One significant faction of the GOP is millenarian evangelical Christians who (a) believe the Israeli state is a necessary precursor to armageddon and (b) have spent the past 2 decades trying to conflate “Muslim” with “terrorist”.
The Democratic party includes as part of its coalition many American Jews who, despite frustration with the human rights abuses of the Israeli government, feel a strong connection with Israel as a symbolic homeland and are worried that criticism of Israel will lead to broader antisemitism.
The US intelligence/defense establishment has strong ties to Israel, the US shares intelligence with Israel, and US firms make a lot of money selling weapons to Israel (a substantial part bought with US tax money). Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II.
this angle seems really out dated. the us alliance with israel is not about religious reasons.
israel is the one democratic state in a region that mostly has our enemies. israel is a military power. we have strategic interests in maintaining the middle east political bloc
imagine if this headline read france instead. we would react similarly
The whole point of your comment is wrong.
Israel may be considered a democracy, but only for the so-called "chosen people"; This so-called democracy which is based on racial purity and militarism is in fact a form of fascism, and not a democracy in any way.
And the main reason for some of the countries in the middle east to become enemies of the US is the blind support of US for the Israel to occupy the land of Palestine and commit war crimes. Occupying other people's land, torturing and killing them, and then claiming to be a democracy is quite laughable claim by Israelis.
There is also the matter of "the one democratic state in a region" being BS, or incredibly disingenuous at best. Even if you don't count Lebanon as a democracy (presumably not counted because Israel and Hezbollah hate each other) there is the matter of America's role in toppling other democratic governments in the region, particularly Iran in 1953. Furthermore, America seems to have no trouble cooperating with other monarchies around the world, so the premise of America only being able to cooperate with democracies is nonsense. What's so heinous about Jordan being a constitutional monarchy? Nothing really, it certainly didn't stop America from defending Kuwait (also a constitutional monarchy) when Iraq invaded.
This is what I gather with some research, though I’m no expert and would appreciate more information if anyone has it.
If Tunisia is “in the region” (depends on the region being discussed), then Tunisia is starting to make the claim that Israel is the only strong democracy in the region false. That being said, Tunisia’s situation isn’t doing much to change the claim that Israel is the most democratic country in the region, and was the only one for many decades.
Lebanon is one of the most democratic countries in the region. It has regular elections - though I can’t tell how free and fair they are. It seems they are but there are accusations of bribes and corruption in Lebanon in general so likely that would spill into elections (see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/magazine/corruption-leban...). Lebanon has relatively diverse political parties, citizens have entrenched rights, general freedom of speech. Anti-government protests seem somewhat allowed (with some accusations of suppression and some violent response).
That being said, it’s not just animosity between Israel and Hezbollah that lead people to considering it less of a democracy or somewhere less than flawed democracy on the spectrum of democracy into something (though that could play a role). It’s presumably also paramilitary organizations like Hezbollah not being subject to civilian rule. Also that not anyone can be president, or prime minister or president of parliament, due to agreements between groups in Lebanon that help with stability.
America cooperates daily with non-democracies. Did anyone claim that America can only cooperate with countries that are democracies? I could imagine someone arguing convincingly that all else being equal, America would prefer close ties and cooperation with democracies (for various reasons). In practice, all else is rarely equal. You don't always get to partner with those who you feel have the same values (real or aspirational), or are generally looked on favorably by the world. There is lots of realpolitik in geopolitics.
Arguably, yes. Or at least USA are lacking in universal suffrage while they don’t allow long time residents to vote because they lack citizenship.
This is actually a fault in quite a lot of western democracies but USA is actually worse at this the the average democracy. Contrary to most European democracies, foreign citizens are not even allowed to vote in primaries or local elections in the USA.
Off course USA has more problems with how they grant voting rights the just the lack of rights to vote for foreigners, this includes prisoners in many states, but also access to voting and voting registration, as well as disproportionate representation from election outcomes which reflects actual ballot counts poorly. All of this adds to make the USA a rather lacking in democracy.
Argue the case. If you just did, it’s not a convincing one.
First, note I didn’t say long term residents of America. Just Canadian or Mexican citizens in general (be they long term residents of the US or not).
You may say it’s different. Maybe. Then just talk about those that aren’t long term residents.
