Why the US supports Israel?

[Bombay]

I know this question has been asked many times, but what are your opinions?

Does USA support Israel because there are so many jews "in control"?
Or does USA benefit from Israel in some way? So who is really pulling the strings, USA or Israel?

[freepalestine]

what's your opinion,bombay??

[The Red Next Door]

It goes both ways, when it comes to pulling the strings. but USA support Israel because of their sympathy for the Jews , because of what Nazi Germany and their French, Dutch, Italian, etc counterparts did. Also they are stinking wealthy too. also they are good allies against the fifthly sand %&%$# and us red who love them. someone please correct me, if i am wrong. Also, I am speaking from both government points of views, so don't say i am being racist.

I also want to point out that, it is ironic that the Israelis practice the same stuff, the Nazis did.

[Bombay]

what's your opinion,bombay??

To be 100% honest I'm not sure. I have never really believed in the Israel lobby theory, but at the same time I can't say how exactly does the US benefit by supporting Israel. I'm asking because I simply want to know the truth.

[RadioRaheem84]

The US supports nearly every country in the Middle East that co-tails to it's economic policy. it just doesn't openly state this. Israel just looks more "democratic" in the press and thus is easier to be openly supportive of. Israel is a good trading partner and is seen as a major ally in the Middle East against groups or states hostile to US foreign policy.
Americans tend to support Israel because of Biblical reasons or they believe that they're the only democracy in the Middle East, completely neglecting the situation of the Palestinians, whom they view as parasites. Ironically, a lot of middle Eastern nations view them as such too, Syria, Egypt and Jordon totally shut their borders on them as well.

[Robocommie]

Israel serves as a geo-strategic "foot in the door" for the Middle East. It's a way to get involved and continually stay involved in Middle Eastern politics, that doesn't rely on Saudi Arabia's good graces.

[jake williams]

There's a series of interrelated reasons. Israel, Canada, South Africa and the United States share a common history of being (now with the exception of South Africa) European settler colonial states. While a lot of early Zionists existed on a spectrum from a religious-inspired utopian socialism to a self-described Bolshevism, a political-economic relationship between the leadership of the Israeli state, and American imperialism, led to the entrenchment of Israel as a geostrategic ally, and over the last few decades the effective abolition of "socialist Zionism", or for that matter, the Israeli Labour party. Its economy and state have become highly militarized, and are now utterly dependent on the US military industrial complex for their basic existence.

The Middle East, historically led by Egypt, Iraq and Syria, with Iran at the border, have over the last century (at least) been major centres of anti-imperialist and anti-colonial sentiment and action. During the mid-20th century, with Nasser and the early Ba'ath Parties, this took on a secularist form, with some elements close to the Soviet Union. This led to an alliance on the part of the United States with, on one hand, secular states (states mind you, not nations) like Israel, Turkey, the Shah's Iran and post-Nasser Egypt, and on the other, Islamic fundamentalists, in Egypt, in Palestine, in the Gulf monarchies, and of course, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's a curious contradiction, but that's what happened.

The trouble is, a lot of these Islamist movements took on a lot of the wishes of the wider population, which has an anti-imperialist historical memory, even if a lot of the movements originated with substantial Western support, whether we're talking about the Afghan mujahedeen or Hamas. Israel, on the other hand, has no such anti-imperialist or anti-colonial sentiment, even in the general population, because their basic livelihood, not to mention national identity, is imperialism and colonialism as such.

[howblackisyourflag]

Israel is a client-state of the US, which gives them a strategic foothold in the middle east which contains a massive amount of the worlds wealth in oil.

US oil corporations have also benefitted massively from this.

It also subsidizes Israels military with billions of dollars every year, which then is spent on american weapons, which works out as a boon to american weapons manufacturers, so they make sure their US politicians in their districts support Israel.

[which doctor]

Israel just looks more "democratic" in the press and thus is easier to be openly supportive of.
:lol: Israel doesn't just 'look' more democratic, it actually is more democratic. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the reality is opposite that of what the bourgeois press describes. And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:, and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.

[RadioRaheem84]

:lol: Israel doesn't just 'look' more democratic, it actually is more democratic. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the reality is opposite that of what the bourgeois press describes. And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:, and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.

Yes, I agree it is a far more social democratic nation than most of the Middle East but I was mainly referring to its policy against the Palestinians. If you combine them into the mix, Israel is lacking.

[howblackisyourflag]

:lol: Israel doesn't just 'look' more democratic, it actually is more democratic. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the reality is opposite that of what the bourgeois press describes. And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:, and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.

Theres not many nice things you can see about the arab countries, but many of them are dictatorships that are not supported by the people.

Also, try telling palestinians in the west bank its democratic when the israeli settlers living there illegaly get a vote and they dont.

Or when the arab political parties in israel are banned before the last election.

Dont kid yourself, if you are a non jew in a jewish state you dont have the full amount of rights an israeli jew has, the same way some muslim states discriminate against non-muslims.

Just because a lot of israelis adopted the same social norms as people in western countries did doesnt make them democratic.

[Obzervi]

Why? Because of evangelical nutjobs who believe that Israel's existence is fulfilling biblical prophecy and will play a fundamental role in bringing about the apocalypse. The US does not benefit from its relationship with Israel, but its no secret that Israel benefits immensely. Israel receives more foreign aid from the US than all other countries combined. I find it ironic that by oppressing the Palestinians and displacing them the Israelis today share many traits with the Nazis of the past.

[Red Saxon]

Religious, economic, military, and political ties.

