I say forget the emotional shit and deal with the actual reality: Israel and the US are in political and military alliance because it suits both parties. That’s the way the world works. The deal is:
Israel – gets financial and military aid and diplomatic support to further its regional ‘sphere of influence’ and security.
US – gets a friendly power in the mid-East and…?
That’s the subject under discussion, I thought, but all I can see here is a lot of people shouting at each other about a whole lot of emotionally driven bollocks.
It’s like a bar room brawl rather than a GD.
So, what does the US get out of the deal ?
Here is one view (scroll down a ways), it is a good general Middle East treatise with a libertarian isolationist bent. Or you can read this and this. The former is a Jewish historical website while the latter is pretty “neutral,” meaning it ignores your question. Of course that leaves out these guys. Confused now? Good. I would look at U.S. domestic politics for an answer.
know you’re bored by history, but ever heard of the Holocaust? The Israeli founders, those “idiots” as you call them, were offered a chunk of land for their own,
Who offered the land? you are evading the question to which you have weakly replied. And I am not refering to the Israelis as idiots. I am refering to The US as idiots for getting in behind this. We were not in this dispute over holy land up until 1948 or 1947 depending on who you belive in here. So we have been involved in support for one side of an age old conflict for a whopping 54 years. Does anyone think we can have anything to offer, besides destruction, that hasn’t been offered in the previous thousand years?
There ya go. Bingo ! As this thread indicates, there’s a lot of emotional driven domestic political capital (votes) to be made out of a US politician being seen to not wholeheartedly support Israel (financially, diplomatically and militarily – if so required).
The media in the US would be…interested in the subject. And may even form an opinion. Possibly one not wholly inconsistent with the views of their investors and owners. Would public opinion be influenced to side against that politician ?
Violation of basic international principle? How so?
Someone please correct me if my facts are wrong in any way. In 1967, the Arabs attacked Israel with the intent of destroying her. Israel fought back, and gained territory in the process. How does it follow that Israel has some moral or other obligation to give the land back?
No problem. I just learned how to do that. Now I am LinkMan[sup]TM[/sup]. Just learned that too. If you look at the first link I provided, you will find that Democratic Party politics may have been one important factor in our initial support for Israel. From the “Israel and the Arabs / The Creation of Israel” section. You must scroll down pretty far.
**
Since then, It seems to me a similar political dynamic has been in play. Not to say that just Democrats support Israel by any means, in fact, often Dems. are more sympathetic to the Palestinians. But, overall, domestic support, especially monied domestic support (the only kind that seems to matter) goes to Israel. I, personally, wish we could go back in time and be more neutral. My .02.
Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned that the British controlled Palestine under a mandate from the League of Nations prior to 1948. Look in Nostradamus’s post.
London_Calling
One could take your question to a ridiculous extreme. What do we get out of an alliance with Britain? It is just a small island in the North Atlantic with little natural or strategic resources.
A closer analogy may be what did we get out of our alliance with Britain during WWII? It would have been far easier to support the fascist states of Europe in 1941, as they dominated most of the continent, with its strategic and military resources. I dare say there were more German- and Italian-Americans than British-Americans also.
How does it support our interests? My short answer is that IMHO Americans really play isolationist when the times are good. When the times are bad, though, we know that these two big oceans on our east and west aren’t enough to stop U-boats or international terrorism. At times like these, we need footholds around the world. Our most durable footholds are in those countries with similar ideologies. Israel (and Britain, Canada, modern Europe and Japan and most of our other allies) form these durable footholds. Our alliances besides these have fluctuated and appeared or disappeared over the last 50 years.
I have no doubt that such vigilant Israeli support is in part due to domestic political pressure. I have real fears for Israel because the Arab- and Muslim-American population is growing far faster than the Jewish-American one. I think that Israel should make an enduring peace now before US domestic politics erodes or completely negates the protection of its big brother.
portajon
The British controlled the land. The British got it from the Ottoman empire IIRC after World War I. In 1917, Lord Balfour committed to the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Events of World War II catalyzed the formation of that state in a May 1948 UN declaration. This declaration was passed by the General Assembly and supported the formation of a Jewish and Palestinian state in the British colony of Palestine. The Jewish one was formed, while the Palestinian one was absorbed into Jordan after the Arab states lost the Israeli War of Independence.
Jewish immigration into the colony of Palestine started in the late 19th century, although there have been thousands of Jews there since biblical times. It continued through World War II, both legally and illegally. Most of the Jewish land was acquired by legal purchase from Arabs. Muslims and Jews have lived peacefully side by side since basically Islam was invented. Much of this hostility is a recent creation of the post-colonial era.
The Ottoman Empire stretches several hundred years or so. Before that, IIRC, it was part of the Roman empire. There was never an independent Palestinian homeland in that area. IIRC the last independent state in that general vicinity was a Jewish state. Not that I’m against an independent Palestinian state now, but claiming that the peoples living there are any “more indigenous” than the Jews who live there now is kind of crazy.
The fact of the matter is that the events of 1917, 1924, 1933, or 1947 are irrelevant to the modern discussion. Dare I say the Holocaust is meaningless to the current situation on the ground. The fact of the matter is that there are 5 million Israelis, and several million Palestinians. They all deserve the right of self-determination. Worrying about “legitimacy” established before 1948 is irrelevant. The Jews have nowhere else to go. Neither do the Palestinians. Either you support en masse deportations, ethnic cleansing, or coexistance. Take your pick.