The point here is equally true of citizens of Armenia, Vietnam, anywhere else (and I would say those that reside in America long term, or not) that aren’t US citizens. If they can’t vote in US elections, how can we consider the US a democracy?
Is democracy a binary? If so, is America one, or not one? At least is it closer to being one, or not being one?
Is democracy a spectrum? If so, where is America on the spectrum? Close to pure perfect democracy, or on the opposite end, close to the complete opposite of that? Or somewhere in the middle? You say its lacking. Where is that on the spectrum? What other countries are near it?
These types of discussion often happen around abstract, nebulous concepts like democracy, justice, good. Generally when they aren’t defined well by any participants.
If your point is the US could be more of a democracy, maybe. But even more so, it could be much less of one.
There is a fundamental difference though. Canada and Mexico are sovereign nations with their own national assemblies recognized fully by the USA. The same can not be said about Israel’s recognition of Palestine.
But USA is not fault free here either, as it does not grant federal representation to a portion of its citizens living in certain districts and territories (including DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) This is a pretty serious gap in its democracy as has been pointed out by these citizens and others.
Israel is actually infinitely worse here though, not only do Palestinians lack the rights to vote, but they also lack many other rights you would expect in a democracy. Such as the rights to a fair trial, the rights to your possessions, the rights to live without a threat of violence from the state, etc. So if it can be argued that the USA has lax democracy, then it is easy to argue that Israels democracy is seriously flawed.
Being a sovereign nation with its own national assemblies fully recognized isn't required.
Israel recognizes the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the political body responsible for certain agreed upon things including Palestinian elections. They also recognize Hamas as the ruling political entity in Gaza (though I am not sure how formal that is).
My point is about non-citizens. Stateless or otherwise. Citizens of Israel, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Baháʼí, Palestinian, Russian, American, French, whatever, (more or less as far as I know) can vote in Israeli elections. Non-citizens can't. Similar to the US.
You mentioned some situations in which in the US, citizens can't vote (for example those convicted of felony crimes). Presumably situations like this occur in Israel and other democracies as well - I know this about some places but not all.
To be perfectly clear - Palestinians lack the right to vote in Israeli elections if they are not Israeli citizens. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens have full rights to vote like other Israeli citizens. And the other rights assured to citizens of Israel. Are they always fully fulfilled? No. Like every other country. But generally yes.
Citizens of Mexico, Canada, Spain, Vietnam, Armenia, etc. lack the right to vote in American elections if they are not American citizens. Does this make America not a democracy? Or substantially less of one?
My point isn't really about the US, and is really about Israel.
You have to tacitly admit Israel and the US are democracies, to argue they are not perfect democracies (in your words "flawed").
> You have to tacitly admit Israel and the US are democracies, to argue they are not perfect democracies (in your words "flawed").
This is a common logical fallacy. “You have to admit the existence God in order to not believe in him.” You could read my post as saying that: If Israel is a democracy, then it has a serious flaw. This is a value judgement on the state of democracy in Israel, not a simple binary: If Israel has democracy then Israel is good, otherwise it is bad.
Now, whether foreign citizen can vote in a country they do not reside in I believe this is misleading the debate. If I hadn’t misunderstood your original point I probably wouldn’t have engage at all. But since I am already engaged I might as well continue (sunken cost fallacy).
Both the Mexican and the Canadian governments have full (or near full) control of their own territory, the same can not be said about the Palestinian Authority as their territories are constantly being encroached on by Israel settlers, sometimes with the permission of the Israeli authorities, and always without their interference. There is also the “puppet” nature of the Palestinian authority. In 2006 when the “wrong” party won a majority, they were promptly invaded by the Israel Military. That doesn’t sound very sovereign to me. There is no world where the USA military would invade Mexico after they would elect a government which the USA didn’t agree with.
No, Mexican relations to USA is not remotely comparable. That is unless you consider Palestine to be a completely separate and autonomous from Israel, which I kind of doubt.
The context of this thread is fruitful. Someone claimed Israel isn’t a democracy - that “Israel may be considered a democracy, but only for the so-called "chosen people"" (they almost certainly mean for Jews / Jewish people).
They make other spurious claims as well.
I do not believe I am committing the logical fallacy you refer to. I don’t know if that commenter is either.
