How are those guys not treated as some hostile foreign power and have half their embassy staff expelled is beyond me.
Israelis are just doing what their version of Judaism is telling them to do, it's the neocon Zionists in the US that finance it that are the real danger. It isn't just that they don't care about Palestinian lives, they don't care about Israeli lives, either. They care about Israeli contracts.
Allies influencing other allies is part of the process. Don't just think that it is Israel doing it in America. America is also doing similar actions in other countries where they want to win favour.
Yes? This happens periodically when someone is caught doing something outside of normal diplomatic duties.
Americans’ views of the Israeli people are broadly positive [1].
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/30/how-ameri... 64%
"The survey puts numbers on trends that have become increasingly apparent: Cable news viewers are more supportive of Israel’s war effort, less likely to think Israel is committing war crimes, and less interested in the war in general. People who get their news primarily from social media, YouTube, or podcasts, by contrast, generally side with the Palestinians, believe Israel is committing war crimes and genocide, and consider the issue of significant importance.
WE OFTEN HEAR people say that “Twitter isn’t real life” or that “Nobody watches cable news,” but the survey asked where people get most of their news, asking them to pick just one, and cable and social media won out. Most Americans do in fact get their news either primarily from cable (42 percent) or social media like TikTok, Instagram, or another platform (18 percent). A third of people said they get their news from YouTube or podcasts, with 13 percent saying they got most of their news that way.
Asked generally where folks got their news on a day-to-day basis, with a “check all that apply” option, it’s even more clear how dominant cable (55 percent), social media (38 percent), and podcasts/YouTube (34) are compared to print, at 21 percent. (I read the survey as using “print” as a stand-in for any text-based media, whether digital like The Intercept or on actual printed paper.) "
Even the polls you referenced show how stark the contrast between young and old americans are on this topic. Some of the older americans barely have any education on this topic but just stick with the zionist propaganda they were fed when they were younger, they couldn't even locate Israel/Palestine on a map.
Most of the older christian zealots don't have the critical thinking skills or capacity to change their mind on the topic because their indoctrination is so thorough that they'd rather deny reality than face the facts. Not surprising considering they grew up on a mantra that the so called "chosen" people can do no wrong.
I think if those christians who voted favorably had seen how israelis spit[3] on christians and assault[4][5] christians, their opinions would change swiftly, but the news channels they consume won't feed them this reality because consent needs to be manufactured.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[1] https://theintercept.com/2024/04/30/gaza-israel-palestine-ca...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJNfKTO7XK8
Everyone has a snippy argument for why opioid opinion is wrong. I’m not saying, in this case, that the majority is correct. (Nor the inverse.) Just that it is the reason Israel enjoys such support here.
(Would also note that both sides fervently believe the media is conspiring against them.)
So why did you not give your argument? I've at least put in the work to provide evidence & arguments for my thesis, you on the other hand are just saying handwavy stuff.
>I’m not saying, in this case, that the majority is correct. (Nor the inverse.) Just that it is the reason Israel enjoys such support here.
Yes and I've explained how that is largely a product of manufactured consent and there is plenty of evidence for that. I've only provided a fraction of the available evidence here supporting that thesis.
>(Would also note that both sides fervently believe the media is conspiring against them.)
That's just completely asinine framing, at least critique the article, the argument or the data instead of making my position out to be something conspiratorial
Israel seems to only extend that sort of courtesy to a part of its citizenry, but when you remember that the "stable" countries in the region are all more-or-less absolute monarchies, it becomes obvious why the US is willing to at least work with Israel.
There have been over 100 Arabs in the Israeli parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Kn...
So I challenge you to find 1 law that treats Jews and Arab citizens differently in Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Civil_...
It's the same as the US's treatment of African Americans for decades; legally they have the same rights but the reality of how they get treated by their government is much different. Just pointing out "Aha! They are equal under law!" is misleading and tries to shut the issue down
You're mixing up two different things. Arab Israelis (as Israel calls them) are Israeli citizens. They have the same rights as any Israeli citizen.
Freedom of movement to and from the Gaza strip is of Gazans, who are not Israeli citizens, and they indeed don't have the same rights in Israel as Israeli citizens.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/iraq/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/lebanon/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/israel/freedom-world/2024
There is nothing undemocratic about this at all. This is what international law mandates. Israel is prohibited from annexing this territory by said international law. When Israel annexed other occupied territory and gave residents rights (The Golan Heights) the international community refused to accept that.
You can ask why these territories are in this status for this length of time. Part of the reason is that the country it was occupied from, Jordan, does not want it back. Another part is that the Palestinians that live there don't really want this resolved either (at least some really large portion of them). Another part are other external interests that don't want to see this resolved.
The total physical occupation of Germany lasted 11 years. The final status of Germany was only determined in 1990 in the 2+4 agreement. That's a 45 year period. The US still has bases in Germany.
The demand, not "ask", is that Israel end the Occupation.
It's incredible how persistently you miss the point.
