might have fared better in the ensuing decades). And yes, the British (not to mention other countries, which didn’t) should have thrown open the borders once the Nazis began killing Jews. I have no intention of disputing any of that. But, as we have seen many times since then, Palestine was a tinderbox and none knew this better than the British. Also, in *realpolitik *terms, the Arabs had a far greater potential to cause disruptive trouble (especially given the highly valuable SUez Canal), and thus the British paid them more attention. With the exception of this dark chapter, it is hard to argue that Britain was not friendly and helpful to the Jewish people.
How does this differ from any other country in the world? The US has “since its inception” had to deal with religious extremes (remember the “Puritans?”), which have inevitably had its effect on the fabric of the nation as well.
On US coins you find the motto “in God we trust”.
The US right is “disproportionately” influenced by religious types.
In the Canadian constitution, these words form the preface:
Are the US and Canada also “religious” states, like Israel?
Note that religious freedom is discribed in what passes for an Israeli constitution:
As reaffirmed in the Ka’adan case in which the Supreme Court ordered the Israel Lands Authority to treat Arabs equally in land allocations:
“Equality is among the fundamental principles of the State of Israel. Every authority in Israel, beginning with the State of Israel, its institutions and employees, must treat the various elements in the state equally. This is requisite from the Jewish and democratic character of the state and it is a function of the principle of rule of law, which is in force here. Thus, the state must honor and protect the fundamental right of every individual in the state to equal treatment’’
Note the use of the term “Jewish … character of the state”. There is no question that the state describes itself as a “Jewish state”. This does not, however, mean that it is Jewish in religion, and more than the “supremacy of God” in the Canadian consitution mean Canada is Christian (or at least, monotheistic). Rather, it is an acceptance that there are certain inherent historical qualities that the founders of the state saw embodied in their ethnicity - to be sure, positive ones such as respect for the rule of law (again notice the conjunction "Jewish and democratic). This respect for the rule of law leads, at least in the minds of the framers, inextorably to secular democracy.
You may well disagree on this notion, but it is hardly unusual; the exact same dynamic explains (for example) what “the supremacy of God” is doing in the Canadian constitution.
To describe the Israeli state as “religious” on this basis is, simply, historically colour-blind. It stretches the term beyond meaning. If the definition is so expansive, almost every country in the world would be drawn in - Turkey would appear more “secular” than Canada, and Canada together with Israel in the same category as Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is to elevate form over historical reality (which tends to be the problem with all of your arguments - see your insistence that the UN was vital to the formation of the Israeli state in '48: simply untrue).
One of the primary reasons we had constant full-scale warface, oil crises, and a closed Suez canal is because Israel exists and we support them. Obviously it’s impossible to tell what would happen if Israel had been destroyed in 1948, but Israel has been at the middle of most of the major incidents in the M.E. and rarely in a role furthering the national interest of the United States. In fact, the number one issue in virtually all of our relationships with M.E. countries is our support of Israel.
Israel doesn’t face an existential threat today. All of Israels neighbors have offered a comprehensive peace deal that includes recognition of Israel and a lasting peace. This isn’t the 1970s when Israel’s neighbors were calling for its destruction. The withdraw of American support won’t lead to millions of Israelis dying, and I don’t think any American would ever let it get that far. All I really want is a limit on Israeli response to terror attacks and an end to financial aid. The limit should be strikes at rocket launch sites and commando type raids. No large scale air assaults and no ground invasions on the scale of the recent Lebanon and Gaza actions. The general outline of peace should be the Arab initiative of 2002. Actions that bring the M.E. closer to that peace should be encouraged, and those that bring us away should be discouraged.
I go to a car dealership with the intention of buying a car. If the dealership is going to try and sell me a horse, then there is no point of me going is there? All that is being asked of Israel is to agree to a very broad goal of negotiation.
It doesn’t really matter if Palestinians are unwilling to accept the continued existence of Israel because they have no means of ending the continued existence of Israel.
