Why do leftists(elite left in the US and Europe)hate Israel?

Dirt, that’s not how I see things but it does seem to be how many Americans see things.

Oh.

Sorry.

The attitude towards the Yom Kippur war, is largely dictated by the actions of the Six Day War in 1967. European nations, like the rest of the world excluding Israel and the US, considered that a war of aggression by the Israelis, which resulted in the siezure of the Occupied Territories. Many countries, like France, reacted to that invasion by cutting off many ties to Israel, where it had previously acted with Israel as a partner. France refused to supply Israel with any more Mirage fighter jets until it removed its troops from the Occupied Territories, to which Israel responded by stealing the designs, and making its own version, the IAI Kfir.

Yom Kippur was a response to the invasion of 1967, where the nations of Syria and Egypt attempted to reclaim the land taken from them, i.e. the Golan Heights and the Sinnai. Some Israelis claim that the Egyptians and Syrians were bent on destroying Israel with the Yom Kippur war, but this is unlikely, being as both countries were suprised to get as far as they did, and found themselves totally overstretched logistically, leading to a fairly easy rout by the Israelis after they regrouped. European nations would likely have looked upon that particular military action as just deserts for Israel’s refusal to remove itself from the Occupied Territories.

By saying that Europeans are blindly anti-Israel, you fail to examine the history of the European relationship with Israel. You may as well call us anti-semitic, or even Nazis, and have done with it.

Oh, that wasn’t a clear phrase, sorry. During the cold war, we a) needed a forward base in the middle east from which to launch strikes, respond to soviet moves into the oil supplies, and so on; b) Israel tied down all the Soviet-allied and supported arab nations in the region, which sucked up Soviet time and money; c) Israel was part of our strategy of surrounding the east bloc with friendly nations - giving them money makes them friendlier.

Of course, there’s also the Holocaust, but that was just a point in favor, not an overriding factor. Genocide didn’t get the Armenians shit.

As Brian points out, fast forward to today, the USSR is gone, Israel’s obscenely strong compared to its neighbors, and we can’t use it as a base for anything with annihilating public opinion of us, so what’s the point? The explanations appear to be that either no one’s been really paying attention and the region doesn’t really have a foreign policy initiative or (conspiratorily) we’re trying to use Israel to keep all the Arab countries in the region poor dictatorships, which somehow makes oil cheaper and easier to get.

I’m going with “no real strategy” plus AIPAC influence. Man, they can make Congress sign anything.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, makes much more sense now. Given that the situation has completely changed with the collapse of the USSR, yet the funding remains, there may be additional reasons for the funding than just the need for an oil ally. Not that I tried to deny it, but your 1-2-3 blood on the hands linkage is still valid.

Don’t feel too bad about it. Most of that money is used to buy arms from American weapon manufacturers, thus ensuring employment for many many Americans, who otherwise would have joined the growing circle of unemployment. Not to mention the growing demand for weaponry in certain Arab states, arms deals which the US would never want to be involved with directly, and having a nice little testing ground.

Anyway, since we get about a one third of your foreign aid budget, I would expect from such unbiased people that some of your complains agains foreign aid recieving countries will be be directed at somebody else. Sure, we are an evil country, but I’m sure that you might find others at least half as bad (again - who are getting some from the US).

I’d really like to know if someone knows. Which country receives the most monetary aid from the USA?

I believe that would be Israel followed, ironically enough, by Egypt in second place. Of course in the case of Egypt it’s largely a case of a payoff so they don’t cause trouble with Israel. You can bundle the two together as one big payment for a single situation.

I don’t really want to turn this into a debate on the 6-day war (I’ve gotten into too many of them with Brett). I’ll just say that in 1973, the Israelis ignored the military build-up on their borders, the way you say the should have in 1967, and it didn’t work out too well.

Yom Kippur was a response to the invasion of 1967, where the nations of By saying that Europeans are blindly anti-Israel, you fail to examine the history of the European relationship with Israel. You may as well call us anti-semitic, or even Nazis, and have done with it.

I just don’t get this. I didn’t bring up anti-semitism, I didn’t link being anti-Israel to being anti-semitic (mostly because I don’t really believe in that link), and next thing I’m calling Europeans nazis?

Gav

I don’t really want to turn this into a debate on the 6-day war (I’ve gotten into too many of them with Brett). I’ll just say that in 1973, the Israelis ignored the military build-up on their borders, the way you say the should have in 1967, and it didn’t work out too well.

The armies on Israel’s borders in 1967 were, at least ostensibly, for defensive purposes. It’s possible that the two nations planned an invasion, but considering how badly mauled both sides had been in previous wars with Israel, it doesn’t appear to have been a good choice of action. The build up was also not one sided, with Syria responding as much to Israeli build up, as the other way around. Syria, quite reasonably due to Israel’s aggression in the previous arab war, feared an invasion, and called upon its defensive pact with Egypt, who massed troops on the borders of Israel, threatening to invade if Israel invaded Syria, as per their pact.