What people are asking Israel to do is let Palestinians have a say in their own affairs. That can be done _either_ by letting the Palestinian government meaningfully control Palestine (as the West German government did relatively soon after the war ended), _or_ by letting Palestinians have a say in the Israeli government that rules over them (one state solution).
I'm being called a liar for pointing out that in general people living in occupied territories do not have the rights of the citizens of the occupier, which is the exact situation here, and for which Israel is labelled as an "Apartheid State", since there's no Apartheid in Israel proper, only supposedly in said occupied territories.
I think you're factually wrong on your "What people are asking" statement. Different people are asking different things. However, you can totally ask that question as an individual and we can discuss it.
Palestinians do have a say in their own affairs. But you're saying "letting the Palestinian government meaningfully control Palestine". When you say Palestine do you mean the west bank? Would you agree that in Gaza Israeli did let the Palestinians "meaningfully control Gaza"? What was the outcome of that? What do you propose can be done differently in the west bank for example? What level of say/control do you feel would balance Israel's security needs with the Palestinian's need to have a say/meaningful control? Let's talk specifics.
By the way, I'm totally not an expert in post WW-II Germany, I don't really know if we can apply the same methods or not: https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/german...
There was West Germany and East Germany. There was "denazification" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification (e.g. promoting of Nazi ideas had a death penalty under the occupation, do you think that'll fly with Israel vs. Palestinians vs. the world?). There were war crime trials for top level Nazis.
EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that when the west bank was occupied by Israel in 1967 it was considered to be part of Jordan and Jordan didn't give up that claim until their peace agreement with Israel. But if your point is that Israel should have at that point given the people living in this area a measure of autonomy to run most aspects of their lives I think I can agree. There was definitely some self governing, e.g. at the city level. I think the demand was of Israel to return this to Jordan at that point in time and Israel refused since it meant there would be large Arab armies 10 minute tank drive from Tel-Aviv. (e.g.). I wasn't around in 1967 and I haven't studied that period in detail.
No.
> What was the outcome of that?
Impossible to say because it has never happened.
It is a lot different from any of those examples, mainly because the U.S. didn’t annex the parts of those countries it cared about (see East Jerusalem), didn’t start moving its own people to the rest of the territory carving it up like Swiss cheese, didn’t prevent people from going and coming, didn’t heavily restrict trade between those countries and their neighbors, etc.
So while indeed they were militarily occupied, the degree of functional civilian control by the democratically elected governments were far greater than that enjoyed in Palestine by the PA or by Hamas.
I agree that the situation in Puerto Rico is undemocratic but again, it’s not nearly as egregious for lots of reasons.
> This is what international law mandates. Israel is prohibited from annexing this territory by said international law. When Israel annexed other occupied territory and gave residents rights (The Golan Heights) the international community refused to accept that.
It is laughable to claim the reason for anything Israel does is “international law” when they flaunt it so cavalierly. Really, they didn’t mind the international legal implications of annexing East Jerusalem or building settlements in the West Bank, but the reason they refuse to annex the rest of it and give people citizenship is because of international law?
That’s clearly not the case. They have taken the parts they care about either by annexation or pseudo-annexation (settlements). The reason they don’t want to annex the rest is because they don’t want Arabs to be nearly half their citizens (annexing it without granting citizenship would be too egregious to ignore in the eyes of the rest of the world) and because there’s nothing there that they want. Expect this to change if the trend of Israel becoming more and more right wing continues.
I also think my other point stands that if Israel did annex the West Bank and/or Gaza and give Palestinians equal rights, as it did in Jerusalem or the Golan Heights that would not be viewed as an acceptable solution. The reason I raise this is because criticism is levelled at Israel for not doing that. The Palestinians would not consider this to resolve the conflict and neither would anyone else, they say exactly what you're saying here. I'm not saying the reason Israel isn't doing it is international law but surely the lack of acceptance from anyone to this solution is part of that thought process (and also the question of maintaining Jewish majority in Israel).
Palestinians did get some control, they got total control of Gaza in 2005, partial control earlier of Gaza and the West Bank as part of the Oslo accords.
I also want to be clear that I'm opposed to Israeli settlement in the west bank. I don't think that's helpful. I also don't think it's the real problem here. The legal status of the west bank in Israeli law is still occupied territory, there hasn't been any formal annexation.
One thing I can say as to the annexation/reunification of Jerusalem is that Israel is doing a much better job than Jordan did in maintaining and protecting the rights of all religions to have access to their holy sites. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control Jews could not access it at all and I think Christians also less than today. So I think Israel is a reasonable guardian of this place and all its citizens and visitors are treated fairly. The final status of Jerusalem would presumably be something agreed to as part of the (maybe never) peace agreement. I think between leaving it "occupied" and the current status the current status is/was the better option for everyone.
There are voices by the way in the right wing of Israel calling for annexation and granting of citizenship.