Disagree. If Israel never existed, the ME would still have issues with the US, for two reasons:
Cultural. The culture of the West has a huge impact on the populations of the ME. This has created an equally huge backlash among those who see “Westoxification” as the source of internal degeneracy and the generally low state of Islamic power & prestige.
Power. The US has strategic interests in the region, and acts (for example) to prop up the Saudis and to interfere with others who threaten its strategic interests (remember Iraq?).
All Israel does is provide a symbolic target for a lot of dislike; this hatred (the Israeli “little satan” in cahoots with the US “Great satan”) is a symptom, but not the cause of much of that dislike. Removing support for Israel would do nothing for the real underlying causes of the dislike, other than to encourage those who dislike the US and discourage those who do - by proving it hasn’t the wearwithal to support its friends and is willing to make gestures of appeasement to its enemies.
I already know the Israelis aren’t going to give up Jerusalem. But the Palestinians don’t know that.
I’m curious as to what the Palestinian’s responses are to the points being made here when the issue is debated with them directly. Because, as usual, both sides tend to talk past each other.
Yes, there is certainly a cultural backlash, but that’s a world wide phenomenon. I don’t think it has too much of an impact on relations. Certainly nowhere near the impacts of our support for Israel.
I don’t think that the M.E. would be a land of puppy dogs and lollipops without Israel, but my point still stands. Israel has been at the center of three wars, the crisises Alessan mentioned, and a running source of headaches for the United States. Look at how much time the U.S. has spent on shuttle diplomacy, or how much time the President has expended trying to broker peace for Israel, or how much diplomatic good will we have spent protecting Israel in the UN. Every weapons and trade deal with Israel’s neighbors always brings up the issue of how this will effect Israel’s security. In short, everything we do in the M.E. is cast in the context of Israel, and it makes it so much more difficult to do anything.
That’s ridiculous. We’ve supported Israel in wars against their Arab neighbors. It’s American planes and American bombs that destroyed Gaza/S. Lebanon. It’s American prestige and diplomacy that gives Israel international cover. These are legitimate grievances against the United States, and the major source of Anti-American sentiment across the Middle East.
We can only agree to disagree on the importance of this.
I recommend looking up the term “westoxification” and the use of that concept in inspiring the Muslim Brotherhood, and all that came of that.
The US currently has an army occupying the very heart of the ME, on a mission that has nothing to do with Israel; it props up the house of Saud, who are the heriditary overlords of Mecca and Medina (as well as sitting on a buttload of oil).
You are I think overlooking these minor details.
First, America supports not only Israel but Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well; second, how is this even responsive to my point? Are you claiming that the fact that Israel purchased artillery shells from US firms with the help of US loan guarantees is a more genuine source of grievance than the US invading Iraq, destroying its army, and occupying the place for years? Which do you think (rhetoric aside) really alarms the Iranians more - Israel, hundreds of miles away, or the US army on their very borders?
Let alone all of its other actions in the area, like supporting the autocratic Saudis and Kuwaitis.
Fact is, the US has plenty of interests in the area, and interferes significantly - and would even if Israel never existed. Hatred for Israel is certainly useful symbolically as a rallying cry in the ME, but it is foolish to confuse the symbolic with the real - the dislike of the US will not magically go away if Israel did. For that to happen, the US would have to cease having interests (and manipulations) in the area, and cease to have a culture that is considered deeply corrosive and offensive to ME Islamicists and conservatives.
Teva Pharmaceuticals is based in Israel and is the largest manufacturer of generic drugs in the world. I have some medication in my house right now that is labeled “made in Israel.”
I do not disagree with your fundamental objections, though your conclusion extends well into hyperbole territory. Most “secular” countries have a number of difficulties with secularism (some are trivial, others run deeper). Earlier I discussed the example of Turkey to address this point because it shares several characteristics with Israel. The reason I am singling out Israel is that Israel happens to be the topic of this thread.