[Antifa94]

Jews do not control the government you twat, and we most certainly are not stinking rich.
I'm glad to see that you rehearse arguments used by Nazis in their anti-capitalist/semitic rhetoric.
I am staunchly anti-zionist, but comments denigrating JEWS will not be accepted.

[9]

USA support Israel because of their sympathy for the Jews , because of what Nazi Germany and their French, Dutch, Italian, etc counterparts did.

This is an absolute lie. When Jews were being persecuted by the Nazis, when they were being interned in concentration camps, the US ruling class had no sympathy for them - on the contrary, the US ruling class (with the support of the Zionists, incidentally) closed US borders to Jewish immigrants; on more than one occasion, ships full of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution arrived in the US and were turned back, their passengers ending up in the concentration camps. And for two decades after the genocide, it was scarcely ever even mentioned in the US. Until, of course, it became strategically advantageous to the US ruling class to ally itself with the state of Israel - somewhere around the time of the Six Day War in 1967, subsequent to which the holocaust became an enormously powerful propaganda tool. Contrast this to the Porajmos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos), which many here have probably never even heard of because the ruling class has no use for it.

Point is, US support for Israel has absolutely nothing to do with sympathy and the idea that a bourgeois state - let alone the most powerful imperialist state in the world - acts according to human compassion is demonstrative of a complete lack of anything even resembling a Marxist approach.


Israel, however, is not a "US client state" either, as someone else here has claimed; it is an imperialist state in its own right, with its own national bourgeoisie which has interests independent of those of the US ruling class. Obviously these interests presently overlap to a degree as the two states are allied. Israel is a useful ally to the US due to the geostrategic significance of Israel's location in the Middle East - linking up Africa, Europe, and Asia:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5055/israel.png


And of course there are other things, such as the supply of Israeli commandos to police the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which indicate that the alliance between Israel and the US is certainly not solely to the advantage of Israel. I think, however, tensions are increasing within the relationship between the ruling classes of these two states.

[9]

Jews do not control the government you twat, and we most certainly are not stinking rich.

Some certainly are. Some are working class.


I'm glad to see that you rehearse arguments used by Nazis in their anti-capitalist/semitic rhetoric.
I am staunchly anti-zionist, but comments denigrating JEWS will not be accepted.I think it is not that hard to understand, though, how someone could have this impression, and it certainly doesn't mean they are a Nazi or even necessarily that they are anti-Semitic. It simply means they have a wrong impression, and it should be corrected.

[gorillafuck]

This is an absolute lie. When Jews were being persecuted by the Nazis, when they were being interned in concentration camps, the US ruling class had no sympathy for them - on the contrary, the US ruling class (with the support of the Zionists, incidentally) closed US borders to Jewish immigrants; on more than one occasion, ships full of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution arrived in the US and were turned back, their passengers ending up in the concentration camps.
I've never heard that, source?

[AK]

Because otherwise the terrorists win.

[9]

I've never heard that, source?

You can find it in Lenni Brenner's "Zionism in the Age of Dictators", which is available in its entirety online.

[Antifa94]

Source, Zeekloid? The fact that auschwitz wasn't bombed upon procuring aerial photographs of it, the quota and restrictions on allowing Jews into the country, the rabid influence of Father Coughlin etc.
@9 Thank you for your sophisticated response. I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear anything involving Jews that can be interpreted as anti-semitic.
Yes there are most certainly wealthy Jews. There are petit-bourgeois Jews like me. And then there are proletarian jews ( the KPD 1918-1933 comes to mind).

[Chambered Word]

:lol: Israel doesn't just 'look' more democratic, it actually is more democratic. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the reality is opposite that of what the bourgeois press describes. And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:, and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.

This is your excuse for imperialism? Really? 'Israeli culture' also thinks it's just fine to shoot pregnant Palestinian mothers because they're Palestinian. Many people there have no qualms with killing or torturing them just because of their birthplace, language and religion. Your analysis is not only flawed when it stands up to its own logical conclusion, it's thoroughly liberal and non-Marxist.

[empiredestoryer]

israel is a nazi state if hitler was alive today its the type of place hed love to live

[TheSultan]

In my opinion, Israel is just America's "foot in the door" in the Middle East, America supplies them with weapons, money etc. without us they would be nothing. They are simply a parasite that does us no benefit whatsoever.

[Bombay]

This is offtopic but is there a good website where I can see a list of all the atrocities of Israel?

[Red Saxon]

This is your excuse for imperialism? Really? 'Israeli culture' also thinks it's just fine to shoot pregnant Palestinian mothers because they're Palestinian.Might I add that the Palestinians aren't helping the situation by launching rockets into the Negev.

[Chambered Word]

Might I add that the Palestinians aren't helping the situation by launching rockets into the Negev.

I'm pretty sure it's Hamas who was launching rockets, not many of us see them as a potential force for national liberation (anymore). None of this absolves Israel of the blame it deserves regardless and it does not change the fact that Israel is an arm of US imperialism, nor the fact that the state is committing genocide and destroying homes in Palestine.

[jake williams]

I'm pretty sure it's Hamas who was launching rockets, not many of us see them as a potential force for national liberation (anymore). None of this absolves Israel of the blame it deserves regardless and it does not change the fact that Israel is an arm of US imperialism, nor the fact that the state is committing genocide and destroying homes in Palestine.
For what it's worth, many of the rockets are not launched by Hamas (if when we mean Hamas we're talking about the governing party in Gaza), and in fact Hamas regularly prevents rocket firings and other similar activities. I don't have sources on hand, and it's not reported a lot, at least in English, but it happens quite a bit.