I am not claiming democracy = good, and I am not claiming not democracy = bad.
I believe talking about non-citizens voting is perfectly useful and fruitful for understanding Israel as a democracy. I do not hear people complain, generally, about other countries not allowing non-citizens to vote in elections. That is the state of affairs for Palestinians that aren’t Israeli citizens. Non-citizens not voting. It may just be a double standard applied to Israel for various reasons. This happens.
As I mentioned previously, full sovereignty does not seem relevant to this point, nor does full control of territory. You keep bringing up Palestinian sovereignty and sovereignty in general, but I have yet to understand why you think it’s relevant to this discussion.
Is Spain not a democracy because of Catalonia? Ireland and the UK because of North Ireland, or Scotland? No, these aren't identical situations, and there are obvious differences - note the similarities instead of the differences.
If it relates to ethnic nationalism and citizenship - is Estonia a democracy? Is Hungary? Lithuania? Others in this list generally considered democracies?
> You keep bringing up Palestinian sovereignty and sovereignty in general, but I have yet to understand why you think it’s relevant to this discussion.
What is relevant is that a huge group of people under the authority of a government have no representation in the government. This is the antithesis of democracy. The people of Palestine are under the authority of the Israeli government but have no say in that government.
This is the reason people often say that South Africa wasn’t a democracy until after Apartheid ended in 1994. The fact that Namibians living and working in Namibia still cannot vote in South African elections has nothing to do with it since South Africa has no authority in Namibia.
> Is Spain not a democracy because of Catalonia? Ireland and the UK because of North Ireland, or Scotland? No, these aren't identical situations, and there are obvious differences - note the similarities instead of the differences.
I don’t know why you are bringing this point up now, Catalonians have the same rights as other Spanish citizens, including the right to vote to the national assembly. British citizens in Northern Ireland can still vote in British elections as they are under the authority of the UK and have the same rights as other British citizens. The same does not apply to Palestinians living under the authority of the state of Israel. The similarities here—the fact that a significant number of people want to secede—are superficial in this context. In the case of Northern Ireland the similarities are even less relevant since the UK allows Northern Ireland to secede and join the Republic of Ireland if demonstrated in a majority referendum, Israel does not grant that right to Palestine.
Just to reiterate, what sets Israel apart from other democracies is that a significant part of people living under the authority of the Israeli government are not guaranteed the same rights and freedoms you expect from other democracies.
You make some good points - the people we are referring to of Catalonia, Northern Ireland, and Scotland are citizens of Spain or the UK. Not that many Palestinian people we are discussing are citizens of Israel (though ~21% of Israeli citizens are Arab, and I keep bringing up those within that group that identify as Palestinian and are citizens of Israel). Those are some key points on which I presume we fully agree.
The situation does not make Israel much less of a democracy (arguably it does somewhat, sure - see below). To recap history you may be familiar with, the democratically elected representatives of Israel came to a series of agreements with the widely recognized representatives of the Palestinian people - these are the Oslo Accords. These agreements divided up responsibility and authority for different aspects of life and governance of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Note these agreements did not grant all Palestinians Israeli citizenship, Israelis Palestinian citizenship, or the ability for non-citizens to vote in elections of the other political entity.
Palestinians have the right to vote in Palestinian elections. Israelis in general do not have that right. I don’t think this characteristic makes Palestinian elections much less democratic.
Arguably the situation in Area C is a problem, and diminishes Israel as a democracy in some way (moving it from full democracy to a flawed democracy but still squarely a democracy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_law_in_the_West_Bank_s... Specifically I am referring to Israeli citizens that are subject to large portions of Israeli law whereas Palestinians are subject to a combination of Israeli military law and some local laws based on Jordanian law. Is this what you are saying? Or is it broader, and relates to Area A and B as well? Possibly also Gaza, possibly other things too.
Anyway, per Wikipedia Area C houses 4% of the Palestinian population of the West Bank. To be clear, is this what you are referring to when you say “significant part of people living under the authority of the Israeli government are not guaranteed the same rights and freedoms you expect from other democracies”? Do you think that’s what the original commenter had in mind, or what they actually said with their comment? I think neither of those is the case.
Throughout the past decades, some Palestinians have applied for and been granted Israeli citizenship (especially those living in Jerusalem). Those people can vote in Israeli elections, like other citizens of Israel.
