Why Are Americans So Supportive of Israel?

[politicallefty]

This is something that I just don't get, and really troubles me to a certain extent. I don't have any problem with allying ourselves with Israel necessarily, but there are so many people in this country that seem to put Israel's interests before those of the United States. I do have a problem with the current state of affairs, especially the fact that the so-called alliance is really entirely one-sided. Any time a UN resolution comes up regarding Israel, the US tends to be in opposition with virtually unanimous worldwide opinion. That really does no one any good at all, especially us. And, unfortunately, nearly every American political figure gives Israel carte blanche for a vastly disproportionate response under the the guise of the overstated "Israel has a right to defend itself". (I find that line annoying since every country has that right, but I don't believe that means the overly disproportionate response we often see.)

The truth is that we are not really a good friend to Israel (as good friends will at least stand up to ensure the well-being and future of their friends), but rather for a lack of better phrase, Israel's bitch. As I said, I have no problem with a US-Israel alliance at all, but what we have right now is completely unhealthy. I think an alliance is a two-way street, but all I see is a one-way street of American submission.

[politicus]

i'd be more sympathetic to hamas if they dropped the islamism and ended this fantasy that they can destroy israel right now.

Fixed.  In the short term, the Arabs can't destroy Israel.  In the longer term they can.  I forget if it was from NPR or the BBC, but they had an interview with a recent Jewish immigrant from Mexico who was going to go back to Mexico because she thought it would be safer for her and her family.  Moderate Zionists who can live elsewhere will tend to move elsewhere if this continues. So I see Israel as likely to become more reactionary over time, which will eventually lead to a break with the United States.  That by itself won't be the final straw, but it means that when the Arabs finally achieve military superiority over Israel in a century or two, the Zionists won't have anyone to call on for help as they did in 1973.

The difference between 1973 and now is that Israel is a nuclear power today. Any full scale Arab attack on Israel would be suicide for the Arab countries.
Its difficult to imagine a change in military technology that would change this fundamental fact. Are you imagining some Arab Star Wars 3.0 project that could annihilate Israeli rockets in space or what?

In 100-200 years time the Arab countries would also develop quite a lot probably becoming more "modern" and less nationalistic & religious in their world view. Plus "1948 and all that" would be ancient history by then. Even with the long historical memory in Arab culture this could change attitudes quite a bit.

[dead0man]

. . . The thread should have given us an "out" option of voting "neither".  You're probably right that a few people went with Iran out of the assumption that Israel would be the one attacking first despite the fact that Iran attacks Isreal all the damn time but their aggression is ignored.  It doesn't fit their world view (and certainly won't be seen by them unless pointed out by people like me).

And by "their aggression is ignored" I assume what you really mean to say is, "their aggression is ignored by some, while going unnoticed by others since at least some of them do not carefully scrutinize Iranian-Israeli relations," instead? With all due respect, I resent the implication that I am prejudiced against Israel or in favor of Iran or Hamas when, in fact, I am interested in who is wronging who and at what orders of magnitude - imperfectly developing opinions and foreign policy prescriptions based on what limited information I've been exposed to in the past.

I've started a number of threads discussing Iran's aggression towards Israel, oddly they rarely if if ever make it past the first page.  People want to talk about Iranian aggression about as much as they want to talk about rockets from Gaza when the Israelis aren't firing back.  Which is not at all.  I suppose you could have missed them since they dropped off the first page so fast.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's about every 3 months for the past 10 years isn't it?  Israel is ALWAYS about to attack Iran.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

i'd be more sympathetic to hamas if they dropped the islamism and ended this fantasy that they can destroy israel right now.

Fixed.  In the short term, the Arabs can't destroy Israel.  In the longer term they can.  I forget if it was from NPR or the BBC, but they had an interview with a recent Jewish immigrant from Mexico who was going to go back to Mexico because she thought it would be safer for her and her family.  Moderate Zionists who can live elsewhere will tend to move elsewhere if this continues. So I see Israel as likely to become more reactionary over time, which will eventually lead to a break with the United States.  That by itself won't be the final straw, but it means that when the Arabs finally achieve military superiority over Israel in a century or two, the Zionists won't have anyone to call on for help as they did in 1973.