[9]

I've never heard that, source?
You can find it in Lenni Brenner's "Zionism in the Age of Dictators", which is available in its entirety online.

It is also touched upon here (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch06.htm) in terms of the role the Zionists played in this (it is very brief, but it gives a taste; I can't be bothered to dig through Brenner's book in order to find you a citation, but here (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm) is a link to that text and here (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/index.htm) is another of his works, if you would like to look for yourself).


And because I somehow managed not to see this post until now:


:lol: Israel doesn't just 'look' more democratic, it actually is more democratic. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the reality is opposite that of what the bourgeois press describes. And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:, and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.

Homosexuality between two white Jews perhaps. However, if a Muslim were to become romantically involved with a white Jewish woman in Israel, he probably would be murdered in public by her brothers and/or uncles, if he wasn't bludgeoned to death by her father first.

[Devrim]

And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:,

I think that it is quite telling that nobody has even bothered to challenge this. I think it is probably because those who are criticising 'Which Doctor' actually share pretty much the same core beliefs.

Anyway, it is just blatantly untrue. If we look at the countries surrounding Israel, which are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, none of them hang people for being gay. In Lebanon to be gay is technically illegal, but there is no punishment for the crime, In Syria it is illegal and you can be imprisoned for up to three years, but in reality the sentences are virtually always suspended, In Jordan homosexuality is legal and has been so for longer than it has been in Israel, and in Egypt it is not technically illegal, so actually, far from people in the surrounding countries 'hanging gays', as WD's post suggested, homosexuality is rarely even legally punished in them.

It is not really the way that people in the West like to see the 'Muslim world' though. It doesn't fit at all with their stereotypes.

Devrim

[Robocommie]

I think that it is quite telling that nobody has even bothered to challenge this. I think it is probably because those who are criticising 'Which Doctor' actually share pretty much the same core beliefs.

I thanked your post because overall what you said was helpful and informative, however I do want to point out that it's really unfair to conjecture so boldly on the motivations for leaving that bit unchallenged. It's just as possible that people don't actually know the laws on homosexuality in the Middle East and so they didn't want to conjecture blindly.

[Palingenisis]

It is not really the way that people in the West like to see the 'Muslim world' though. It doesn't fit at all with their stereotypes.

Devrim

Thanks. Its always good to get a view of things from people who have been on the ground or who have talked to others who have.

What about pornography and prostitution in the "Muslim world"? Both exist on a pretty vast scale in Israel....Which I dont consider a good thing at all...What is the story with the rest of the region?

[Devrim]

I thanked your post because overall what you said was helpful and informative, however I do want to point out that it's really unfair to conjecture so boldly on the motivations for leaving that bit unchallenged. It's just as possible that people don't actually know the laws on homosexuality in the Middle East and so they didn't want to conjecture blindly.

I said 'probably', not definitely. It is my impression of it. If one wanted to know the laws about homosexuality in the Middle East, it is pretty easy to check in the days of the internet. I checked the exact legal status before posting. I did, however, know that none of them had the death penalty for homosexuality. I think that basically people have the same idea as WD that it is pretty much a backward barbarous place, and they expect things like that to be true.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

I said 'probably', not definitely. It is my impression of it. If one wanted to know the laws about homosexuality in the Middle East, it is pretty easy to check in the days of the internet. I checked the exact legal status before posting. I did, however, know that none of them had the death penalty for homosexuality. I think that basically people have the same idea as WD that it is pretty much a backward barbarous place, and they expect things like that to be true.

Devrim

Actually my impression was that the middle east is in general a pretty mixed bag...Though Saudai Arabia and Kuwait do seem a bit psycho.

[Devrim]

Thanks. Its always good to get a view of things from people who have been on the ground or who have talked to others who have.

What about pornography and prostitution in the "Muslim world"? Both exist on a pretty vast scale in Israel....Which I dont consider a good thing at all...What is the story with the rest of the region?

I don't know that much about prostitution. I have spent time in gay bars in Egypt, but not in brothels. Of the places where I have lived (Lebanon and Turkey), prostitution is legal in both of them, which of course tends to mean that conditions are better for sex workers than in countries where prostitution is illegal like the US, or semi illegal like the UK and Ireland.

Pornography is sort of illegal in Lebanon, but pretty much easily available. Ankara used to be full of porno cinemas when I started livinghere, but the current government has cracked down on it heavily.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

. Of the places where I have lived (Lebanon and Turkey), prostitution is legal in both of them, which of course tends to mean that conditions are better for sex workers than in countries where prostitution is illegal like the US, or semi illegal like the UK and Ireland.

Homosexuality both in the occupied six counties and the Free State were illegal until the 1990s here. Abortion is illegal still in both parts of Ireland. Divorce was illegal in the 26 counties until the 1990s which is pretty mad when you think about.

Does Turkey count though as the middle east? Is not part of Europe? Hasnt it been quiet militantly secularist since Attaturk?

Arent the Lebanon and Turkey the most "liberal" countries in the "Muslim" world?