Do you consider Palestinian citizens of Israel to be part of the "people of Palestine"? All of the citizens of Israel of Palestinian origin have the ability to elect representatives to the Israeli government by voting in elections. They have representation in the government, the ability to form political parties, be judges and politicians, start businesses, etc., according to Israeli law which they can help shape as citizens in a democracy.
Non-citizens do not necessarily have all of these rights (or privilege or however you wish to characterize it). Similar to the US and many other democracies in the world.
Arab citizens of Israel (and non-Jewish citizens of Israel generally) are afforded the same rights in general under the law as other citizens of Israel, be they Palestinian or not Palestinian. Hence my original comment to the person that said Israel is only a democracy for Jews / Jewish Israeli citizens. It's just a democracy, in general, albeit with some issues (perhaps, as you are saying, like the US, and I would say likely in Area C of the West Bank but not related to voting in elections).
I could see how you could argue that if the US isn’t a perfect democracy. Would it be reasonable to then argue the US in fact not a democracy? Despite its flaws, most reasonable people would still consider the US a democracy (even if flawed), right? And they should do the same for Israel. As a non-perfect place, it deserves proportionate attention in the world stage to improve. Unfortunately it receives far beyond that much, for mostly bad reasons.
Israel is more or less a democracy, even if flawed, and it is in general such a democracy for all its citizens - Jewish and not-Jewish alike. Speaking of it otherwise, as the person I originally responded to did, leads to words being diluted of their usual meaning, helps to perpetuate animus, and contributes to an incorrect understanding of the world.
> israel is the one democratic state in a region that mostly has our enemies.
Wasn’t there another democratic country in the region in the early 50’s? Oh yeah, it was Iran, and then the US took that democratic state and deposed it in a coup.
“We have to stand with the only democratic state in the region” loses a lot of rhetorical force when the US topples other democratic states it doesn’t like.
Speaking of France and geopolitics, it's worth noting you see similar consistent support for Israel from most of the other major NATO powers. And France's position on Israel is not due to conservative evangelical political influence domestically.
> the us alliance with israel is not about religious reasons
This is simply not true. The base of the US Republican Party is evangelical Christians. This being so, religious reasons are close to the surface. There are surely other interested parties, but Republicans can't get crosswise with any of their conservative Christian constituencies -- evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons. These constituencies have particular beliefs about Israel and the End Times. Likud and other right wing allies of the evangelicals certainly knows this and don't particularly care, not themselves caring about Christian End Times. I'm sure the leadership of the Republican Party also doesn't care. But they need their foot soldiers, and these soldiers do care.
It is also true that while there are a lot of liberal Jews who criticize Israel, like Noam Chomsky, there is a large block with a lot of sway in Democratic politics that are very leery of criticism of Israel veering into antisemitism.
This is terribly jumbled. Yes, if you’re in a non-Islamic religion that reveres the Old Testament, you probably support Israel’s land claims.
But Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals have wildly different views of the end times, and the “Bring in the Armageddon” crowd in particular is an outlier among evangelicals.
> the “Bring in the Armageddon” crowd in particular is an outlier among evangelicals.
Being an outlier still does not stop them from wielding over-proportional political influence compared to other Christian sub-currents, and particularly other religions.
To add data to that degree; In the US such well-organized and rich elite interests are very much the de-facto policy makers [0].
Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned Catholics and Mormons. The official bit of dogma the conservative Catholics care about is abortion. I'm not sure what the Mormons care about. But I don't think dogma is more than rationalization for most of these foot soldiers. They have this in common with conservative Muslims, Hindus, Jews, animists, and atheists. They want the people they approve of to dominate people they disapprove of. The rationale comes after and cleans up the mess. They learn about the approved hierarchy of power from their leaders and community. And in the US the word has come down from the elect that Israel, or right wing Israel, is their ally. Millenarian theology is just window dressing. Netanyahu mocks Obama before the US Congress so he's their man. It didn't begin with Netanyahu, but he knew how to ride the wave. This is why the Right in the US could turn on a dime and start loving Putin: he hated the same people they did. Dogma is just window dressing, a pretty screen over an ugly truth.
