Israel in our Politics

[Paine]

A multi ethnic/religious state in Israel would never survive and the violence caused by its creation would be worse than we have now. I believe a two state solution is the best option for peace and stability in the area. Unfortunately, it seems the window of opportunity for this possibility closed with the second intifada...or at least with the disengagement from Gaza and the election of Hamas. There is no one left who supports a two state solution in Israel. The Left in Israel has been whittled down to a nub. With or without support in the west, the Right in Israel will continue to push Palestinians out of the West Bank. The Arab world would largely rather acquiesce to this reality than continue 70+ years of hostile, adversarial relations with its Israeli neighbor. That is reality regardless of the international community's protestations.

No one likes Netanyahu. His popularity in Israel is very low. He survives largely due to the quirkiness of the Israeli parliamentary system and its ability to empower patched together minority coalitions.

There is a considerable amount of discourse regarding Israel's "influence" on American politics. Most of the individuals and organizations pushing this influence are actually Americans, so the more accurate statement might be that Americans are influencing US policy for Israel's interests. Most of AIPAC is funded by Americans. This is not an Israeli organization.

I'm not going to engage in a back and forth discourse on this subject here. I find it a frustrating waste of time. But note - I support the Jewish state of Israel. I think the world needs a "Jewish" State of Israel. I do not support Netanyahu nor the settler movement and I think the Right in Israel is playing a very dangerous game of "winner take all." Time in this area of the world is measured in millennia and who knows what the future holds? One can win every battle and still eventually lose the war. And many of the people spearheading the Right in Israel are incredibly myopic.

The assertion that a multiethnic democratic state couldn’t survive is just that, an assertion. The actual historical argument for why Jewish political supremacy is a prerequisite for stability in that specific territory has never been made convincingly. It’s an assumption that’s baked in and never interrogated.

If the two state window has genuinely closed, then the choice is between one state and permanent apartheid.

 

[Paine]

I’ve been trying to figure out why Iran is supposedly a natural ally of the US?

It’s been 46 years since Iranians took the US Embassy.

It’s been 72 years since the U.S. helped topple the elected government. Which brought on the Shah……

We fucked them…..in 1953 and from 1953-1979.

Why would Iranians (Persians) like the US? Trust the US?

Because that poster thinks that there is some racial aspect that makes Persians more capable of democracy than Arabs.

 

[Paine]

It would help if people would actually look at the pretty conclusive evidence that the whole captivity in Egypt, Exodus, Ten Commandments and Promised Land has little of no basis in reality and certainly shouldn't have the affect in the world that it has today. All the Abrahamic religions have a lot to answer for.

Yeah, the Law of Return is another bogus assumption that liberal Zionists swallow without interrogation.

Should I have the right to return to Ireland, displace the current residents, and seize their land because my ancestors were Ulster Scotts?

 

[StrangePackage]

Yeah, the Right of Return is another bogus assumption that liberal Zionists swallow without interrogation.

Should I have the right to return to Ireland, displace the current residents, and seize their land because my ancestors were Ulster Scotts?

I've never heard the Right of Return as applied to Israelis, only Palestinians.

 

[Paine]

I've never heard the Right of Return as applied to Israelis, only Palestinians.

Misspoke. Meant Law of Return.

 

[StrangePackage]

Misspoke. Meant Law of Return.

But the Law of Return isn't a fiction. It's a reality. It's a law that passed.

If Ireland passed a law saying you could return because of your ancestors, then that's up to them.

Your arguments against the Law of Return seem just as apropos against the asserted Right of Return. Is that likewise a bogus assumption?

 

[Paine]

But the Law of Return isn't a fiction. It's a reality. It's a law that passed.

If Ireland passed a law saying you could return because of your ancestors, then that's up to them.

Your arguments against the Law of Return seem just as apropos against the asserted Right of Return. Is that likewise a bogus assumption?

I never said it was a fiction, just that it was a bogus assumption that liberal Zionists rarely interrogate.

My point about Ireland wasn’t meant to be a narrow one about legality but about the discriminatory asymmetry such a law creates.

Interrogating that asymmetry leads exactly to the conclusion that Palestinians have a right to return to their homeland from which they were displaced within living memory. That’s the difference.

The Law of Return is based on an ancient religious and ethnic connection while the asserted right to return is based on international law and documented, recent dispossession.