The difference between 1973 and now is that Israel is a nuclear power today. Any full scale Arab attack on Israel would be suicide for the Arab countries.
Its difficult to imagine a change in military technology that would change this fundamental fact. Are you imagining some Arab Star Wars 3.0 project that could annihilate Israeli rockets in space or what?

In 100-200 years time the Arab countries would also develop quite a lot probably becoming more "modern" and less nationalistic & religious in their world view. Plus "1948 and all that" would be ancient history by then. Even with the long historical memory in Arab culture this could change attitudes quite a bit.

Why not?  Iron Dome is working fairly well and nuclear armed rockets and planes would be fewer, larger, and have farther to go, so they would be easier to deal with by a hypothetical Shield of Allah.  The idea that history will inevitably go on a path of progress is sheer wishful thinking.  So is the meme that trade and economic progress will prevent war.  As for the idea that progress means becoming less religious, not only is that not proven, it's irrelevant since at its heart, this is an ethnic conflict, not a religious one.  Do you really think all would be peaceful tranquility in the Middle East if suddenly all the Jews in Israel miraculously converted to Islam?

Besides, who says the Arabs will necessarily be the ones who start the final Arab-Israeli war?  Israel is becoming more nationalistic, aggressive, and intolerant as time goes on.  I regret to say it is not at all unthinkable that a future Israel could decide to cleanse Judea and Samaria of the Arabs or launch a war to occupy the East Bank so as to get all of the promised land under its control.  You think the Arabs will sit back and allow either if it were to happen, even at the risk of a destructive nuclear war?

And finally, let me point out that the Arab world is far better able to withstand a nuclear exchange than Israel is.  Israel has very little territory in comparison to the Arabs, and that will remain the case.  If the Arabs decide they can no longer tolerate the cancer of Israel, it is not impossible they would be willing to undergo radiation treatments to excise it despite the side effects.  The conditions for a final Arab-Israeli war happening only need to be met once.

[Redalgo]

I've started a number of threads discussing Iran's aggression towards Israel, oddly they rarely if if ever make it past the first page.  People want to talk about Iranian aggression about as much as they want to talk about rockets from Gaza when the Israelis aren't firing back.  Which is not at all.  I suppose you could have missed them since they dropped off the first page so fast.

That seems most likely in my case.

To be fair though, I tend to steer clear of threads that are explicitly about something or other President Ahmadinejad says in front of the press because I never know which of his remarks are sincere and which are just for political gain or keeping up appearances. Otherwise, if you still have any links to some of the threads in question, I'd be glad to mull over their contents and see if I've anything to contribute to those discussions. It's always interesting to learn some new things about a far-off corner of the world.

That's about every 3 months for the past 10 years isn't it?  Israel is ALWAYS about to attack Iran.

Aye, and Iran is always putting into motion plans to rain nuclear warheads down on Israel. I'm jaded from the staggering volume of accusations I hear swirling around the issue elsewhere on the web and do not always have the time or will to dig deep and figure out which of them are bullsh**t and which seem pretty plausible. The speculation is often off-mark if not ridiculous, but that doesn't stop said speculation from framing discussions until that is later widely recognized!

[Badger]

I don't know about most Americans, but I support Israel because it is one of the few democracies in the Middle East, it is one of the most progressive nations in the world on such issues of gay rights and women's rights, and unlike Hamas, it tries to stop civilian deaths.

Exactly-

I find the person's comment who started this topic offensive- Israel may be "whiny" and "defensive" over rockets being launched at their territory killing their civilians...as if they are not right to object!!!

Well they really don't.  Did the Nazis have the 'right to object' to D-Day?

So Israel proper--not the occupied territories--is the equivalent of Nazi-occupied France? Got it.

[Badger]

I don't know about most Americans, but I support Israel because it is one of the few democracies in the Middle East, it is one of the most progressive nations in the world on such issues of gay rights and women's rights, and unlike Hamas, it tries to stop civilian deaths.

This. Acknowleging this wrongheadedness of Likud's foriegn policy (e.g. expanding settlements in occupied territory) and the need for a two state solution doesn't remove the fact Israel is the most democratic and pro-human rights nation by far in the region.