[GreenCommunism]

anyway, it is just blatantly untrue. If we look at the countries surrounding Israel, which are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, none of them hang people for being gay. In Lebanon to be gay is technically illegal, but there is no punishment for the crime, In Syria it is illegal and you can be imprisoned for up to three years, but in reality the sentences are virtually always suspended, In Jordan homosexuality is legal and has been so for longer than it has been in Israel, and in Egypt it is not technically illegal, so actually, far from people in the surrounding countries 'hanging gays', as WD's post suggested, homosexuality is rarely even legally punished in them.

thank you very much for this post. by the way i think israel allows openly gay men in the military, so in that regard there are more rights for homosexuals than in the united states.

also i don't think it is fair to compare israel to the nazis, there are no einsatzgruppen and even less gas chambers. there are crimes against humanity but the wars that israel go through do not have summary executions, though there are often civilian casualties.

muslim and jews cannot intermarry but one can go through conversion, and those kind of laws were present in canada for a long time.

there are rabbinical opposition to homosexuality in israel, just like the usa, but i think hate crimes are taken seriously by the government. that would probably be something that are better when it comes to gay right in surrouding muslim countries.

as for the main topics, i don't know why israel is still funded by the usa, perhaps to piss off iran. but the main rational at the time seemed to be fight nasser and his pan-arab ideology. i don't know if the united states started funding israel before or after though.

[9]

I think that it is quite telling that nobody has even bothered to challenge this. I think it is probably because those who are criticising 'Which Doctor' actually share pretty much the same core beliefs.

[...]

It is not really the way that people in the West like to see the 'Muslim world' though. It doesn't fit at all with their stereotypes.



If one wanted to know the laws about homosexuality in the Middle East, it is pretty easy to check in the days of the internet. I checked the exact legal status before posting. I did, however, know that none of them had the death penalty for homosexuality. I think that basically people have the same idea as WD that it is pretty much a backward barbarous place, and they expect things like that to be true.


which doctor's comment is pretty clearly a rhetorical device, not a factual claim - the reference to someone's father wanting to bludgeon them to death would seem to illustrate this quite clearly:

the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay , and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.Certainly this is how it comes across to me. Which, if you noticed, is why I responded in kind - with a rhetorical device rather than a factual argument.

Of course, since your comment is basically a passive aggressive strawman, it is not entirely clear who specifically you are even addressing your accusations of racism at. But since I am one of only two who responded to this particular comment, I will have to assume I am one of them.

In which case, let me just take the opportunity to affirm that I am a first world racist who thinks people in the Middle East are "backwards barbarians" as is apparent by the *implications* of what I *didn't say* about one particular part of a comment. Which fits nicely in conjunction with my regular praise of the humanitarian wars of the forward-thinking 'West'. :rolleyes:

This way of arguing is really beneath you, Devrim.

[GreenCommunism]

i think it's racist to be pissed at the muslims and call them caveman when their morality is very much the same as ours 200-300 years ago.


I think that it is quite telling that nobody has even bothered to challenge this. I think it is probably because those who are criticising 'Which Doctor' actually share pretty much the same core beliefs.

In which case, let me just take the opportunity to affirm that I am a first world racist who thinks people in the Middle East are "backwards barbarians" as is apparent by the *implications* of what I *didn't say* about one particular part of a comment. Which fits nicely in conjunction with my regular praise of the humanitarian wars of the forward-thinking 'West'.

i think what he means is that people had a distorted views of gay right in the middle east. many comrades (like me) here thought that gay rights records of the middle east was worse than it actually is. israel still has better rights but it's not a paradise of tolerance and the surrounding arab countries are not homophobic hellhole as the west portrays them.

[Devrim]

i think it's racist to be pissed at the muslims and call them caveman when their morality is very much the same as ours 200-300 years ago.

I think that this sort of ironically proves my point.


Certainly this is how it comes across to me. Which, if you noticed, is why I responded in kind - with a rhetorical device rather than a factual argument.

Fine, if that is how you read it. I think he meant it though.


Of course, since your comment is basically a passive aggressive strawman, it is not entirely clear who specifically you are even addressing your accusations of racism at. But since I am one of only two who responded to this particular comment, I will have to assume I am one of them.

I am not sure what passive aggressive actually means, but I am certainly not throwing around accusations at racism at anybody. I don't think that people who are taken in by the media's propaganda about the 'backwardness' of Muslim countries are racists. To me racists are people who believe that you should discriminate against people of another race. There is a real difference. 'Racist' shouldn't be just another insult to throw at people, which effectively it is on here.


In which case, let me just take the opportunity to affirm that I am a first world racist who thinks people in the Middle East are "backwards barbarians" as is apparent by the *implications* of what I *didn't say* about one particular part of a comment. Which fits nicely in conjunction with my regular praise of the humanitarian wars of the forward-thinking 'West'. :rolleyes:

As I said, I didn't call anyone a racist. I think that many people on here share WD's assumptions. They do draw different conclusions though. Instead of supporting the West in its so-called 'humanitarian wars', they take up support for the other side. Neither look at the situation from a class perspective.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Does Turkey count though as the middle east? Is not part of Europe?

Geographically 3% of Turkey is in Europe. I suppose it depends how you define these things.


Hasnt it been quiet militantly secularist since Attaturk?

Turkish secularism is a bit different. It doesn't real mean separation of church and state, but the removal of church from politics. In practice it means the domination of state over the church. In Turkey there is a 'Directorate of Religious Affairs', which controls Sunni Islam in the country.

There are parts of the state which are militantly 'secularist', but the current government, which has been in office since 2002 is an Islamic party.


Arent the Lebanon and Turkey the most "liberal" countries in the "Muslim" world?

I am not really sure what 'liberal' means here.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Geographically 3% of Turkey is in Europe. I suppose it depends how you define these things.

I am not really sure what 'liberal' means here.