 

[sunnyheel]

If the two state window has genuinely closed, then the choice is between one state and permanent apartheid.

While your analysis is trenchant, I think you’re making the mistake of many liberals who still organize under the banner of human rights and the rule of law. The world is now in a brutalist phase that scoffs at such manner of idealism.

The modern version of Zionism (a raw conception of ethnic hierarchy) that the vast majority of Israelis and many American Jews adhere to has no time for such niceties or even pragmatism. It’s pure power enabled by the American military machine.

The plan of the brutalists is ethnic cleansing, carried out by genocide, if necessary. No one should be fooled by these fanciful promotions of ceasefires, a Board of Peace, “staged withdrawal”, etc. That’s like saying Venezuela after Trump’s coup d’etat remains an independent democratic state.

Netanyahu, with the fervid support of a population of ethno-religio-nationalist zealots and the unyielding support of Trump and his billionaire American Zionist benefactors, conceived this plan decades ago. Their job now is to orchestrate a great coverup to make the displacement a neat operation.

I do not think this will achieve anything resembling security and stability, but that’s because I still operate in that idea of the rule of law and that its demise can only bring more chaos and suffering. Their view is the law of the jungle and they best capitalize on their moment of supreme power.

 

[Paine]

While your analysis is trenchant, I think you’re making the mistake of many liberals who still organize under the banner of human rights and the rule of law. The world is now in a brutalist phase that scoffs at such manner of idealism.

The modern version of Zionism (a raw conception of ethnic hierarchy) that the vast majority of Israelis and many American Jews adhere to has no time for such niceties or even pragmatism. It’s pure power enabled by the American military machine.

The plan of the brutalists is ethnic cleansing, carried out by genocide, if necessary. No one should be fooled by these fanciful promotions of ceasefires, a Board of Peace, “staged withdrawal”, etc. That’s like saying Venezuela after Trump’s coup d’etat remains an independent democratic state.

Netanyahu, with the fervid support of a population of ethno-religio-nationalist zealots and the unyielding support of Trump and his billionaire American Zionist benefactors, conceived this plan decades ago. Their job now is to orchestrate a great coverup to make the displacement a neat operation.

I do not think this will achieve anything resembling security and stability, but that’s because I still operate in that idea of the rule of law and that its demise can only bring more chaos and suffering. Their view is the law of the jungle and they best capitalize on their moment of supreme power.

I don’t really disagree with your conclusions. I am a liberal in terms of my beliefs in universal human rights, but I’m also fully aware that the Israeli far right is a fascist project engaged in a genocide.

As you say, they only understand power. Fortunately the U.S. has the ability to exercise that power by nature of our security relationship with Israel. They rely on us more than any other nation.

The South African apartheid regime wasn’t moved by human rights arguments either. But sanctions and international isolation made the project materially unsustainable. The brutalist logic has limits when the material conditions change.

Part of the path to international isolation of Israel runs through convincing liberals, who still believe in human rights and international law, that Israel, as it currently exists, is fundamentally incompatible with those values.

 

[finesse]

I don’t really disagree with your conclusions. I am a liberal in terms of my beliefs in universal human rights, but I’m also fully aware that the Israeli far right is a fascist project engaged in a genocide.

As you say, they only understand power. Fortunately the U.S. has the ability to exercise that power by nature of our security relationship with Israel. They rely on us more than any other nation.

The South African apartheid regime wasn’t moved by human rights arguments either. But sanctions and international isolation made the project materially unsustainable. The brutalist logic has limits when the material conditions change.

Part of the path to international isolation of Israel runs through convincing liberals, who still believe in human rights and international law, that Israel, as it exists, is fundamentally incompatible with those values.

Liberals don't control the money going to them nearly as much as the conservatives do and sure have never been behind the degree of support we've given them as part of the Security Council in the UN.

 

[Paine]

Liberals don't control the money going to them nearly as much as the conservatives do and sure have never been behind the degree of support we've given them as part of the Security Council in the UN.

Has this been true until relatively recently? Democratic politicians have been more likely to vote against military aid to Israel since 10/7, but a sizeable liberal Zionist contingent remains in the party, including the Senate and House minority leaders. And siding with Israel at the UN has been a thoroughly bipartisan project for decades.