[politicus]

i'd be more sympathetic to hamas if they dropped the islamism and ended this fantasy that they can destroy israel right now.

Fixed.  In the short term, the Arabs can't destroy Israel.  In the longer term they can.  I forget if it was from NPR or the BBC, but they had an interview with a recent Jewish immigrant from Mexico who was going to go back to Mexico because she thought it would be safer for her and her family.  Moderate Zionists who can live elsewhere will tend to move elsewhere if this continues. So I see Israel as likely to become more reactionary over time, which will eventually lead to a break with the United States.  That by itself won't be the final straw, but it means that when the Arabs finally achieve military superiority over Israel in a century or two, the Zionists won't have anyone to call on for help as they did in 1973.

The difference between 1973 and now is that Israel is a nuclear power today. Any full scale Arab attack on Israel would be suicide for the Arab countries.
Its difficult to imagine a change in military technology that would change this fundamental fact. Are you imagining some Arab Star Wars 3.0 project that could annihilate Israeli rockets in space or what?

In 100-200 years time the Arab countries would also develop quite a lot probably becoming more "modern" and less nationalistic & religious in their world view. Plus "1948 and all that" would be ancient history by then. Even with the long historical memory in Arab culture this could change attitudes quite a bit.

Why not?  Iron Dome is working fairly well and nuclear armed rockets and planes would be fewer, larger, and have farther to go, so they would be easier to deal with by a hypothetical Shield of Allah.  The idea that history will inevitably go on a path of progress is sheer wishful thinking.  So is the meme that trade and economic progress will prevent war.  As for the idea that progress means becoming less religious, not only is that not proven, it's irrelevant since at its heart, this is an ethnic conflict, not a religious one.  Do you really think all would be peaceful tranquility in the Middle East if suddenly all the Jews in Israel miraculously converted to Islam?

Besides, who says the Arabs will necessarily be the ones who start the final Arab-Israeli war?  Israel is becoming more nationalistic, aggressive, and intolerant as time goes on.  I regret to say it is not at all unthinkable that a future Israel could decide to cleanse Judea and Samaria of the Arabs or launch a war to occupy the East Bank so as to get all of the promised land under its control.  You think the Arabs will sit back and allow either if it were to happen, even at the risk of a destructive nuclear war?

And finally, let me point out that the Arab world is far better able to withstand a nuclear exchange than Israel is.  Israel has very little territory in comparison to the Arabs, and that will remain the case.  If the Arabs decide they can no longer tolerate the cancer of Israel, it is not impossible they would be willing to undergo radiation treatments to excise it despite the side effects.  The conditions for a final Arab-Israeli war happening only need to be met once.

I disagree with you on most of your points, and maybe I will come back to some of them, but at the moment let me just say that I think you miss a very central and important point. The Palestinians are not popular in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. The Arab leaders don't really care about them and only use the Israel-Palestine conflict as a decoy from their internal problems. The idea that they would actually risk a nuclear war to protect the Palestinians is far out and I don't see any reason why this should change in the future. The only scenario in which an Arab state would be willing to risk something regarding Palestine would be if the Palestinians toppled the monarchy in Jordan, but that would still be a weaker state than Israel.

The idea that Arab countries should be able to somehow cope with a nuclear war because of their size is not realistic. They may be larger than Israel, but their big cities are vulnerable (Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Beirut) and Egypt's population is heavily concentrated in the Nile valley which is only slightly larger than Israels territory. Lebanon is a small and densely populated country and Syria is a relatively urbanized country with high population density in the western part.

[dead0man]

Otherwise, if you still have any links to some of the threads in question, I'd be glad to mull over their contents and see if I've anything to contribute to those discussions. It's always interesting to learn some new things about a far-off corner of the world.

Investigators in India and Azerbaijan confirm official Iranian link to terrorism
Iran, not content with just attacking embassies, also attacks BBC, others
Iranian terrorist attack in Thailand ends with hilarious results
FBI, DEA thwart terror plot in U.S. involving Iran, officials say
Iranian General admits to arming "liberation" fighters
Iranian arms shipment blown out of water by mysterious stranger

[Franzl]

I don't know about most Americans, but I support Israel because it is one of the few democracies in the Middle East, it is one of the most progressive nations in the world on such issues of gay rights and women's rights, and unlike Hamas, it tries to stop civilian deaths.