I don't think Israel is "flaunting" international law more so than most of the rest of the world. It just happens to be in an unsolvable mess of a situation. Israel and Israelis really wanted this resolved in the peace process of the early 90's and were willing to go a long way towards what Palestinians were asking for, but didn't really meet a partner. So to blame this solely on Israel, which is admittedly to some degree in a position of power, but is also very vulnerable, is not fair. I would say at least half the blame is on the Palestinians.
And now... Iraq?! you must be joking or cynic
Imagine if in the last century, the billions of refugees and descendants of refugees of the world, would all still be kept as ethernal refugees.
The nations of the world are a condescending bunch. Implying that the Palestinians are not to be treated as equals to Germans, Ukrainians, etc.,
More directly: apartheid "democracy" > monarchy?
For what it's worth, the US has also tried to work a two-state solution over the last 30 years with various degrees of vigor. That became much harder to accomplish when the Gaza Strip decided to elect Hamas to lead its government in 2006-07.
It became much harder when the Israeli hard Right murdered Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and then took over the Israeli government with Netanyahu's election in 1996.
Both fairly explicitly in reaction against the idea of ever accepting a Palestinian State.
The Hamas suicide bombings in 1994 were in response to the massacre committed by Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein in February. The first bombing of the "wave" happened in April.
[1]
> This was the first suicide bombing attack to be carried out by Palestinian militants against Israeli civilians in Israel, and was carried out in retaliation for the killing by a settler of 29 Muslims while they were at prayer in the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron on 25 February.
> I.e. the root cause of this was Palestinians, not Israelis.
I.e. This is grossly disingenuous.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afula_Bus_suicide_bombing
Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin condemned the attack, describing Goldstein as a "degenerate murderer" and "a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism" - which is important.
Agree that it is important. What is even more strange is that Yitzhak Rabin himself was assassinated by a Zionist Terrorist. There were many deals and processes and talks, Almost all of them put Israel front and centre, even Oslo accords for instance. But as claimed by Bibi, Zionist Terrorists tried everything to thwart it. And conveniently placed the blame on Palestinians. It was Zionist Terrorists who brought terrorism as we know today to the middle east. It was them who killed in cold blood, the mediator who presented the plan, Count Folke Bernadotte. But all the blame is on Palestinians, while the Terrorists derailed any hope for peaceful coexistence, and continue to do so.
I can't really debate your other statements because it's pretty short of facts. I seriously doubt the truth of "zionism brought terrorism to the middle east" as there were e.g. massacres of Jews in the region (Hebron, or Tsfat) that predate zionism.
And sure, Lehi were terrorists, I'm not super familiar with the Bernadotte story but that's well into the conflict, not by any means that start of it.
From my perspective it was the Palestinians, through Hamas, that derailed the Oslo accords. By any measure you can choose, the Palestinian violent opposition to peace eclipsed the Israeli one. Also while Israel has a government with the ability to enforce policy, the Palestinians never had any centralized authority that talks for all of them. While Israel was putting extreme right activists in detention with no trial, the Palestinians were letting Hamas out of their jails with a "revolving door".
Which Israel can't be blamed for enough.
Let's just leave this place filled with insurgents without any coordination with the authority. I wonder what will happen.
What do you mean at least work with Israel? The US is propping up Israel and without that ally Israel would probably implode. What’s messed up is how disrespectful Israel and some of their politicians are to US and their citizens. One thing I like about Israel is that they have a variety of oppinions and schools of thought. What we’re currently seeing is coming from the radical right wing and those atrocities will unfortunately stain Israelis of all types. Hope they do at the next elections.
Almost all of the support and protection they've received from the US since October has been mainly to keep leverage on Netanyahu and to keep the war from spreading across the Middle East. For example, if Iran's missiles had bombarded Tel Aviv, you're probably going to see Israel bombarding Tehran, which could pull in Iraq, etc., and Israel has yet to lose a fight against its regional neighbors.
They don't need the US to prop them up economically or militarily, which should bring about a conversation about support come next budget, but I doubt it.
I too would like to see a more moderate group in charge.
Neither do the North Koreans [1][2]? (Caveats [3][4].)
America dropping Israel simply means it finds a new supplier. Russia is out of the picture, given its dependence on Iran, but China and India would be more than willing to supply.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army_Air_For...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_North_Korea
Why would Israel bombing Tehran pull in Iraq? Iraq and Iran have never been friends.
Wishful thinking, regardless of which elections your talking about. In the US, both sides are working hard to prop up Israel. In Israel before October, Netanyahu was on trial for fraud, bribery and breach of trust. Who's even talking about that anymore? Now he gets to be a war Prime Minister.
All most people know is the spin they've gotten from the media and politicians. Both tend to be very pro Israel in the US. That's changed a little recently, but not much.
It's bipartisan enough that I don't believe the parties will be able to come to an agreement to enact any meaningful change. This goes beyond the Republican vs. Democrat issues so it's much more difficult to make this a partisan issue to rally mass support from either party.