Egypt, in particular, cranked up the rhetoric, playing to public opinion, but they weren’t properly mobilised for an invasion of Israel, and neither were Syria. This was finally proven when they were so easily beaten by the IDF troops, in the amazingly swift “six day” war, when they were caught off guard by a sudden strike, after Israel had been talking peace for several days. I imagine it was a frightening prospect for the people of Israel at the time, to have the spectre of war on three fronts, and so support for the invasion would have been high, but there appears to be little justification for it. Even key members of the then Israeli cabinet accept that the invasion wasn’t necessary to achieve peace.

In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” - Menachem Begin, Israeli Cabinet minister in 1967, in the New York Times, August 21, 1982

I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” – Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, February 28, 1968

Many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland. They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land. We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot…And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was… The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us” – Moshe Dayan, Defense Minister in 1967, in the New York Times, May 11, 1997

Using a country’s attempts to reclaim land taken from it in a war of aggression, as an excuse for that war of aggression, is like saying that Saddam was justified in annexing Arabistan, because Iran attacked him back in retaliation.

I just don’t get this. I didn’t bring up anti-semitism, I didn’t link being anti-Israel to being anti-semitic (mostly because I don’t really believe in that link), and next thing I’m calling Europeans nazis?

This is true, you didn’t say that Europeans were anti-semitic, but for me, saying that European criticism of Israel is “blind” is just as sweeping a misstatement as calling Europeans Nazis or anti-semitic. You are saying that Europeans are unthinkingly critical of Israel, and for that you must believe there is some irrational reason behind it, as bad as being anti-semitic. Perhaps you believe Europeans are so anti-American or pro-Arab that they criticise Israel “blindly”. Whatever, the accusation is as unfounded and unfair as calling Europeans anti-Semitic, which was the point I was making.

Um, Tim…

:wink:

I didn’t realise I had to comply with everyone else’s wishes ;).

You don’t. I’d personally be really intrigued to hear a response to the points you brought up from an opposite perspective. Too often, particularly in America, particularly on the subject of Israel, the discourse is always one-sided, one way or the other. It would be awfully nice to hear a discussion (a non-screaming one, mind you) with both perspectives represented - to help the rest of us figure out what we think is the true history of the situation.

Not that it’s going to change anyone’s minds, but I think it fair to note that Partlett’s analysis of the Six Day War (conveniently?) ignores the blockade by Egypt of the Port of Eilat, which, with access to the Suez Canal denied to Israel, was crucial to Asia and Pacific-bound shipping. From time immemorial blockade of a national port has been regarded as casus beli. How would the UK react to a blockade of Southampton? Why was it somehow unjust of Israel to act as any nation would to such provocation?

It vas all the fault of ze jews! (Oops, haha, sorry.)

That might be the case of historical wars, Jason, but since 1945 the nations who signed up to the UN pledged to settle disagreements peacefully. Thankfully the Soviets and the US didn’t consider blockades a casus beli, otherwise we would have had serious trouble after Stalin blockaded West Berlin and after the US blockaded Cuba. While it is difficult to know how a country should progress a situation should peaceful negotiations appear to fail, it is doubtful that peaceful negotiations in the six-day war were given much of a chance to succeed.

Every country claims “casus beli” before invading. Even Iraq had justifiable disagreements with Kuwait before it invaded. Apart from their historical claims to the land, as a combined part of the former Ottoman provice, Kuwait was ruining Iraq’s economy by over-exporting oil, and was also believed to be slant-drilling under the Iraq border, and basically stealing Iraqi oil. While most people would not consider that a just cause for an invasion, many equally don’t see that a blockade is either. Provocative, yes, just as stealing your neighbour’s oil is, but not a casus beli.

As far as the UN is concerned, there is no justification in invading another country, simply on the basis of a short term disagreement, like blockading a port or stealing oil. As far as the UN is concerned, the sovereignty of all nations is sacresanct. You could use a blockade as an excuse for military action of some kind, such as bombing the ships involved in the blockade, but certainly not for invading another country’s sovereign territory, and then keeping it for over a quarter of a century.

You don’t. I’d personally be really intrigued to hear a response to the points you brought up from an opposite perspective. Too often, particularly in America, particularly on the subject of Israel, the discourse is always one-sided, one way or the other. It would be awfully nice to hear a discussion (a non-screaming one, mind you) with both perspectives represented - to help the rest of us figure out what we think is the true history of the situation.[/quote]

I think that anyone who seriously wants to understand this stuff needs to go to a decent library and check out a book or two. There’s way too much stuff here to properly cover on a message board–the role of the Soviets in fomenting the war, for example, is rarely discussed, but it’s critical.

I’ll admit that I’m as guilty of anyone (and more guilty than most) in blathering on about Israel, but for now I’m trying to hold myself in check–dunno how long it will last though :).