This. Acknowleging this wrongheadedness of Likud's foriegn policy (e.g. expanding settlements in occupied territory) and the need for a two state solution doesn't remove the fact Israel is the most democratic and pro-human rights nation by far in the region.

This, of course, is not a significant achievement in that region

[Cory]

Tweed, Cory, Xahar and at least a few others.

I did not vote in that poll nor do I support Hamas/Iran. I simply pointed out that Israel launches attacks all the time (assassinating Iranian scientists, ect.) and everyone gets all worked up when a few Israeli's die in a bus bombing in Bulgaria like it's the worst thing EVAR!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that Arab countries should be able to somehow cope with a nuclear war because of their size is not realistic. They may be larger than Israel, but their big cities are vulnerable (Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Beirut) and Egypt's population is heavily concentrated in the Nile valley which is only slightly larger than Israels territory. Lebanon is a small and densely populated country and Syria is a relatively urbanized country with high population density in the western part.

Unlike Israel, the Arab population centers aren't right on the border by and large.  The Arabs will be able to engage in a defense in depth that will give them more time to react to an Israeli attack than Israel will have to react to an Arab attack.  I'm not saying that the Arabs wouldn't be hurt in such a war, they clearly would be, but if Israel continues down the dark path they currently are on, they'll force the Arabs into deciding that the pain is worth the gain.

If I could see some way in which the current slow path to Armageddon could be avoided, I would hope it would be followed, but I just don't see it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Israel is where Christianity was born.

Funny, because it's a rather viciously anti-Christian country that persecutes Christians greatly.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also Israel is not "the only democracy in the region". Even if you want to argue that Egypt isn't at that point yet, Turkey is often included in the region, and there's also Lebanon right next door. Also remember all that junk we heard years ago about free elections in Iraq? Some of the emirates are also fairly democratic with a basically constitutional monarch setup now, like Kuwait. Cyprus is also unquestionably part of the region geographically.

[AussieB]

Israel persecutes Christians? How?

I don't understand this whole thing about Israel. It seems like it is the worst country in the world if you read the media. Most UN HRC resolutions are against Israel. And who is responsible for them? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Libya..... Kind of Hypocrisy. And actually I have been in Israel and I haven't experienced any form of discrimination even though I'm half Arab (my father is Lebanese).

[politicus]

The idea that Arab countries should be able to somehow cope with a nuclear war because of their size is not realistic. They may be larger than Israel, but their big cities are vulnerable (Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Beirut) and Egypt's population is heavily concentrated in the Nile valley which is only slightly larger than Israels territory. Lebanon is a small and densely populated country and Syria is a relatively urbanized country with high population density in the western part.

Unlike Israel, the Arab population centers aren't right on the border by and large.  The Arabs will be able to engage in a defense in depth that will give them more time to react to an Israeli attack than Israel will have to react to an Arab attack.  I'm not saying that the Arabs wouldn't be hurt in such a war, they clearly would be, but if Israel continues down the dark path they currently are on, they'll force the Arabs into deciding that the pain is worth the gain.

If I could see some way in which the current slow path to Armageddon could be avoided, I would hope it would be followed, but I just don't see it.

You are still asserting that the Arabs really care enough about the Palestinians to engage in a nuclear war. This is the major flaw in your argument. "Slow path to Armageddon" is massive hyperbole.
Distance to the border is not really relevant in a nuclear war. The time frame is just too short for it to matter much. Even if it where:
1. You cant just relocate large populations to desert areas. Its a logistical nightmare.
2. Some population centers like Beirut and Damascus are relatively close to the Israeli border.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In general terms, because the American media is 'biased' in that general direction. The media in most other 'Western' countries is generally pretty 'biased' in the other general direction. There's nothing 'wrong' or sinister about either fact.

More specifically, though, Walter Benjamin was right: fashion dictates empathy. As an observation it seems strikingly relevant to the positions taken - often out of near total ignorance - with regards to this mess.