Devrim

I have been told by Turks and others that Turkey is a part of Europe both geographically and otherwise. Wasnt Turkey trying to get into the EU for a long time but kept being blocked by both right wing Chauvanist elements due to its Islamic past and more liberal elements due to the influence of the militarary over there and their human rights record? Is there much debate over whether Turkey counts as Europe or the Middle East actually over there?

By liberal I meant so socially/culturally as opposed to politicially.

[Palingenisis]

Turkish secularism is a bit different. It doesn't real mean separation of church and state, but the removal of church from politics. In practice it means the domination of state over the church. In Turkey there is a 'Directorate of Religious Affairs', which controls Sunni Islam in the country.

Didnt Attaturk though force the latin alphabet onto Turkey and discourage the veil though? My impression is that the "veil" is very uncommon in Turkey outside of remote country regions but maybe that is changing.

Isnt the militarary in Turkey opposed to political Islam quiet strongly?

Sorry for dragging things way off topic.

[Leo]

I have been told by Turks and others that Turkey is a part of Europe both geographically and otherwise. Wasnt Turkey trying to get into the EU for a long time but kept being blocked by both right wing Chauvanist elements due to its Islamic past and more liberal elements due to the influence of the militarary over there and their human rights record? Is there much debate over whether Turkey counts as Europe or the Middle East actually over there?

Culturally certainly middle eastern with only hints of European influence, although historically semi-European - arguably not any more really after the Armenian genocide and the Greek pogroms. Not that these terms "European" or "Middle Eastern" are that meaningful.


Didnt Attaturk though force the latin alphabet onto Turkey and discourage the veil though? My impression is that the "veil" is very uncommon in Turkey outside of remote country regions but maybe that is changing.

Not really, headscarf is quite common, while the veil is less but still significantly common and there are still some people who wear the burka, which was the one discouraged by Kemal.


Isnt the militarary in Turkey opposed to political Islam quiet strongly?

Well, now they are, although they were the same ones who incited the rise of political Islam in the 80s.

[Leo]

Of course, since your comment is basically a passive aggressive strawman, it is not entirely clear who specifically you are even addressing your accusations of racism at. But since I am one of only two who responded to this particular comment, I will have to assume I am one of them.Actually I think four people responded to which doctor.

One person said:

"Yes, I agree it is a far more social democratic nation than most of the Middle East but I was mainly referring to its policy against the Palestinians. If you combine them into the mix, Israel is lacking."

One person said:

"Theres not many nice things you can see about the arab countries, but many of them are dictatorships that are not supported by the people.

Also, try telling palestinians in the west bank its democratic when the israeli settlers living there illegaly get a vote and they dont.

Or when the arab political parties in israel are banned before the last election.

Dont kid yourself, if you are a non jew in a jewish state you dont have the full amount of rights an israeli jew has, the same way some muslim states discriminate against non-muslims.

Just because a lot of israelis adopted the same social norms as people in western countries did doesnt make them democratic. "

One person said:

"This is your excuse for imperialism? Really? 'Israeli culture' also thinks it's just fine to shoot pregnant Palestinian mothers because they're Palestinian. Many people there have no qualms with killing or torturing them just because of their birthplace, language and religion. Your analysis is not only flawed when it stands up to its own logical conclusion, it's thoroughly liberal and non-Marxist."

You yourself said:

"Homosexuality between two white Jews perhaps. However, if a Muslim were to become romantically involved with a white Jewish woman in Israel, he probably would be murdered in public by her brothers and/or uncles, if he wasn't bludgeoned to death by her father first."

I don't see the basic premises put forward by Which Doctor being challenged in any of the posts, and in the first two posts it is actually more or less openly stated that the posters actually agree that they are accurate. I don't think Devrim's comment makes a statement about the intentions and perspectives of any specific posters, but deals more with the general attitude.

Should we not state this and criticize this when it is obviously the case? Should we not point out that the supporters of Arab nationalism here are as much ignorant about the Middle East as the supporters of Israel?

[Palingenisis]

Culturally certainly middle eastern with only hints of European influence, although historically semi-European - arguably not any more really after the Armenian genocide and the Greek pogroms. Not that these terms "European" or "Middle Eastern" are that meaningful..

Very good point...For instance Greece which is generally seen as "European" (expect by some hardcore Greek nationalists who would like to see the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire back) has been shaped by very different cultural and historical forces in many ways than Germany or France (they even use a different alphabet to the latin one).

[GreenCommunism]

i think it's racist to be pissed at the muslims and call them caveman when their morality is very much the same as ours 200-300 years ago.


I think that this sort of ironically proves my point.

ah sorry, i am generalizing again :) . i think your point is that their morality is closer to us than 200-300 years ago? in certain countries? what time of european morality would you consider saudi arabia? what time would you consider lebanon?

[Palingenisis]

ah sorry, i am generalizing again :) . i think your point is that their morality is closer to us than 200-300 years ago? in certain countries? what time of european morality would you consider saudi arabia? what time would you consider lebanon?

I think this attitude that social attitudes always travel in one direction and dont go back and forwards is historically inaccurate. The 18 th century was more socially liberal/hedonistic in many ways to the 1950s in western Europe. At least thats definitely true as regards Ireland. The reinassance was a long way away from the general puritianism of the 17 th century also.

Its funny that for a long time the west used to give out about the Muslim world being sex obessesed and generally hedonistic and demonize it for that and now we demonize for it for being super puritianical.

[GreenCommunism]

ah good point, but i didn't think there were such back and forth. wasn't there strong morals during victorian times?

[Palingenisis]

ah good point, but i didn't think there were such back and forth. wasn't there strong morals during victorian times?