As described, criticisms of secularism in Israel amount to rather more than just objections to the language used in formal documents (“under God” and that sort of thing). In fact, strictly under that point of view Israel is *more *secular than most other nations. The difficulties arise when you consider examples like the Chief Rabbinate (previously discussed), which has authority even over secular Jews - an issue frequently raised by Hilonim.
A modern view of secularism is probably more exacting than the view of a century or two or three back, so it is true that historical consideration is relevant. If forced to make a comparison, I would probably have to be more lenient in my assessment of, say, the founding documents of the USA than I am of Israel in this thread, because (as I already argued) they came from two very different periods and circumstances.
But when making such assessments it is also relevant to look at how well the system works. I have provided examples showing how secularism in Israel breaks down on a number of issues that favour Judaism (e.g., as reported by Avishai). These issues certainly seem to impact the secular status of Israel, and suggest that the system may be flawed in some way. This can be due to having to appease religious factions at inception (hence the carefully worded Israeli Declaration of independence and the existence of the Chief Rabbinate), as well as the political realities of voter blocs (as a couple others brought up).
On the issue of the UN and the founding of Israel, let me restate my position with hopefully greater clarity. Israel arose from circumstances involving many more individuals, nations, and organizations beyond Israel and Jews. The efforts of some of these agents over decades either directly positively influenced or were relevant to the creation of the favourable circumstances in which the founding of Israel occurred, to the recognition of Israel as a sovereign state, and to its continued existence. While you can certainly argue that their impact was lesser than that of the efforts of Zionists, it is incorrect to claim that these various agents had no positive contribution to the birth of the state of Israel. I have already referred to the League of Nations, the British, the UN, Balfour, Evatt, and others, and shown why they mattered.
I am not grading the effectiveness of these favourable agents one versus the other. I am not dismissing or downplaying the value of Zionist perseverance or Israeli defence or other factor in the founding and maintaining of the Israeli state. On the contrary: it is posters addressing me who seem to claim that the only thing that truly mattered in the entire affair was the effort of Zionists. But Israel was not born in a political vacuum, nor does it exist in one (which is usually downplayed or dismissed by those advocating the path of the lone tough guy in current affairs).
I’ll note that the Canadian constitution was drafted in 1982, not “a few centuries back”. Does this impact your analysis of whether or not Canada is “secular”?
Also, the Chief Rabbinate has authority over purely religious matters (such as what Jewish marriages are recognized) as part of a set-up under which, in essence, these matters are controlled by each religion. Israel doesn’t have secular marriage, which is admittedly a problem - but not one specific to Jews: the state recongizes any religious marriage.
Note that the Chief Rabbinate was established, not by the Israelis, but rather by the British: Religion in Israel - Wikipedia
Also note that in Britian, the Monarch is also the head of the Anglican Church.
The existence of problems, while acknowledged by all, does not impact the issue of whether or not Israel is a “secular state”.
There is no doubt that the religious minority wields power and has clung, limpet-like, to insisting on restrictions highly irksome to the secular majority. But that does not make the state perforce “non-secular”, any more that the fact that the same institution under discussion (the Chief Rabbinate) was established by the British make Britain a Jewish theocracy.
But again, you argumant does not work, unless you are arguing in the most dilute and contingent manner. The British, for example, actively opposed the nacient zionist state in the decades leading up to its actual existance (and indeed some Israelis fought a guerrilla war against the British - notably bombing the King David Hotel, then British military headquarters). The League of Nations - what did it ever do that had any effect? The UN declaration was mostly of symbolic import only.
Certainly some groups or individuals aided in the creation of the conditions leading up to the creation of the state over the 50 years or so prior to the war of independance- why not ad in the Turks and Arabs who sold land to the zionists, as well as the Balfour declaration? - but ultimately, the existence of the state was a matter of war; and in that war, foreign support was notable by its absence.
This is not a matter of playing the “lone tough guy”, it is simply a matter of unvarnished history. It may be unpalatable for some to admit (particularly those whom, for idealistic reasons, would prefer to believe that wars should not be the ne plus ultra of international relations), but in this specific case, the creation of Israel was a matter of war, not diplomacy; and in that war, aside from some minor number of foreign volunteers, they effectively stood alone. Had they lost it, we would not be discussing the matter today.