[J. J.]

Also Israel is not "the only democracy in the region". Even if you want to argue that Egypt isn't at that point yet, Turkey is often included in the region, and there's also Lebanon right next door. Also remember all that junk we heard years ago about free elections in Iraq? Some of the emirates are also fairly democratic with a basically constitutional monarch setup now, like Kuwait. Cyprus is also unquestionably part of the region geographically.

While I would not call it oppressive, I wouldn't call Kuwait "fairly democratic."  Both Lebanon and Cypress are failed states, with de facto partitions.  Iraq is still in a formative state, at best. 

The reasons are several:

1.  Israel is of Western origin in both its population and its institutions:

A.  Its governmental structures are very similar to European parliamentary democracies, especially Germany (but without the federalism).  The courts are independent.

B.  Especially its leadership.  Even the native born leaders have strong ties to Europe or America, to the point that the current PM graduated from high school within 10 miles from me.

2.  There is a emotional tie, not just with Jews, but with a number of Christian fundamentalists.

3.  Israel is stable.  No PM could grab power in a way that was seen with Morsi.

[Brittain33]

Cyprus isn't a "failed state"! It is partitioned, but getting past that, southern Cyprus is a functioning democracy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The failure as a state on the part of Cyprus happened in the seventies and simply hasn't been fixed. Cyprus is not actively failing or recently failed. It's an EU member state, for God's sake.

[bedstuy]

Also Israel is not "the only democracy in the region". Even if you want to argue that Egypt isn't at that point yet, Turkey is often included in the region, and there's also Lebanon right next door. Also remember all that junk we heard years ago about free elections in Iraq? Some of the emirates are also fairly democratic with a basically constitutional monarch setup now, like Kuwait. Cyprus is also unquestionably part of the region geographically.

When people say democracy, I think they mean more than voting.  They're also referring to civil rights, equality, political and religious freedom and human rights.  Those wonderful emirates are horribly unequal, engage in human trafficking and abuse migrant workers on a mass scale.  Lebanon and Jordan treat Palestinians horribly.  Clearly, a Palestinian would rather live in Israel than in Lebanon or Jordan.  In terms of freedom of the press, freedom for religious minorities and gay people, Israel is way, way better than the nominal democracies across the middle east.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You are still asserting that the Arabs really care enough about the Palestinians to engage in a nuclear war. This is the major flaw in your argument.

Not really.  The Arab states don't care that much about the Palestinians today because where they are now is not a problem for them.  Once Israel begins to ethnically cleanse the areas they control to drive out the Palestinians, so that they are displaced into other Arab states, Arab interest will pick up.  Nuclear war under the current conditions would not be possible even if the Arabs had the military capabilities that they now lack, but which I expect them to gain.  But the current conditions will not the be the future conditions, and I see no reason for them to not deteriorate in the way I foresee.  The Zionist quest for lebensraum will inevitably lead to it unless something unforeseen causes it to be abandoned.

[stegosaurus]

To put it simply, because most of the people who are calling for Israel's destruction are also calling for ours (for reasons unrelated to Israel). Our enemies are mutual, which is why we armed them in the first place. It's less to do with any sort of values as it is a sensible position in the name of our nation's interests.

[politicus]

To put it simply, because most of the people who are calling for Israel's destruction are also calling for ours (for reasons unrelated to Israel). Our enemies are mutual, which is why we armed them in the first place. It's less to do with any sort of values as it is a sensible position in the name of our nation's interests.

One of the main reasons most Arabs are anti-American is your support for Israel (the other big one is your support for Arab dictators). So that's not a good argument. If the US dropped support for Israel and promised not to interfere militarily in the region the level of anti-Americanism in the Arab world would drop dramatically and the US would stop being such an obvious target for Islamic terrorists (with Russia, China and India going to replace you in that unenviable role).
 
As much as I as a Zionist would like US support for Israel to continue you can make a very good case that it is not in Americas best interest to do so.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The vast majority of Americans get on with their lives and don't really care either way but, like all those in European countries, their perceptions of the outside world are mostly formed from their friends, family, colleagues and whatever media they receive. So look at those factors.