It's not outdated at all, Trump's presidency was a direct throw-back to Dubya times [0] that whole thing with Muslim bans and getting treated like some kind of Messiah by evangelicals [1].
These very same US evangelical currents are also super tight with Israel, because they think Armageddon is gonna happen there and that needs to happen for Christ's return and heaven on earth [2].
These people are a end-world cult, one that has by now had direct influence on at least two US presidents in recent history. One of which they pushed into declaring a literal "crusade" [3] complete with "holy warriors" [4].
In the early 2000s there were a bunch of "scandals" about them infiltrating the US military to further Christianize it [5], even in the 2010s there's been incidents with US government acquired rifle sights featuring secret bibles codes [6].
There are many groups, including nation states in the Middle East who would like to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. This is not hyperbole, it’s public policy. And it’s not just words, Israel has been attacked repeatedly by countries intent on its destruction.
There are some people inside the US, and outside it, who feel that allowing that to happen would be unacceptable. The western world does not want another holocaust on their conscience.
But the question is, what makes it more unacceptable than the destruction of other countries, countries who also have enemies, who are not such close allies? "Feel that allowing that to happen would be unacceptable" is the loaded phrase that holds all the content in that description. The US is not giving that much military aid to every country that has such enemies.
Arguably, genocide anywhere should be confronted and prevented (though of course it never is, because the compassion of our species is quite limited).
In the modern era, arguably few have suffered as much as the Jews, in large part due to their historic lack of a homeland and safe haven. That's not to excuse modern Israeli policy, and I find it atrocious that they treat Palestine this way especially because they know what it's like on the other side.
But at the end of the day, most countries that "fall" would just be assimilated into their conquering cultures. The fall of Israel would be another Holocaust. I doubt many of their people would survive at all, given the severe hatred much of the world has for them, especially in that region.
I don't think we should be arming Israel, but that's only because they can take care of themselves. Their military is so far and away above their enemies' that they could easily destroy every single country around them if they so chose. We don't need to stay involved there any longer.
> It would be really nice if all cross-border hatred was isolated in one theater where it could easily be dealt with, but that's not the case.
Yeah. I'd vote for naked MMA mud matches between heads of state.
> One wonders how long it will be until they move on to taking care of their neighbors.
If the Six-Day War was any indication, they have that option any time they choose to exercise it. But it's doubtful they'd ever be able to hold the peace even if they could win the wars that way. Israel didn't survive by being brash and careless... they're not the United States. One mistake and they'd be wiped from the planet, at least until World War 3.
I'm an evangelical Christian myself, and I think I understand why you characterize us this way, but it's not accurate based on what I know.
Along with those I associate with, I support Jews (and to a lesser extent the modern nation of Israel) only because I serve the God who made the sons of Jacob into a nation in the first place. The modern nation of Israel isn't perfect and my support for being their ally isn't unconditional. It also has nothing to do with end-times (except maybe for the fact that they exist as a nation, which is interesting but mostly inconsequential in terms of religion).
In terms of end-times events, the rise of widespread hatred for my religion is a far more reliable indicator of their proximity...
I grew up evangelical. I have heard multiple pastors in multiple congregations explain that the existence of Israel is divine, that god himself was responsible for it existing after X thousands of years and that everything they did was god’s will.
This was all of course necessary for the rapture. For more look up Hal Lindsey’s “Hinge of history”
Israel/AIPAC on the other hand is mostly composed of atheists, who are more than happy to participate in evangelical delusions to keep the money flowing.
> One significant faction of the GOP is millenarian evangelical Christians who (a) believe the Israeli state is a necessary precursor to armageddon and (b) have spent the past 2 decades trying to conflate “Muslim” with “terrorist”.
Prior to that, during the Cold War Israel was the US ally surrounded by Soviet client states, so opposing the Godless Commies (whether the important part was "Godless" or "Commies" depended on the audience) was also quite popular.
I know this is what the up-vote button is for. But I do want to add a redundant comment appreciating this explanation. It explains this adequately in three short paragraphs.
The second paragraph is worth expanding from a little. As it can be argued that fear of anti-antisemitism among the left is well warranted. A good example of that is Jeremy Corbin constantly being accused of anti-antisemitism for criticizing the state of Israel for their human rights violation in the last UK general election (a tactic that perhaps worked given the lousy performance of the labour party). Even Bernie Sandars—a jew himself with family ties to holocaust survivors—gets smeared for this reason.