Gav

Nonsense. There’s a big difference between sphere of influence and sovereign territory. Unless I can’t read a map, Cuba wasn’t part of the sovereign territory of the Soviet Union and Berlin wasn’t part of the United States. Do you really think there would have been peaceful negotiations if the Soviets had blockaded the Port of New York or the U.S. had blockaded Leningrad?

Every country claims “casus beli” before invading. Even Iraq had justifiable disagreements with Kuwait before it invaded. Apart from their historical claims to the land, as a combined part of the former Ottoman provice, Kuwait was ruining Iraq’s economy by over-exporting oil, and was also believed to be slant-drilling under the Iraq border, and basically stealing Iraqi oil. While most people would not consider that a just cause for an invasion, many equally don’t see that a blockade is either. Provocative, yes, just as stealing your neighbour’s oil is, but not a casus beli.

A blockade of one’s nation is a violation of sovereign territory. I’d like to know who these “many” are that don’t consider it casus beli.

As far as the UN is concerned, there is no justification in invading another country, simply on the basis of a short term disagreement, like blockading a port or stealing oil. As far as the UN is concerned, the sovereignty of all nations is sacresanct. You could use a blockade as an excuse for military action of some kind, such as bombing the ships involved in the blockade, but certainly not for invading another country’s sovereign territory, and then keeping it for over a quarter of a century.

According to my history books, Israel did give the Sinai back, when they concluded a peace treaty with Egypt. That’s the way it’s usually done. Perhaps you could point me to the historical precedents for the victor in a war returning territory to the vanquished before agreeing on peace terms. BTW, this does not mean I support the current Israeli government, or, especially, it’s policies regarding the settlements. What I question is this insistence that Israel is, for some reason, supposed to act more magnanimously than other nations.

Nonsense. There’s a big difference between sphere of influence and sovereign territory. Unless I can’t read a map, Cuba wasn’t part of the sovereign territory of the Soviet Union and Berlin wasn’t part of the United States. Do you really think there would have been peaceful negotiations if the Soviets had blockaded the Port of New York or the U.S. had blockaded Leningrad?

Cuba was allied with the Soviets when the US blockaded it. If, as your argument suggests, a blockade is the equivalent of invading a country’s sovereign territory, then the Soviets would have been fully justified in launching an attack upon the US. For the UN, however, military action is a last resort, and territorial grabs are not considered acceptable, even when the provocation is the an actual violation of sovereign territory, like landing your troops. I don’t think the UN or the US would have supported an invasion of America as retaliation for the blockade of Cuba, but by your argument it should have been perfectly acceptable.

I don’t think anyone would have complained if the Israelis had simply launched an attack on the Egyptian blockade itself, or other military installation, but taking sovereign territory, inhabited by several million hostile people, is not acceptable, either by the UN, nor the majority of the world’s opinion. Even after a country really has invaded another, the UN does not support the keeping of their sovereign territory, so to argue it is acceptable, just for a blockade, doesn’t make any sense at all in that regard.

It should also be noted that the Egyptians didn’t blockade a port, but the Straits of Tiran, which are not anyone’s sovereign territory. While it is definitely provocational, and Israel had warned of “military action” should Egypt repeat a blockade. Egypt had previously blockaded the Straits during the Suez crisis, which saw Israeli, British and French troops launch a failed invasion of Egypt.

On the question you pose as to whether nations like the US and UK would stand for blockades of their ports, I would certainly think that they would not. However, I don’t think invasions would be a just response for such an act, if it lasted only a few weeks, like Egypt’s did. If, say, Iceland had blockaded Lerwick as a result of tensions in the infamous “Cod War” of 1973, I would be very unhappy if the British navy had retaliated by invading Reykjavik, and then holding it for quarter a century. I would think most of the world would be too.

According to my history books, Israel did give the Sinai back, when they concluded a peace treaty with Egypt. That’s the way it’s usually done. Perhaps you could point me to the historical precedents for the victor in a war returning territory to the vanquished before agreeing on peace terms. BTW, this does not mean I support the current Israeli government, or, especially, it’s policies regarding the settlements. What I question is this insistence that Israel is, for some reason, supposed to act more magnanimously than other nations.

The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was an historic occasion, but I don’t see how it supports your argument that invading sovereign territory is acceptable for the act of blockading of a body of water. If you are suggesting that beligerent nations should attempt a detente by first invading one another, and then handing back land for peace, it seems a recipe for disaster. I wonder how the world would view India and Pakistan attempting such a policy, when both could equally claim that the other is violating sovereign territory in Kashmir.

If the UN doesn’t think a foreign country landing its troops on your soil is justification for a war, I have to ask here - what the fuck is justification for a war? Raping your women while breaking the necks of your babies, filming it, and releasing a film called “World’s Craziest Bitch-Rapin-Neck-Breakin’, part V”?