The Jew of Nations: The Global Demonization of Israel

[Steve781]

I

I hadn't heard that AIPAC lobbied heavily for the Iraq War before. Can you please provide sources for that, such as AIPAC press releases in favor of an Iraq invasion? If it's a clear-cut case, it should be possible to provide explicit evidence of such.

As far as your claim about AIPAC lobbying for an attack on Iran, it's possible. But you claimed "they keep getting other countries to fight their battles for them," implying this has happened in the past. An attack on Iran hasn't happened. So please provide instances where Israel has had other countries fight its battles for it.

I'm confident that you'll be able to provide clear sources for these claims, which will be a good education for me.

I can give you a whole book
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I

I can give you a whole book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: 9780374531508: Amazon.com: Books

I see. You're one of those people.

 

[Steve781]

I see. You're one of those people.

What people?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

What people?

The people who feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain simple events. For example, to believe in Mearsheimer, you would have to separately prove that it was in Israel's interest to topple Saddam Hussein, that Bush was a Manchurian Candidate controlled by Israel, that Congress was controlled by Israel, and that the media was controlled by Israel (none of which Mearsheimer proved). It would be much more simple, of course, to believe in an intelligence failure, but that isn't satisfying enough to a certain group of people (apparently, including you).

Here's a simple rule to live by, which will make life easier to understand:

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steve781]

The people who feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain simple events. For example, to believe in Mearsheimer, you would have to separately prove that it was in Israel's interest to topple Saddam Hussein, that Bush was a Manchurian Candidate controlled by Israel, that Congress was controlled by Israel, and that the media was controlled by Israel (none of which Mearsheimer proved). It would be much more simple, of course, to believe in an intelligence failure, but that isn't satisfying enough to a certain group of people (apparently, including you).

Here's a simple rule to live by, which will make life easier to understand:

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quite clear that lobbying plays a major role in US policy towards Israel. What strategic and economic interest is there in favouring seven million Jews with no oil over 240 million Arabs with most of the world's supply?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

It's quite clear that lobbying plays a major role in US policy towards Israel. What strategic and economic interest is there in favouring seven million Jews with no oil over 240 million Arabs with most of the world's supply?

Thus far, this has not been a mutually exclusive choice. The US has friendly relations with most of the Arab states, despite its support for Israel, and that seems unlikely to change in the medium term. In other words, the US can have it all, so why choose one side or the other?

In addition, the Arab control of oil is irrelevant. The US can easily replace Arab oil with other sources (note that Nigeria isn't even listed as a source), and the US continues to expand its fracking program to generate more energy sources domestically. OPEC is broken, and will never threaten US energy supplies again.

So why does the US support Israel, putting aside the religious aspect? I will quote myself from another thread:

Why should the US continue to support Israel?

1) We are bound to by treaty.
2) Lebanon is a failed state, Syria is a failed state, Iraq is a failed state, Libya is a failed state, Egypt is an open question. Israel is an anchor for our interests in the region.
3) Israel is a liberal democracy that largely shares our values.
4) Our support enables us to control their defense industry (veto rights over transfer of technology).
5) Our defense and technology sectors are deeply intertwined.
6) Our support binds them to us diplomatically (Israel has a socialist past, leaving an opening for Russia or China).
7) Their intelligence agencies are able to provide critical insight into the area.
8) Israel is a magnet for Muslim supremacists and terrorists who would otherwise go after us directly. $3bn in aid essentially leverages up to a ~$17bn mosquito torch for the region.
9) We can use Israel as diplomatic leverage in the region (i.e. we will restrain Israel, in return, you do something for us).

The better question is, why shouldn't we continue to support Israel?

1) The enemies of Israel tend to be the worst kind of authoritarian, fundamentalist states, which would naturally be hostile to US whether or not we supported Israel, or even whether or not Israel existed.