Thanks for the link. It is good to see that there is seperation between Jews and Israel. That is part of my problem of understanding our support of Israel on basis other than geography. It is openly stated several times in this thread that Israel was formed as a Jewish State. This has a huge racial overtone when you consider that our nation represents diversity and tolerance. That puts us at odds with the entire concept of a “Jewish State”.
I’d argue that it’s not a ridiculous extreme. All relationships as between nations - despite public proclamations by politicians, media observes and others - are the products of deal-making because no political leader acts in anything other than national, party political or his personal political interest. It’s fundamental dynamic of the political process, It’s a fact of life. Example:
Russia in the present crisis. Big buddies with the US in the fight against terrorism. Hail the brave new world of international co-operation in the fight against evil !. Bollocks. Pressy Putin gets (something like) fast-track NATO membership plus (maybe) favourable trade arrangements, Bush gets airspace and access to huge bases in the Southern (former Soviet) Republics – which he badly needs to avoid Pakistan going over the edge by allowing access into Afghanistan. Deal done !
What does the US get out of the ‘Alliance’ with the UK ? – are you talking about the current Afghani situation or on-going co-operation ?
I can’t agree with you that WWII is a close analogy – the US was sympathetic to the Allied cause but, remember, it became allied to that cause because both Japan and Germany declared war on the US. No political choice but to become involved.
Prior to Pearl Harbor ? – I don’t think any US politician would have seen votes in supporting either side. US public opinion was favourable to the Allies but not by very much (Isolationism was still alive as were memories of WW1), the Axis never did manage to stir up too much US public support. Once the bodies started coming home that slight favouring could have changed quickly i.e. no more Oval Office for you or your Party. Not a gamble worth taking, especially if your rating, as President, was good on the other domestic issues.
On the off chance that there’s an honest desire for knowledge being expressed here, try this site for an answer.
It won’t surprise me to see more questioning of our alliance with Israel, both here and among the public in general, some of it with anti-Semitic overtones. That, of course, was a major goal of the terrorists.
London_Calling, would you care to expand on your statement about how “owners” and “investors” (nudge nudge wink wink) in American media compel our politicians to support Israel? If there’s a conspiracy theory you’d like to flesh out, then have at it. Don’t be bashful, boy.
Thanks to edwino for reminding us that land that was supposed to go the Palestinians under the U.N. partition agreement was absorbed by Jordan after the war of '48. When are the defenders of the Palestinian cause going to insist that Jordan return that land?
Ah ! …err no. I wouldn’t particularly but thanks very much for asking :eek:
Okay, firstly an advisory notice:
I’m only interested in facts. If anything that follows is inaccurate, please post accordingly. It is, to the best of my knowledge (there is simply too much info for me to check it all), current and accurate Newspapers:
The New York Times
Purchased in 1896 by Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld. Both of the latter are also Jewish
The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 others newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to** 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. ** The Washington Post
Purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. Was run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She was the principal stockholder and board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper - don’t recall the position since Graham has died.
The Wall Street Journal
The largest-circulation daily newspaper in the US. Owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is the Jewish Peter R. Kann. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. International Herald Tribune
In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Washington Post publishes the Tribune, the most widely distributed English language daily in the world.
The Newhouse media Group
Founded by Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald - note: holdings rather than outright ownership.
The Newhouses own 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation’s largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country’s largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned **Conde Nast group. **
News magazines.
Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report – all owned by one or other of the above.
Those are the biggies as far as I know – obviously there are other regional examples.
No time to go into other media in depth but:
The largest media conglomerate is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, is Michael Eisner.
In 1995 Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. Capital Cities/ABC owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.
That’s ownership, obviously investors is another game.
You ask: Is it a conspiracy ? - just business, IMHO.
Just gonna nitpick you here. While isolationism was the rule of the day, we did impose sanctions on Japan (which eventually provoked Pearl Harbor) and we did supply Britain and the Soviet Union. Exchanging US ships for British bases started in September 1940. The Lend-Lease Act was proposed in December 1940, and passed in March 1941. This help was exclusively to the Soviets and British, with no support for the Germans.
Jackmannii:
While the majority of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, the land set aside during the 1948 partition was amongst the land occupied by Israel after 1967. Sorry if I was unclear.
Yep, not going to dispute the President and Congress were sympathetic and it was crucial assistance, it did cost the UK $30 billion (repaid by the early 1960’s) but nonetheless was vital. And ‘Lend-Lease’ was, politically, a no-lose deal.
Impressive bit of research, considering how dark it must be under that rock.
Never mind the lack of any documentation of any pressure by the publications you list to keep politicians in line - have you actually read any of them lately? While editorial opinion in the American media tends to run fairly even-handed regarding Israelis and Palestinians, straight news coverage tends to be critical of Israel. The left-leaning New York Times is a good example, and has even come under fire for soft-pedaling anti-Semitism.
And in your eagerness to document all this supposed pernicious Jewish influence on the media, you seem to have overlooked the fact that there are continual protests by Israel’s supporters about anti-Israel media bias.**
If you truly have an interest in facts, then document a pattern of pro-Israel bias by any of the publications you name. That’ll go over better than the nudge nudge wink wink insinuations.
You ask: Is he a loathsome bigot? - what do you think?
edwino, can you recommend any sources regarding the exact boundaries of land destined for a Palestinian state that Jordan occupied? I was under the impression that Jordan still controlled a portion of it.
If indeed they lost it all due to aggression against Israel in '67, then in the 20 or so years they had it, how much of it was set aside for resettlement by Palestinian refugees?