A lot of that is a Tory myth...The red light district, opium dens, the amount of laudanum and gin consumed in Victorian England tell a different story.

[GreenCommunism]

it wasn't illegal, thus not immoral ;). i thought those opium dens for example were always seen as morally wrong or foreign ( chinese man are drugging our white girls with opium hysteria) and that good people go to bars and drink.

[Proletarian Ultra]

:lol: Israel doesn't just 'look' more democratic, it actually is more democratic. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the reality is opposite that of what the bourgeois press describes. And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:, and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.

Well, unless you're a gay Arab in the occupied territories. In which case you may be subject to arbitrary search, arrest, prolonged detention or torture by the IDF. And the government may decide to incinerate you with white phosphorous just because there's an election coming up.

That's a good hasbara line though. Sends people into a tizzy while changing the subject from the occupation.

Anyway, as for the OP's question: fraternal ties with the US Jewish community is certainly part of the infrastructure of US/Israeli cooperation and does help to enforce the hegemony of pro-Israel ideology, but it would be a mistake to see those ties as the reason. If there weren't material economic-military interests it would be all "what are those jews whining about now? why aren't they loyal to America?"

As a strategic pied-a-terre in the Middle East, Israel is overrated. It's not that close to the oil hotspots and it costs us dearly in ideological backlash. The geostrategic value is more about the Eastern Mediterranean - not much of a problem now but these people think long term.

But the primary value of Israel to US imperial capital has nothing to do with its location. It's the world's biggest R&D lab for anti-population tactics. That's fucking priceless.

[jake williams]

Well, unless you're a gay Arab in the occupied territories. In which case you may be subject to arbitrary search, arrest, prolonged detention or torture IDF. And the government may decide to incinerate you with white phosphorous just because there's an election coming up.

That's a good hasbara line though. Sends people into a tizzy while changing the subject from the occupation.

Anyway, as for the OP's question: fraternal ties with the US Jewish community is certainly part of the infrastructure of US/Israeli cooperation and does help to enforce the hegemony of pro-Israel ideology, but it would be a mistake to see those ties as the reason. If there weren't material economic-military interests it would be all "what are those jews whining about now? why aren't they loyal to America?"

As a strategic pied-a-terre in the Middle East, Israel is overrated. It's not that close to the oil hotspots and it costs us dearly in ideological backlash. The geostrategic value is more about the Eastern Mediterranean - not much of a problem now but these people think long term.

But the primary value of Israel to US imperial capital has nothing to do with its location. It's the world's biggest R&D lab for anti-population tactics. That's fucking priceless.
Great post. I do have to think though that there seems to be some value for the US, ideological and strategic, in doing tremendously unpopular things. Put otherwise, supporting Israel for the United States proves that the United States can support Israel, that it can do things (which do serve a number of state and economic interests) against the will of everyone else. However, now that Israel itself is getting a bit cocky, that particular set of reasoning is shifting to the US wanting to prove that it can keep Israel in line, without giving up the advantages it has from keeping its Israeli ally.

[Barry Lyndon]

Israel serves a number of American capitalist-imperial interests.
The first is that it serves as a offshore US military base adjacent to the core oil-producing region of the world. It serves as Washington's attack dog in the area, now armed with nuclear weapons which no other country in the Middle East is allowed to have, part of an apparatus to keep the A-rabs and I-rainians in line. When asked by a journalist what was America's most important aircraft carrier, then Secretary of State James Baker(under Bush Senior) replied: 'Israel'.
Hugo Chavez, in one of his speeches denouncing US arming of Colombia, called Colombia 'The Israel of South America', an 'attack arm of US imperialism'.
It is not a coincidence that large-scale American military support to Israel did not materialize until after 1967, when Israel delivered a crushing military defeat to Nasser, a huge service to Washington, which was worried that Arab nationalism would lead to their loss of control of the Middle East's oil. Before then, Israel's main backers were Britain and France, as part of their vain hopes to use Israel to maintain a foothold in the Middle East and Africa, the joint British/French/Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956 being an obvious example.
The second and less discussed service Israel provides to capitalist-imperialism is its role in the global arms trade. Israel has for decades provided the role of a useful middleman in providing weapons and equipment to countries that Washington doesn't want to be seen as openly providing weapons to. When Congress passed laws forbidding direct US aid to Central America in the 1980's, the Reagan administration went around this by generously giving money, weapons, and equipment to Israel, which Israel then used to support and advise death squads in Guatemala and Nicaragua. Similar methods were used by the US and Britain to get weapons and supplies to apartheid South Africa in the 1970's and 80's, when virtually every other country was observing an international embargo against the racist regime.
Israel also provides constant wartime conditions in the occupied Palestine territories(and from time to time, Lebanon) for US weapons manufacturers to test their new tools of destruction. During the massacre in Gaza in the winter of 2008-09, it turned out that Israel was using a experimental American explosive device called DIME, which has the ability to cause intense destruction in a contained area. Basically, the Palestinians were being used as guinea pigs for the US Empire.

[Crux]

Anybody feel like internet fighting? I am growing tired of "NuBemet" here, would appreciate if someone took over where I left off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovugclIWMEk

[#FF0000]

To be 100% honest I'm not sure. I have never really believed in the Israel lobby theory, but at the same time I can't say how exactly does the US benefit by supporting Israel. I'm asking because I simply want to know the truth.