"Before becoming Labour leader he called 1902 book containing antisemitic tropes ‘brilliant’.
Jewish leaders have written to Jeremy Corbyn to express “grave concern” and demand an explanation after it emerged he wrote a glowing foreword for a century-old political tract that includes antisemitic tropes."
This 2 minute web search is flawed. You don’t disprove a smear by a short web search. If there truly is a smear this smear will be included in the results, so your data is biased and proves nothing.
My short web search found a secondary source[1] which debunks some of the claims you have mentioned here by offering a little more context around them. The Wikipedia page about Jeremy Corbyn has a whole section devoted to this[2] and all the claims are either vague or unsubstantiated.
Now I don’t personally know whether Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite (he might very well be), but there is nothing which he has done which indicates for any amount of certainty that he is. The campaign to smear him as one has most certainly succeeded, and his support for Palestine probably in no small is to blame for this.
The 'debunking' is just noting that the book in question has over 400 pages. Shouldn't we expect a guy writing a glowing foreword to have actually taken the time to read the book he's praising?
As far as I can tell, there's a lot of consistent smoke. Somehow Corbyn is always involved but never ever notices the bad stuff. There was a good basis to be concerned: Whether Corbyn is an antisemite, cynical or just totally oblivious, is not as material when he's running to such a powerful position. An oblivious PM could do some damage still.
Elections are not a court - we have to decide based on probabilities, and most British voters found Corbyn to be more unworthy than Johnson.
>The campaign to smear him as one has most certainly succeeded, and his support for Palestine probably in no small is to blame for this.
There could be a connection. It could be argued that strong opinions on ME conflict led people to ignore things they did not want to see. From Corbyn supposedly not noticing multiple cases of outright bigotry, to some Labour supporters not noticing a pattern with Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbin did more than just “criticizing the state of Israel for human rights violations” though. This is a politician who, amongst many other things, called Hamas and Hezbollah “my friends”, so clearly his issue with Israel is not about human rights per se.
wow, even if you are a proud tinfoil hat wearer you should learn a way to explain your positions in a factual provable way without any attempts to read anyone's minds or guess anyone's motivations
It’s not purely geopolitical but I think the top 3 factors for this:
1, the most powerful political organization in the US is AIPAC.
More powerful than any other lobbyist and can tip the scales in almost any election.
2, the services provided by Israel to support US-backed dictatorships in the Middle East (eg the NSO group)
3, the military industrial complex loves the Israeli customer because they are dependable, repeating customers (Israel has been bombing the Palestinians and its regional neighbors for decades now)
Could you provide a source for AIPAC being the most powerful political organization in the US? That seems surprising given that they spend a fraction of what other lobbying groups do. How is that measured?
> That seems surprising given that they spend a fraction
Probably by design to “seem to” spend only small amount of money, so that even people who know how to search on google for key facts won’t immediately see their outsized influence.
From an nytimes article [0] on this topic and lot of anecdotes on fall outs from taking policy positions against israel (not anti-Semitic)
“ Unlike the National Rifle Association, the Human Rights Campaign and other powerful grass-roots advocacy organizations, Aipac, which is bipartisan, does not endorse or raise money for candidates. But its members do, with the organization’s strong encouragement.”
“Traveling to Israel on a trip financed by Aipac’s education arm is practically a rite of passage for freshman members of Congress.”
I probably would rephrase parent’s comment as “one of the Most powerful political organization”
As a congressman/woman while considering a policy position against Israel AIPAC is probably the most powerful. Any case comparison of strength between corporate funded lobbyists and an organization with singular ideological is pointless.
What's the super charitable reading of "can tip the scales in almost any election"?
The parent commenter talked about political organizations generally. They didn't specify non-corporate funded lobbying.
Also, it's reductive and I would argue misleading to say AIPAC has a "singular ideology" (as opposed to some sort of umbrella of overlapping ideologies, somewhat akin to groups like the Democratic the Republican parties in the US).
"Ally" is probably too weak a word for the relationship we have with Israel. Probably no other country has this much influence on our politics. Not even the UK or Canada, who we share close cultural and linguistic bonds with.
