So why is any of this America’s fight?
(The OP’s point, after all.)
It’s all been ordained. Gaza is just part of the plan.
“Iran’s official news agency IRNA is warning today of a Global plot hatched by a ‘secret society of Freemasons’ known as the Bilderberg Group to plunge our World into ‘total chaos’ in order to destroy all religions and independent Nations in order to establish a planetary wide single system of government.”
Of course it may not be true. But it might. We must be vigilant. 
I wasn’t making the “2 wrongs make a right argument” I was making the “you can’t use that criteria to establish which countries you should support otherwise you would support exactly 0 countries in existence today”.
Displacing locals today is bad, but it’s not the same as discussing whether to support a country based on who they displaced 70 or 200 years ago.
Malthus, you’ve made some very good points in this thread, and I’ve been following it closely. I have one or two honest questions for you. I assure you I’m asking these questions out of genuine ignorance, not rhetorically.
You’ve said that the creation of Israel was no different that the creation of other ethno-nationalist states in the ME. I’m curious what you mean by this. It was my impression that the British pretty much ignored ethnic boundary lines in creating new states out of the Ottoman Empire. There is, quite pointedly, no Kurdistan. Indeed, Iraq would seem to be a case in point that ethno-nationalism was largely ignored. Lots of states have Arab majorities, but I’m not aware of any state that is majority Arab Shi’a. Iran is majority Persian, and Turkey is (obviously) majority Turk, but were any states besides Israel created specifically as an ethnic homeland for a displaced minority? Was there any other migration following the partition in which people voluntarily moved or were forcibly expelled to a new country, parallelling the experiences of the Jews and the Palestinians?
OK. So, what is your preferred term for a situation when people come to your land from other parts of the world, against your wishes, with the agreement of an equally foreign ruling power who doesn’t care about your opinion either, and eventually tell you : “this land isn’t yours anymore, it’s ours!”?
Thanks for your condescending tone, I’ve heard about the Exodus, it’s not exactly an obscure event. I was aware of it long before I had the slightest clue about Israel, since it was made into a movie.
Yes, we have discussed the “settled by outsiders” point. I even gave figures. The Jewish population in Palestine dramatically augmented during the British mandate. That’s not a half-truth, that’s FACTS. I asked you before if you were unaware of the existence of the Zionist movement, now I’m going to ask if you’re aware of the Balfour declaration or of the Aliyas. But of course you are. You know perfectly well what happened, but you want to minimize it as much as possible, to the point of almost ignoring what is the the most strikingly obvious peculiarity of the history that led to the creation of Israel.
And as for you presenting as “less than a half truth” my statement that the British enabled the Jewish immigration Palestine, it’s your way of presenting the role of the UK which is much less than a half-truth. Since, contrarily to your attitude, I’m extending to you the courtesy of not assuming you’re ignorant of the basic facts, I’m quite certain you’re perfectly aware that the British only tried to stop Jewish immigration in the late 30s, because they had, at this point, to face riots and an assortment of acts of violence between Jews and Arabs, and because WWII was looming and unrest in the middle-east was an unacceptable danger in these circumstances.
And even if the British had forbidden Jewish immigration in Palestine from beginning to end, even if every single Jew who came to Palestine during this period had done so illegally, it still wouldn’t make this immigration and the creation of the state of Israel legitimate. Unless you’re arguing that everybody can legitimately move to any place on Earth he feels like living in and then declare independence.
So, for instance the Arabs didn’t rioted in Palestine during the 30s? I mean, there was no real “issue”, right? So, no riots, no violence, nothing, I assume. Or maybe you mean that they mistakenly believed there were Jews immigrating in Palestine and mistakenly assumed it eventually could lead to the creation of a Jewish state, due to their misapprehension of the current facts?
Hmm…No. That would the conclusion you already had in mind even before the discussion started. Actually, you’re arguing that Israel is unique when it’s convenient for your argumentation (for instance the immigration of foreigners is very different in nature from other examples in other places) and that it isn’t when it’s convenient for your argumentation (for instance the artificially drafted borders are very similar in nature to other examples in other places).
Indeed. And that’s a big difference. But not for the reason you’re hinting at. Do you honestly believe that if the history of Palestine, during the first half of the 20th century, had been exactly the same, except that the Jews would have been replaced by, say, disgruntled Irishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen, the outcome would have been significantly different? That the Palestinians would have welcomed with open arms the Celt immigrants? That the proclamation of the independent Celtic state of “Isgael” would have resulted in joyful street demonstrations by happy Arabs?
You just want to believe that the only issue is Anti-Semitism, because you’re seemingly unwilling to admit that there could something wrong with a mass immigration of foreigners to a region under colonial rule, followed by the declaration by said foreigners that the land is now rightfully theirs.