The Israel lobby thing is really really silly. We support Israel because it's a friendly face in the Middle East. That's p. much why they get away with bombing American boats for no reason and never offering an explanation which I think is ~~((**hilarious**))~~

[Palingenisis]

Anybody feel like internet fighting? I am growing tired of "NuBemet" here, would appreciate if someone took over where I left off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovugclIWMEk

Some interesting questions have come up during this thread (at least for me).

[GreenCommunism]

The Israel lobby thing is really really silly. We support Israel because it's a friendly face in the Middle East. That's p. much why they get away with bombing American boats for no reason and never offering an explanation which I think is ~~((**hilarious**))~~

one of the question i never feel that are answered is how much money in campaign contribution does the israeli lobby gives? of course this plays in the stereotype that jews are wealthy but i would like to have numbers. someone also pointed out that nobody criticize saudi arabia for being us ally and they can have the same economic power on our politicians. though i tend to think saudi arabia has more money.

[#FF0000]

:lol: Israel doesn't just 'look' more democratic, it actually is more democratic. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the reality is opposite that of what the bourgeois press describes. And terms of the culture, Israel has far more liberal and tolerant views about things such as homosexuality, than the surrounding countries, who'll hang you in public if you're gay :blink:, and that's if you're lucky enough to escape your father who'll want to bludgeon you to death.

Literally everything you say is wrong how do you manage this without experiencing any cognitive dissonance jesus christ.

[Barry Lyndon]

Literally everything you say is wrong how do you manage this without experiencing any cognitive dissonance jesus christ.

He's actually very consistent, no cognitive dissonance needed. All of his factual errors make the Arabs look evil and Israel look good. That's because whichdoctor is a pro-imperialist Zionist posing as a Marxist.

Notice how he claims he wants a dialogue, but as soon as people like Devrim among others call him out on his bs ignorance, whichdoctor is nowhere to be found.

[Barry Lyndon]

Should we not state this and criticize this when it is obviously the case? Should we not point out that the supporters of Arab nationalism here are as much ignorant about the Middle East as the supporters of Israel?

Where has anyone advocated Arab nationalism here Leo? Or are you just being an eager apostle of Whichdoctor's school of falsesification?

[GreenCommunism]

anti-germans are very lame.

[Devrim]

Where has anyone advocated Arab nationalism here Leo? Or are you just being an eager apostle of Whichdoctor's school of falsesification?

Support of Arab nationalism, particulary Palestinian nationalism, is very common on RevLeft.

Devrim

[9]

@ Leo:

That a lot of people in 'the West' have misconceptions about the attitudes toward homosexuality in the 'Middle East' - certainly you should state it when it arises, and you should correct it. But I don't think it is specific to a political position. And what I think you and Devrim are doing is attempting to connect it to a political argument, when the political argument you are attempting to connect it to is not even being made. Many - most even - of the people you are using as examples may just as well uphold your position on the right of nations to self-determination; after all, at least two of them who supposedly "prove [Devrim's] point" are anarchists. And if this turns out to be the case, is it then fair game for someone to use in place of an actual political argument, in order to demonstrate that people who oppose the right of nations to self-determination are just as ignorant about the Middle East as people like WD? I don't think so. Maybe you do. It's a completely dishonest way of arguing, though.

[Wanted Man]

Literally everything you say is wrong how do you manage this without experiencing any cognitive dissonance jesus christ.

If he doesn't get paid for this stuff, he's an idiot.

He was briefly banned a while ago by Dimentio. Whatever happened to that? Admins sleeping on the job?

[Leo]

That a lot of people in 'the West' have misconceptions about the attitudes toward homosexuality in the 'Middle East' - certainly you should state it when it arises, and you should correct it. But I don't think it is specific to a political position.

This is true, of course, I think it expresses the general perspective of the middle east as put forward by the Western ruling class. The point was that many so-called opponents of the West completely accept the same perspective, just support the other side.


And what I think you and Devrim are doing is attempting to connect it to a political argument

Well, we are rather trying to connect certain political approaches to this phenomenon, rather than the contrary.


Many - most even - of the people you are using as examples may just as well uphold your position on the right of nations to self-determination; after all, at least two of them who supposedly "prove [Devrim's] point" are anarchists.

Well, one of them is a Trotskyist, one of them is a self-described Republican Socialist and one of them, although I am not sure, seems to be in the Anarchist group as well as the Maoist one, so...


And if this turns out to be the case, is it then fair game for someone to use in place of an actual political argument, in order to demonstrate that people who oppose the right of nations to self-determination are just as ignorant about the Middle East as people like WD? I don't think so. Maybe you do. It's a completely dishonest way of arguing, though.

If there was actually a tendency like that, one could make that argument. Funnily enough, people who oppose the right of nations to self-determination with a communist perspective tend not to be ignorant at all on the situation in the Middle East, even if they don't know about every detail. The position has, traditionally, been the dominant position among the revolutionaries of oppressed nationalities after all, people like Luxemburg, Radek, Pyatakov, Sultanzade etc. all being among the many examples.

Also, one problem is that you assume we are only taking into consideration the arguements in this thread. We aren't. We've been arguing that organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and al Fatah are anti-working class organizations for years on this board. Do you think what we are talking about now just popped into our heads?

[Palingenisis]

Well, one of them is a Trotskyist, one of them is a self-described Republican Socialist and one of them, although I am not sure, seems to be in the Anarchist group as well as the Maoist one, so..

Whatever about the self-described (I am involved in activisim) bit I really fail to see how anything I have written on this thread can in the least be described as characturing or crypto-racist...

[Robocommie]

Whatever about the self-described (I am involved in activisim) bit I really fail to see how anything I have written on this thread can in the least be described as characturing or crypto-racist...