Yes, I understand the anti-west attitude in general. However, the closest country to the ideals of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, is our closest ally in the region. I don’t care if there is a McDonalds in Riyadh. I just care that they sell us oil and not attack us.
I don’t think I am. I will grant you that the current Iraq war is an issue to the M.E. on the level of Israel. However, how much money, diplomatic effort, and international goodwill do we spend propping up Saudi Arabia vs. the amount we’ve spent supporting Israel. It isn’t close. We’ve easily put in 100x the effort and diplomatic goodwill into supporting Israel.
It address your idea that Israel isn’t the underlying cause of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.
Second, yes the 2nd Iraq war is a significant issue, but it is not as though the anti-American sentiment dates from 2003 in the ME. It really began to develop once we started supporting Israel extensively.
I don’t dismiss these other issues, but I just don’t think they are as significant as Israel. We’ve done far worse and far more blatant imperial type moves in SE Asia, Africa, and South America, and the level of anti-American sentiment there isn’t anywhere close to that of the ME.
Brilliant factual rebuttal. Why, you’ve now clearly, through analysis and quotation, shown how the quote which clearly described Aliyah in solely religious terms really didn’t.
Oh, no, wait, you didn’t even attempt to do that. You just laid your customary denial and bluster on the pile.
Yet again a denial without even the pretense of an attempt at support. More simple bluster of “Nuh unhhhh!!!” and then refusal to even offer up a pretense of supporting your claim. You seem to just be yanking my chain here.
You have, repeatedly, failed to even address the actual quote or explain why I’m wrong, just this “lalalalallalaa I can’t heaaaaaaaar you!” bluster. Much like “Gee, you’ve presented a cogent argument showing why I’m wrong… I could either address it and attempt to rebut it, or bluster and avoid it while simply claiming that it’s wrong and not even pretending to attempt to show why it’s allegedly wrong. Which do you think I’ll do?” Much like I could point out how you still deliberately refuse to back up your claims on 181 doing anything, or how you’ve now changed “diplomacy worked!” to “yah, well… the UNSC threatened to go to war against the Arabs and that worked. So forget all this talk about diplomacy, it was the threat of military force.” or how you’re asking for a cite that I already gave you about Aliyah simply meaning immigration and not having any religious connotation in and of itself, or ignoring that your claims about 181 have already been rebutted and that for yeas before Zionists had already planned to declare independence and simply glommed onto 181 as rhetoric to justify their long standing plans (which of course you won’t even quote, let alone dodge with your normal bluster). Or when shown that 181 actually did nothing, and you make empty, baseless, bluster-filled blabbering bullshit comments about how it “laid the foundation” for a two state solution that was ignored by 100% of the people involved, didn’t inform the geography of Israel and was never enforced and did not result in two states… and you simply go on repeating it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. While never once even pretending to offer proof for your claim… and then bullshitting about me “repeating” myself and “projection” and what have you. It’s a particularly slimy tactic that you’ve chosen to use. Make false-to-facts assertions that can’t be supported on the facts, so you don’t even try, but you keep repeating them. And when called on the carpet, you bluster about how the fact that your bullshit claims keep getting rebutted just shows how repetitive the honest person trying to get you to quit your shit is.
“Roosters are really horses.”
“What? That’s wrong. Roosters are birds, horses are mammals.”
“You’re incoherent. I won’t answer you.”
“Here’s a cite, see?”
“You’re misrepresenting it.”
“Will you explain how I’m allegedly misrepresenting the cite?”
“No. But I will repeat that claim if pressed.”
“Why don’t you try to support your own position then?”
“Do I have to?”
“Well. this is a debate…”
“Okay, well then… roosters are horses because I say so. They laid the foundation for horseyness.”
“That’s just silly. In point of fact you can’t show any sort of causal relationship, at all.”