Israel is like the Taiwan of the Middle East, meaning it's a useful partner to us in terms of maintaining a separation between the West and some perceived enemy (Muslims in this case, the Chinese in the case of Taiwan). But they also cause us to have more enemies than we otherwise would. In an open letter, Bin Laden specifically called out our support for Israel as one of their justifications behind 9/11.
Spying between allies is a relatively normal thing, but when someone screws up and lets the public see it happen, usually there is at least some mild chiding. Israel doesn't even get that tsk tsk because of how much influence they have.
Also, Israel has a very effective propaganda machine that purposely tries to paint any criticism of Israeli policy as anti-semitism. It's hard for our politicians to openly discuss them without risking their ire, and that of many influential Jewish Americans, and the powerful AIPAC lobby.
Frankly, Israel has us by the balls. Less an ally and more a dominatrix.
> Israel is like the Taiwan of the Middle East, meaning it's a useful partner to us in terms of maintaining a separation between the West and some perceived enemy (Muslims in this case, the Chinese in the case of Taiwan).
Is 'separation' a euphemism for 'preventing invasion'? Because threat of that is #1 thing keeping cross-strait relations tense. Mainland China could easily offer Taiwan a better deal than they get by being closely aligned with the US. Their reluctance to do so keeps US influence in the region, and after a while one can't help if it's deliberate.
Also Israel gets a much better deal than Taiwan. The US gives military aid to Israel, where as Taiwan has to petition the US government - their only significant supplier - for the right to even buy weapons. Better hardware too, despite Israels poor track record in passing US military tech to China.
> Is 'separation' a euphemism for 'preventing invasion'? Because threat of that is #1 thing keeping cross-strait relations tense. Mainland China could easily offer Taiwan a better deal than they get by being closely aligned with the US. Their reluctance to do so keeps US influence in the region, and after a while one can't help if it's deliberate.
I don't quite follow. Are you saying China purposely gives Taiwan a raw deal just to deliberately spite the US? Why would they do that? I think I'm misunderstanding you.
> Also Israel gets a much better deal than Taiwan. The US gives military aid to Israel, where as Taiwan has to petition the US government - their only significant supplier - for the right to even buy weapons. Better hardware too, despite Israels poor track record in passing US military tech to China.
Yeah, for sure. But our support of both countries (and others like them) pisses other countries off. IMO we have no business being either world police or world arms market, especially in some of the most volatile quagmires in the world. We make our own enemies because of our supposed friends. These places only have strategic value to us so long as we desire to remain the global hegemon, with tentacles everywhere. Let go of that weird military-industrial-hentai complex, and there's no reason for us to artificially prop up these countries. Especially Israel. The IDF can more than take care of themselves. Taiwan is going to fall sooner or later anyway, but why is that our business? We force our enemies to go on eternal arms races against us because we've shown them we're incapable of minding our own business after WW2. It should not be our responsibility to provide world security using our people, our equipment, our money.
I don't quite follow. Are you saying China purposely gives Taiwan a raw deal just to deliberately spite the US? Why would they do that? I think I'm misunderstanding you.
I mean the whole situation is incredibly contrived. The 'sacred chinese territory' narrative feels completely hollow if you consider how long ago they stopped claiming other Qing dynasty possessions like Mongolia. My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long.
So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens.
Yeah, for sure. But our support of both countries (and others like them) pisses other countries off. IMO we have no business being either world police or world arms market, especially in some of the most volatile quagmires in the world. We make our own enemies because of our supposed friends. These places only have strategic value to us so long as we desire to remain the global hegemon, with tentacles everywhere. Let go of that weird military-industrial-hentai complex, and there's no reason for us to artificially prop up these countries. Especially Israel. The IDF can more than take care of themselves. Taiwan is going to fall sooner or later anyway, but why is that our business? We force our enemies to go on eternal arms races against us because we've shown them we're incapable of minding our own business after WW2. It should not be our responsibility to provide world security using our people, our equipment, our money.
The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu. It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc.
You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way. And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less.
> My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long.
> So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens.