Answered above. As for you insistence about anti-Semitism, what could I answer?
Hmm…
Happy new Year!
I’m going to shorten my answers,now, since this post is already way too long.
Let me guess: anti-Semitism?
That’s not what you were doing. You were just using a “tu quoque” argument.
Nope. The very essence is the creation of a Jewish state. If Palestine was currently divided between two Arab countries with arbitrary borders, the problem there would be either non existing or completely different.
Yes. I stated that moving to another part of the world, and declaring the land to be yours is illegitimate. That’s why I made comparisons with Tibet and French Algeria.
Completely different issue. The Jordan government might be illegitimate because it’s not a democracy, but it doesn’t make the creation of Israel any more legitimate. “Tu quoque” again. And not even a good “Tu quoque”. rather a “Tu quoque, sort of”
“Tu quoque”, as usual. Middle-east nations have been created arbitrarily, Israel like the others. It doesn’t make Israel any better, just similar. And the fact that Israel was created as a democracy doesn’t change the fact that it was a takeover by outsiders. If I steal your house, the fact that I keep it in good repair and mow the lawn every Sunday doesn’t make my claim on it more legitimate.
(As for “worldwide” : what about Slovakia?)
That also. But my arguments (no reason to feel obligated to welcome the Palestinians, this being a way of enabling Israel) are also true.
Plus, I’m certain that the Arab populations do care for the Palestinians. Actually, many non-Arabs do care for the Palestinians too.
They don’t get a free pass. My question is : why are people stating that Arab nations should bear the burden of helping refugees, while not thinking that their own nation, officially supportive of Israel and officially concerned about the Palestinians, shouldn’t?
And in fact, where are the refugees, if not in the Arab nations? How many Palestinian refugee camps are there in the vicinity of Paris and New-York?
I withdraw my statement on this point.
Remind me : what Jews living in squalid refugee camps should I care for, exactly?
As for the “good company”…hmm… Happy New Year again.
The outrage is proportional to the coverage during the evening news, as I already stated. Remove the coverage and the vast majority won’t care anymore about the Jews being shelled or shelling than they would care about the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis in the same situation.
Same answer.
I must be bored as I usually stay out rehashing these old myths and canards but clair both Jews and Arabs moved in to the region around the same time. Yes, there was an extant Arab population in the region but the bulk of the population came in as a result of the economic development that Jewish immigration brought.
Read this. It really is a pretty fair source that dispels some myths held strongly by both sides.
Yes some Jewish forces drove some Arabs out and some Arab leadership goaded Arabs into anti-Jewish riots. You are free to argue about chicken and egg (and I would be free to document how the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked with the Nazis and used the evil Jews as his means to gain power) but we have a reality right now: impoverished Palestinians with little hope for anything else and an Israel that aint going anywhere but really wants to not have to worry about security so much. All that from before don’t really matter as much right now.
Now back to the op. It is in America’s best interest to have a stable MidEast. An Israel weak enough to tempt a real strike against it creates a situation in which a world economy destroying conflagration is more likely. OTOH a real peace deal between Israel and a Palestinian entity marginalizes Islamists and the current Iranian regieme (that is believed to be bent on regional hegemony) and empowers those forces in the Arab world that are working to become part of the world’s community of communities (as opposed to those who favor an insular Islamic theocracy in the region). Such an outcome is in America’s best interest. So supporting Israel to the degree that it is unlikely to be significantly attacked and to the end of a real peace deal is a good idea. This may mean pressuring Israel some too - in the name of both friendship and of American best interests.
The case of Israel’s northern neighbour Lebanon has the closest parallel:
[Emphasis added]
Lebanon was originally conceived of as an ethnic enclave for a (specifically Christian) minority composed mainly of Marionites, out of an ill-defined area known as “Syria” - with Syria proper being left Muslim. However, Lebanon contained a sizable Muslim presence, and hence it was originally governed under a constitution which provided certain posts for Christians and others for Muslims … I do not know whether there was any population transfers between Syria and Lebanon, but I would not be surprised.
The history of Lebanon since the '70s has of course been one of ethnic civil war and interfence by outsiders (Israel, Syria, PLO, etc.) shifting the balance between Marionites and Muslims this way or that. To my mind, it is not dissimilar to that of Israel, again with the exception of specifically European immigration … in particular, it has certainly been subject to ethnic invasion - by Palestinians - many of whom were expelled from Jordan (see “Black September” and the Lebanese Civil War. They are not unconnected events …).