“No, but I can allege it and repeat it several dozen times, and then offer up bluster when you rebut it. Isn’t it neat? It’s like a debate without the de part, only the bait.”
Of course, the blame lies on me for taking the bait for quite so long. I’ll stop feeding such behavior now.
Well, for one - the US has 5,000 troops in Saudi Arabia, and sells it arms worth $40 billion since 1990 - in 2002.
Note that in 2007 US and Israeli officials “officially denied” that the US was using aid to Israel to excatly balance out arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Egypt (leading to the suspicion that this was exactly their intent):
But the 2nd Iraq war is hardly the only US intervention in the region, and anti-Americanism hardly dates from 2003. Do you not remember the Iranian hostage crisis? Why were all those Iranian “students” besieging the US embassy? Hint: it wasn’t because of US support for Israel.
Think just maybe that this had something to do with it?
Or perhaps this:
So in your opinion irrational hatred of a tiny country hundreds of miles away that has nothing to do with Iran is more significant than the fact that the US aided in having its legitimate democratic government overthrown, propped up a brutal dictator, enouraged its enemies to wage a merciless war on it somewhat equivalent to WW1, and has militarily occupied its neighbour? So if the US now renounced Israel (thus adding cowardice and inconsitency to its friends to its list of traits) they would suddenly love you? :dubious:
Similar issues affect other countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia, for example, eerily echoes the situation of Iran under the Shah.
Note that I do not blame the US for its various acts in the ME. It has no doubt acted self-interestedly at some times, but what major power has not?
What I do object to (merely because I think it is factually wrong) is is assigning overmuch significance to the situation in Israel. The notion that all the US’s image troubles in the ME stem from its support of Israel is, simply put, historical nonsense - it is a factor that pales in significance to (say) its actions in supporting the Shah or in supporting Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.
Sorry, missed this in the process of fruitlessly attempting, yet again, to show why “you’ve claimed it many times and had your claims solidly refuted and then ignored the rebuttals” =/= “You have shown why you are right.”
Sure, when you hit the quote button you’ll see a tag, in brackets, at the start of the post. In this case, my response to your post starts with
<QUOTE=Notassmartasithought;11277733> with square brackets instead of pointy ones. [ ]
After that, the brackets are closed with the close quote feature, </quote>, again, square instead of pointy. Then, all you have to do is cut and paste the original opening brackets onto any other bit of text you want to quote, and close the brackets afterwards.
So, if I wanted to quote and address seperate paragarphs/sentences/phrases of your individually, I’d cut <QUOTE=Notassmartasithought;11277733> in before them and </quote> in after them. You’ll still have a </quote> tag at the end of the quoted post since the message board software automatically inserts the open and close quote tags around an entire post that you’re responding to, but that’s no big deal.
If anybody else would like to try to provide substantiation for the position that 181, Balfour, Peel, etc… did anything wrt the actual creation of Israel, Zionist plans/attitudes/goals/etc…, Israeli geography, and so on, I’d at least like to see how it might be done. No post hoc or cum hoc fallacies though.
Even someone who knows it’s wrong but who’d like to play devil’s advocate might be kinda neat at long as they make clear that they’re simply on retainer for Satan
This is a straw man you are arguing against. I never said that all the anti-american sentiment was from supporting Israel, just most of it. Nevertheless, most of the examples you are giving occurred after large scale anti-American sentiment had developed in the ME. The ME isn’t the only place we’ve played imperial games in. We invaded countries, overthrew democracies, and supported ruthless dictators around the world. There’s a lot of dislike towards us as a result, but it isn’t on the level we see in the ME, even before the current Iraq war. I guess I just don’t see how you can seriously be arguing this. Why would an Egyptian care more about us overthrowing the Shah or supporting Saddam than us supporting a country they were at war with. It just doesn’t make sense.
Iran, yes, is a different story. We’ve been unusually bad towards them, and they have legitimate reasons to hate us. However, that doesn’t explain the level of animosity we see in Jordanians, Egyptians, or Turks.