2) Can you provide an example of a country that is hostile to Israel, that would not be hostile to the US without our support of Israel, and that the US would derive any benefit from? Turkey is already in our corner, no matter what we do with Israel. Iran will always be against us, no matter what we do with Israel. We don't need Arab oil, which the Arab states realize after their failed oil embargo, so the "moderate" Arab states will stay on-side no matter what we do with Israel.

The only justification I can think of is the cost of the military aid, but that's part of a package with Egypt (and to some extent, Jordan), so it would be difficult to imagine cutting off Israel without cutting off the other two. Cutting off all three would essentially lock the US out of that region--for what benefit?

Source: Should the US continue support to Israel? | Page 2

 

[AUz]

Israel gets demonized simply because of its actions. The author ignored the elephant in the room and went on a wild-goose's chase. Israeli supporters have a habit of spinning every support they get from a country as a principled stand and every criticism they get as a form of anti-semitism or realism/opportunism without any merit to the actual cause, which is the Israeli attitude towards Palestinians.

If 120 non-aligned countries say Israel violated international law, the simple conclusion is that Israel indeed violated international law. It does not mean that all these countries wholesale had internal political compulsions to oppose Israel's actions. Nor does it mean that all these countries are morally bankrupt. Israel is still violating international law on a weekly basis and these guys are busy spinning out stories.

Sweden has recognised Palestine. In a short while, more support will flow to Palestinians. If Apartheid had to end, so will the Israeli occupation.

Exactly!!!!

 

[Borr]

Don't know what it may look to others if a country (Israel) and a people (Jews) keep crying 24/7 that they got demonized.

For someone that isn't concerned, it could be like this "So everybody demonizes you. There must be a good reason and why not just stop crying."

 

[opruh]

here in the Philippines, people are pro-Israel

 

[Developereo]

Oh, no, not the same old victimhood drivel again.
Israelis have milked and abused the victimhood card to the max.

If a group of racist Arabs or whites or anyone else colonized a foreign land and kicked out most of the locals to create a "Arab homeland" or a "white homeland", they would be criticized.

When racist Jews do it, they deserve the same contempt and condemnation.

(If anyone feels sympathy for Israel, make room for a Jewish homeland in your country. Don't make the Palestinians suffer just so you can feel compassionate.)

Don't know what it may look to others if a country (Israel) and a people (Jews) keep crying 24/7 that they got demonized.

For someone that isn't concerned, it could be like this "So everybody demonizes you. There must be a good reason and why not just stop crying."

Ironically, there's a Jewish proverb:

If one man calls thee a donkey, ignore him.
If ten men call thee a donkey, get thee a saddle.

Many Jews have fallen into this circular trap: they are so consumed by their own victimhood that they demand special privileges over everyone else. This creates resentment and backlash. And the cycle repeats.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

(If anyone feels sympathy for Israel, make room for a Jewish homeland in your country. Don't make the Palestinians suffer just so you can feel compassionate.)

Russia and Kazakhstan have a tremendous amount of empty space in their country. The latter (Kazakhstan) especially could be persuaded with enough money to give up some of it, and their land is high quality and good for farming.

Many countries in Africa as well have incredible amounts of empty space. Or Canada, or America even.

We also have massive amounts of free land in our Western portion, but of course that is not negotiable.

 

[VCheng]

Russia and Kazakhstan have a tremendous amount of empty space in their country. The latter (Kazakhstan) especially could be persuaded with enough money to give up some of it, and their land is high quality and good for farming.

Many countries in Africa as well have incredible amounts of empty space. Or Canada, or America even.

We also have massive amounts of free land in our Western portion, but of course that is not negotiable.

Funny how you declare your own land "not negotiable", yet you find it easy to put up other lands up for negotiation.

 

[Falcon29]

Funny how you declare your own land "not negotiable", yet you find it easy to put up other lands up for negotiation.

You're describing the British.

 

[VCheng]

You're describing the British.

And how they carved out Pakistan from India?

 

[Falcon29]

And how they carved out Pakistan from India?

Modern day Pakistani's were not foreign to their land. The British brought foreigners to Palestinian land and created artificial state.