The point being that ethnic enclaves created by European powers, invasion by displaced ethnic minorities, etc. are not “unique” to Israel. All of Israel’s neighbours have, to a lesser or greater extent, participated in or suffered from such movements - whether the countries were essentially lines drawn randomly on a map, or deliberately to create ethnic enclaves (as in the case of Lebanon and Israel). In my opinion the history of the region can best be understood as a whole, rather than cherry-picking one country and viewing it in isolation.
Edit: a map of the numerous “ethnic enclaves” of “Greater Syria”:
Unfortunately, I lack the time to respond point-by-point, and it is getting reptitive.
The difficulty you are labouring under can easily be summarized: in your opinion, it would appear, that part of the world is “their land” and immigrants (legal or not) have no right to it.
No amount of historical discussion, it appears, will shift you; the fact that immigration is hardly a unique event makes no impression; the oft-discussed fact that half the population comes from the ME as much as the Arabs do makes no impression; that Israel’s neighbours were just as much a “colonial” experiment does not faze you. All are “tu quoque”.
The part you miss is not that “2 wrongs make a right”, but that if you maintain the standard that this history is somehow a “wrong”, there is no-one (or very few) who are “right”. Once again, it is the [singularity of the ‘questioning of Israel’s legitimacy’ that leads others to question the legitimacy of the question. 
As for this:
… in my opinion you are utterly wrong. Immigration isn’t what makes those two examples “wrong”, but colonialist bayonets. Your POV would have my country of Canada being the most “illigitimate” country on earth, as practically everyone here is an immigrant. I have a Chinese neighbour, became a citizen last year and bought a house. That land is now “his” and he has exactly the same rights as me, whose ancestors lived here for three generations. Is it just for me to drive him out?
More seriously - if thousands of Chinese people immigrated to BC, and voted to seperate - I don’t see why that is wrong, or why the state so created would be “illigitimate”.
Malthus, as I said, you’ve made some valuable points, and I generally agree with your conclusions that Israel is a legitimate state and that the US-Israeli alliance is valuable for both parties and should continue (although I disagree with much of what the Israeli and US governments do, and I often think Israeli actions are counterproductive both to its own security and to regional stability). I also have no doubt that anti-Semitism has caused a lot of questions to be raised - often by innocent non-anti-Semites responding to myths and propaganda - that would not have been otherwise
Nevertheless, it seems to me (based on your answers: I really didn’t come into this with an agenda) that you are minimizing the genuine differences between Israel and other countries that cause some people to question our shared conclusions about the status of Israel. If Lebanon is the closest parallel to Israel, it shows up some significant differences. First of all, as you point out, Lebanon was drawn up to include both Christian and Muslim populations and constitutionally guarantees certain government positions to each faction. Secondly, although there were some Arab Christians in other areas, there was no widespread diaspora of Christians who were expected to go to Lebanon (though some individuals may have), nor did other countries AFAIK expel their own populations of Arab Christians.
Furthermore, and more importantly, Lebanon itself, according to the information you provided, seems to be fairly exceptional. None of the other ethnic conclaves in the map of Greater Syria survive as separate states, AFAICT. If Lebanon is the closest parallel to Israel, then I presume that no other territories were carved out for populations coming from other parts of the ME. Did Israel even a majority Jewish population immediately prior to the Palestinian displacement? (And I really don’t know, although I doubt it based on the numbers quoted above - which admittedly seem to include the West Bank.) If not, then can you point to any other territory that was carved out for a minority population within its own borders? (Note that I don’t blame Israel for the Palestinian displacement, and I think this is one of the weakest points of the Palestinian political claims. My understanding is that the Palestinians left voluntarily at the behest of Israel’s Arab neighbors, who promised a swift destruction of the Jewish state.)
But Israel wasn’t supposed to have been created as a single state. Like the case in Lebanon, there was to have been a “partition” into a majority Jewish and a majority Arab state:
By definition, the enclaves were supposed top have “majority” populations in each - they were designed that way.
As in the case of Lebanon, this plan did not survive (the Jews accepted it but the Arabs rejected it an opted for war instead - they lost).
Lebanon is not the best parallel, it is merely the closest in location - it is an immediate neighbour. There are many, many other examples.
As for other states carved out, population transfers, etc., perhaps the best example is the “carving out” of Pakistan east and west as Muslim ethnic enclaves out of “British India”:
… pretty well exactly contemporaneous with the creation of Israel.
This lead to population transfers on a scale unimaginable:
…
This is pretty close in some ways to the situation in Israel - the break-up of a multi-ethnic empire (Turkish via Mandate in the one case; British in the other); population transfers on a large scale; inter-communal ethnic violence; etc. The difference is that in the India partition, everything is much larger scale, the violence much worse, etc.