I think it's pretty obvious, you're all enemies of the people and should be flogged, for the crime of not being zealous enough, I guess. :confused: Funny how it's now all your faults, when it was which doctor who originally said it.

[Red Commissar]

Israel serves as a geo-strategic "foot in the door" for the Middle East. It's a way to get involved and continually stay involved in Middle Eastern politics, that doesn't rely on Saudi Arabia's good graces.

This is the way I see it too. It gives them a place to exert influence in the Middle-East and overall better strategic leverage. Even with Israel's own independent actions, the two share common goals in the Middle-East.

This being said, Americans are beginning to experience the fruits of that experience with their relations of the rest of the region.

[~Spectre]

Israel serves the same function as this dog:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p05.jpg

Besides that, it is very profitable for the U.S. military industrial complex, which has huge sway on U.S. policy.

[Devrim]

Whatever about the self-described (I am involved in activisim) bit I really fail to see how anything I have written on this thread can in the least be described as characturing or crypto-racist...

We are not calling anybody 'crypto-racists'. What I said was that in our opinion those arguing against certain positions, share a lot of the same assumptions. Nor did we call 'Which Doctor's' positions racist in any way. We think that they are deeply reactionary, and reflect the Western bourgeois media's propaganda campaigns, but we don't characterise them as racist. I argued against these positions here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1734447&postcount=73):


I think the first point is that US imperialism has been shown not to have a progressive role. You write:

Originally Posted by WD
In a place like Afganistan, what is at stake is the country falling into the hands of the Taliban to become an even more reactionary, semi-feudal hell hole, especially in regards to political freedom, which has generally been regarded as a precondition for the adequate development of a mass socialist movement.
When the US went into Iraq, people were told that it was in the name of freedom, and let's be clear about it; Saddam was not a nice man, or any friend of the working class. He was a butcher. However, to pretend that what we have now in Iraq is in any way better for the working class would be nothing more than a deceitful lie, no work, lack of basic infrastructure, such as water and electricity, not to mention Islamic terror gangs, ethnic strife and continual bombings. Life is in no way better for the working class in general or for building a socialist alternative. Many people were taken in by the 'freedom and democracy attitude'. To make the mistake once given the US' record in the region is bad enough. To make it twice is unforgivable. The US is a country that caused a lot of the mess in Afghanistan in the first place with it support of Islamic gangs. It is the country that after guaranteeing the safety of civilians after Israel entered Beirut stood by and watched through the massacres of Sabra and Shatila. I could go on, but I think that you get my point. There is nothing at all progressive about US intervention, and I for one don't think that they will bring about a society where 'the pre-conditions for a mass socialist movement exist'.

What can socialists in the major imperialist countries do. In my opinion they must opposes any interventions whether it be in the name of 'democracy' 'freedom', 'women's rights' or whatever. That doesn't mean supporting Islamicists or other nationalist groups, but it does mean a principled opposition to the imperialist manoeuvres of the major powers. The US bombing and murdering people, it no way helps to build a socialist alternative.

Originally Posted by WD
Barry Lyndon posted a quote (I suggest you look at the context of it if you want to understand it better) from Spencer's article on the Mumbai bombings, and I will defend his position that the creation of a left alternative in Afganistan hinges on the defeat of the Taliban. Unfortunetely, we live in such a miserable time, that there is no adequate leftist apparatus to do this at the moment.
The first question here is whether you think the US has the ability to defeat the Taliban. Personally I don't. I think that it does have the ability to fight a war there for the next few decades though, which in my opinion will strengthen the Taliban, and further hinder the development of any working class alternative. The left in Afghanistan is not only week because of the Taliban though. One of the other reasons is that Afghanistan is a country with a tiny working class. We can't just expect an indigenous left to pop up in a country torn by war with a tiny working class. In my opinion the prospects for building a working class movement in Afghanistan rest on the strength of the working class within the region as a whole, particularly Iran, which does have a strong workers movement, and speaks the same language as the majority of Afghans. Then of course, I am sure that the threat of US intervention in Iran will do wonders to develop that movement, and in no way lead to workers' supporting what is a viscously anti-working class regime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WD
it's realizing that we live in the worst possible historical moment the international left has ever been in.
First this is complete hyperbole. Do you real think that it is worse than the 1930's. Secondly, I personally don't think that the situation in today is anywhere as bad as it was in the 1990s, which were terrible years. I suppose it depends what you look at. If you look at the leftist groups it may look pretty bad, but if you look at workers' struggles we have been seeing an increase, however small, over the past seven or so years. Is the working class still week, because that is what I care about, not the left? Absolutely, this is not the 1970s, but it is not the 1990s either. There are real signs of improvement.

The talk of the 'left being dead' is untrue. We look on the left in very different ways though. We see the leftist groups, however well intentioned their members maybe, as being an anti-working class force, which effectivly tries to mobilise workers behind different capitalist factions. Also I don't see your group as being much different. You are just supporting a different state.


Please note that I don't refer to him as a racist. Many workers have bought into this campaign. Do we try to discuss with them, or just sling insults at them. Nor did we call you or others on this thread racists, of a 'cyrpto' or any other sort.

What I said was that I think the people denouncing the ideas put forward by WD share many of the same core beliefs, but I didn't at all say that those beliefs were in any way racist.

Devrim

[Leo]

Whatever about the self-described (I am involved in activisim) bit I really fail to see how anything I have written on this thread can in the least be described as characturing or crypto-racist...

Perhaps thats because I wasn't referring to you.