 

[finesse]

Has this been true until relatively recently? Democratic politicians have been more likely to vote against military aid to Israel since 10/7, but a sizeable liberal Zionist contingent remains in the party, including the Senate and House minority leaders. And siding with Israel at the UN has been a thoroughly bipartisan project for decades.

We had remained in a position of relative neutrality until Nixon sided with Israel in the Yom Kippur War which got us our first oil embargo and introduced us to gas lines. Carter took active steps to heal the breaches in the ME which has kept Egypt out of the most part of the problem to this day. I don't think either Clinton or Obama catered to Israel quite to the extent that Reagan , Bush, Shrub or His Orangeness has. I'd say you're right that we've given bipartisan support but given the make up Congresses under Carter, Clinton and Obama, I don't think you can claim that the Democrats ever had the power to change course. I think you need to blame this more on money and religion and those willing to use both.

Paraphrasing Shaw's remark about the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland to fit he ME. "It's too bad they're not heathen so they could live together like Christians." Religion is a poison to society and monotheism the most dangerous type.

 

[MendotoManteo]

I’ve been trying to figure out why Iran is supposedly a natural ally of the US?

It’s been 46 years since Iranians took the US Embassy.

It’s been 72 years since the U.S. helped topple the elected government. Which brought on the Shah……

We fucked them…..in 1953 and from 1953-1979.

Why would Iranians (Persians) like the US? Trust the US?

Yes, you're absolutely correct. That boat has shipped.

I probably didn't make a convincing case in my prior post, but what I meant is this:

From a strategic standpoint, allying with Iran would have been much more beneficial to us than Saudi Arabia, for instance. They have a more capable military. The Saudis have more oil reserves but not enough to justify allying with them over Iran.

Granted, the exact nature of the oil reserves may have not been known during the times you speak of.

And perhaps the notion that pan-Arabism would be better makes sense. But, as far as I can tell, the Arab states don't really act in unison with one another. They seem like trying to herd cats because they all have different internal interests and concerns. Whereas, with Iran, you're just dealing with one state as opposed to a dozen or so.

Just my two cents, and I could certainly be wrong.

 

[MendotoManteo]

What policies or characteristics would make the “Jewish State of Israel” Jewish?

P5 may be an anti-Semite.

 

[Paine]

We had remained in a position of relative neutrality until Nixon sided with Israel in the Yom Kippur War which got us our first oil embargo and introduced us to gas lines. Carter took active steps to heal the breaches in the ME which has kept Egypt out of the most part of the problem to this day. I don't think either Clinton or Obama catered to Israel quite to the extent that Reagan , Bush, Shrub or His Orangeness has. I'd say you're right that we've given bipartisan support but given the make up Congresses under Carter, Clinton and Obama, I don't think you can claim that the Democrats ever had the power to change course. I think you need to blame this more on money and religion and those willing to use both.

Paraphrasing Shaw's remark about the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland to fit he ME. "It's too bad they're not heathen so they could live together like Christians." Religion is a poison to society and monotheism the most dangerous type.

No doubt Republicans are more zealous in their support, but this is a pattern that predates Nixon entirely. IIRC, Truman recognized Israel in 1948 over the objections of his own State Department, and LBJ deepened the military relationship after 1967 without pressuring Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Carter, Clinton, and Obama all had substantial Democratic congressional majorities at various points and none of them used that leverage to condition aid to Israel based on compliance with international law.

The Sanders resolutions to block weapons transfers were defeated with significant Democratic votes during the Biden admin, and Biden approved $14.1 billion in emergency military aid after 10/7.

Blaming money is accurate as far as it goes but it describes the mechanism without addressing who accepted the money and cast the votes. Democratic politicians made those choices repeatedly when they had the power to choose differently.

AIPAC explicitly targets and funds Democrats. Jeffries received a million dollars from them. The pro-Israel donor network is bipartisan by design because maintaining the consensus across both parties is the whole strategy.

 

[MendotoManteo]

Your interchanging of "Jewish person" and "Israel" is troubling.

Please stop.

 

[farce©]

P5 may be an anti-Semite.

Huh?

 

[MendotoManteo]

Huh?

Your question to him was about what is "Jewishness."

He basically implied in another post that I'm an anti-Semite.

It was only natural to turn the tables with an equally absurd claim.