And of course that no-one ever argues that either Pakistan or India are “not legitimate states” because of this history.
Greenwald has some more good points today relevant to the OP:
(My bolding.)
What do we gain from our financial and military support of Israel that is worth this cost?
You are taking comments from an obviously skewed and biased source and then trying to draw conclusions from it. I supposed it’s a fair question though. Of course, one could ask what we ‘gain’ by our support of ANY foreign power with support and economic/military aid…but still, it’s a fair question.
What we ‘gain’ is supporting a beleaguered fellow democracy in a part of the world where friendly nations are scarce. WE won’t have the blood of Israeli’s on our hands if things go tits up for them and they lose a war for lack of external support and international isolation. From a purely political (and ruthlessly practical) perspective our sending aid to Israel also gives us a handle on them, a way to influence their decision process at a political level…and a club we can use to beat them up with if they aren’t doing what we want or like. That club only goes so far of course, and Israel is far from our puppet…but it does allow us to get inside their decision process and influence them.
-XT
Very few people will assert that Israel is anything other than a strategic liability to the US. Certainly the US has no shortage of friendly governments in the region and the wherewithal to make more. Israel itself is not located to afford the US any strategic advantage in any event. What is the US’s interest in the area? Reliable supplies of petroleum products.
So, the first step is to abandon the idea that US mid-east foreign policy is hard-headed or realistic or educated. Instead it’s influenced by the soft-headed and religious doctrines that blight other parts of the administrations’ policies. See further: AIDS prevention. Such policies and influence have reached their apogee in the current administration. But unfortunately the trend of irrational and uneducated foreign policy is embedded in the broad sources of government policy and we are unlikely to see a diversion to rational and a cost effective policy in relation to bringing Israel to heel. Barack Obama will not state “Our Israel policy will no longer be influenced by sacred and religious texts.”
See my post #126.
Maybe it got buried?
It is not a very articulated or persuasive argument.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Israel had no right to exist, that the Zionists were evil cololnialist pigs who have systematically and cruelly oppressed an extant Palestinian people wihout being attacked ever in any way. But also assume the facts that are now on the ground, that Israel exists, has a certain military might that would persist for some time even if America pulled all of its support overnight, and that a stable ME is in the United States best interests.
Would weakening Israel enough to tempt a strike against it by, say Iran or an emboldened Syria, be a desirous outcome for American best interests?
Is it your position that the consequent regional conflagration perhaps resulting in the destruction and cleansing of Israel would be in America’s best interests?
It’s peripheral to the US interest in the ME. The collapse of Israel would affect the US no more than Algeria.
BTW the statement
is untrue. You may disagree with the conclusion, but most American leaders have indeed asserted that Israel is a strategic asset to America. In fact America ended up in Israel’s corner not because of any sense of what was right or wrong but because of the happenstance that many Arab countries were perceived as Soviet proxies and Israel as America’s back in the day. Obviously interests have shifted some since then but RealPolitik persists: now the interest is how to marginalize those forces that would move the Arab world into a more extreme insular fundamentalist location and how to empower those that would move the Arab world into a place more articulated with modern sensibilities. Stability (and a real peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is part of that stability) serves those goals.
On preview: Okay. You do not see such a regional war, and its outcomes as against American interests. We are clear. Fine.
Well done.
Regarding “criticizing Israel = anti-Semitic” -
It’s a bit naive and silly to complain about such accusations. There is nothing at all inherently anti-Semitic about criticizing Israel - BUT, if you choose to take ANY side of ANY topical conflict (especially a place you don’t live in), you are going to be sharing the same playground as some actual unrepentant bigots. Sooner or later, like it or not, you will find yourself sharing the same platform as them, or using the same propaganda that was originally cut & pasted from the most extreme interests. (Furthermore, these types seem to delight in being accused of bigotry, and use it as “proof of persecution”)
If you talk long enough and get passionate enough about Northern Ireland, then sooner or later you will find yourself parroting something that came from either Gerry Adams or Ian Paisley … and then maybe get dumbfounded when someone calls you a bigot.
My own “favorite” conflict to study is Yugoslavia. I believe the Serbs were misunderstood in many critical ways in the 1990s, but I would never discuss that with anyone face to face (or even probably online) because it’s too easy to come across as a Milosevic-loving pro-Serbian bigot … it’s just not worth it.
If you don’t want to risk being called a bigot in your discussions, then you need to go find another conflict besides the Middle East (or India/Pakistan, Tibet, Ireland, etc) to get interested in - the less commonly known the better. If you insist on becoming a self-styled Middle East expert, there is nothing wrong with that, but be prepared to meet some bigots and be called a bigot (either anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim) along the way. Nothing you can do about it.