I doubt this is actually as much a cultural issue for the CCP as it was for past emperors. They've long since abandoned that model and instead observed/emulated the successes and failures of the West, including our love of creating enslaved vassal states under the guise of nation-building. Long game, they probably want Taiwan to become another Hong Kong or Tibet. Short term, Taiwan is a useful bargaining chip for them to focus American attention towards, and the mere threat of war there can back the US into our corner while China focuses on domestic infrastructure and continues to leapfrog us across the sectors and years. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake, etc. China knows they'll win by default while we blindly obsess over our colonies, and if they really need to (unlikely), it's a lot cheaper to sink a carrier group than to build and maintain one.
IMO we're their ultimate target, not Taiwan in and of itself. It's like an abusive, manipulative spouse using a kid as collateral against the other parent (us). Once the other parent is taken care of, they're free to do with the kid as they please.
> The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu.
Sorry, by who? Are you saying South Korea will invade Japan if we pull out...? How?
And why is that our problem to solve?
> It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc.
So, kinda like Covid? Eh, fewer Xboxes and new cars for a few years, global GDP repressed for a bit. The world will survive and move on and adapt.
As for nuclear weapons agendas, the US is still the only one to have used them, and still one of the most imperialist countries in the modern era, and the one who tends to create the biggest enemies out of our misadventures. South Korea and Japan and Taiwan aren't going to nuke each other, even if there's historical animosity there. Maybe the Koreas themselves will break out into war, but that was probably an inevitability anyway, unless the removal of US attention and sanctions allows NK to grow and transform.
> You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way.
So let China take over that role for that region of the globe. Let a resurgent Russia have its piece of the pie. Maybe it's time for US power to wane.
> And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less.
This makes no sense. With US involvement, Taiwan and South Korea become proxy wars with China. Without us, they become regional conflicts affecting a few million people, not WW3.
This makes no sense. With US involvement, Taiwan and South Korea become proxy wars with China. Without us, they become regional conflicts affecting a few million people, not WW3.
With US involvement, those conflicts never happen. Hence why they're not happening now.
After a hypothetical Taiwan annexation, Okinawa is next. The PRC have made their claims clear. This is the bloodshed the US is preventing.
You may be fine with the idea of millions dying because you hate America or whatever. I'm not. Also the fact you think I was alluding to the US allies nuking each other following an American withdrawal shows you really don't understand the situation there at all.
Without US involvement, those never would've even been around long enough to become conflicts.
If we had pulled out twenty, thirty years ago, they would've been much smaller conflicts. They only get to these proportions because they have strategic value to US hegemony and so we keep arming them and escalating tensions.
> After a hypothetical Taiwan annexation, Okinawa is next. The PRC have made their claims clear. This is the bloodshed the US is preventing.
Taiwan would've surrendered without much of a fight, long ago, if not for US involvement. Taiwanese presidents would not have gotten so bold if not for their big US brother waving carrier groups around. I spent two decades there witnessed firsthand how the culture and anti-Chinese sentiment grew louder as US-China relations continued to deteriorate and Taiwan felt increasingly safe hiding behind the US.
I get your point, that sometimes MAD can be a deterrent, but in this case, we created those flashpoints ourselves, it's only a matter of time before they destabilize. The longer we wait, the worse it's going to get, as the weapons on both sides continue to get more lethal and resource conflicts escalate. Conversely, Hong Kong and Tibet fell without much of a fight because the Chinese army saw no real resistance.
The US can't prevent bloodshed indefinitely, merely postpone it until some future boiling point. The same thing we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. We suck at nation building and "peace"keeping. We defend places only until they are no longer strategically important to us, and then we let them implode, former allies be damned.
> You may be fine with the idea of millions dying because you hate America or whatever. I'm not.
"Millions dying" is probably an inevitability of the new world order, at this point. What I'm not OK with is the US pretending like we can still control the world the same we did in the post-WW2 years, forevermore, with no repercussion. We can't even govern our own country anymore, and we expect to safeguard the world? Who are we kidding?
> Also the fact you think I was alluding to the US allies nuking each other following an American withdrawal shows you really don't understand the situation there at all.
Well, I did ask. I'm still asking. I really don't know what you're referring to. I think regional spheres of influence, vs a failed US global hegemony, would still be the long-term, big-picture, less-lethal route with fewer overall casualties.
Can I ask what your name means? I thought this was a troll account at first glance from the topic matter and your alias but you look like an earnest poster, hence my confusion.
