How much of Support for Israel is based on Biblical Mythology?

Anti-Semitism involves falsely accusing Jews of horrendous atrocities.

If opposition to settlements involves falsely accusing Israel of imaginary crimes, it is very much anti-Semitism.

If, at the same time, the person opposing settlements has no problem with actual atrocities, it is even more so anti-Semitism.

Max is outrageously denying both Ehud Barak's peace offer and Ehud Olmert's peace offer.

When Max talks about Israel making a fair offer "once", he is referring to the actions of Yitzhak Rabin, despite the fact that Rabin was assassinated before the process even got to the point of making such an offer.

I don't think Max has clarified exactly what he thinks Yitzhak Rabin did that amounts to having made a fair peace offer.

To clarify, though I think there's very real truth to the idea that people have hated Jews for basically forever and cannot stand a Jewish state for that reason, that has little to do with where the overwhelming Palestinian/Arab perspective comes from; that perspective centers on the idea that Israel is indisputably European colonialism, and that the state was built on a European ideology that was espoused by a European people. After World War I, and after the Arabs had received the impression that they would finally govern themselves after having long been influenced by the non-Arab Ottomans, several agreements between European powers materialized that determined how the Arab World would be run in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire's collapse. The Arabs had little to no say in these various agreements. In the Levant, Europeans deemed the local population unsuited to fully independent rule. In the Arabian peninsula, prominent Arab figures encountered many problems as they formed their independent states. During the war, Arab leaders acted with the understanding that they would govern themselves after the end of the war. It was solely for this reason that they helped the Triple Entente against Ottoman forces before the war's end. Between 1915 and 1916, a series of letters between McMahon, a British diplomat, and Hussein bin Ali, Shareef of Macca, guaranteed the independence of many Arab lands, including what would become Palestine. Of course somehow it was just a misunderstanding - an Arab misinterpretation. And so the British reneged on their promise in two significant ways, first by taking the land for themselves once they established Palestine as a British mandate and second by promising Zionists rights to the same land to form a Jewish state with the Balfour Declaration.

Balfour declared that: "The four Great [European] Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land".

This Balfour quote sums up the driving force of the Palestinian perspective. Who deserves the land there, whether half or whole, is a matter of opinion and always will be. The majority of Palestinians and Arabs believe they have the rights to the land because Israel, in their eyes, is European colonialism. A bunch of European Jewish people with a British promise in their pocket immigrated to Arab land at a point when the Arabs there thought they'd achieved independence. They saw over the decades the Jewish immigrants acquiring land and influence and their dissatisfaction and anger regarding the situation increased. As I said before, they felt that cultural outsiders had taken their homes and ultimately changed their identity. It wasn't until Israel was established that animosity between Mizrahi Jewish people and Arabs in their local populations emerged, as Arab Jews were not Zionists and had played no part in the movement that led to their displacement from the homes they'd lived in.

Essentially Palestinians and Arabs largely believe that Israel was created by, as oralloy would say, the forces of evil. And was freedom for another people at the expense of another.

Since Foofie always injects a Jewish perspective on these threads, I think it's important to also have an Arab. And I hardly think that if the Jewish immigrants had been Armenians after the genocide they would have been received any better just because Armenians aren't Jewish.

It may be a political mistake, but how is it morally wrong to refuse to recognize Israel's supposed right to exist, again?

http://able2know.org/topic/359901-10#post-6337332

The Israelis are the indigenous population of the West Bank area.

Accusing people, of being anti-semitic simply because they criticize Israel's expansion of settlements is an ad hominem attack.

You posted two articles doing exactly that.

For the record. I challenge ad hominem attacks when they come from my own side of the political spectrum. These types of attacks are not valid in an intellectual discussion.

What Oralloy is saying here is true. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians trace their roots to the indigenous populations of what is modern day Israel. They have common genetic ancestors.

Strangely enough, the Bible contradicts Oralloy. The Bible says that the Jewish race descended from Abraham. Abraham is from "Ur of the Chaldees" (which most people think was in modern day Iraq or Turkey). He came to modern day Israel and lived as a foreign among the indigenous population already living there.

According to the Bible, after a period of captivity in Egypt, the Isrealites had a period of brutal conquest where they killed, displaced and enslaved the indigenous Caananites. The story of the conquest is told in great detail in the Book of Exodus, which is part of both the Christian and Jewish scriptures.

In this case the truth supports Oralloy's claim, yet the Biblical mythology paints the ancient Israelites as foreign invaders of the land that is now Israel.

I find that a bit amusing.

They invaded Caanan and killed or drove off the inhabitants, but weren't they returning to that land after a long absence in Egypt? Isn't the Temple Mount supposedly the high place where Abraham nearly sacrificed his son? From their point of view they were simply returning to their homeland.

This is not true. At best, some of the Israelis trace their roots to the Middle East in general, not Palestine specifically. The Ashkenazim, from whom Zionism sprang, exhibit little genealogy originating from the Middle East let alone Palestine.

This simplistic position conflates Jewish nationalism with religious mythology, the idea that all Jews are from Palestine. One thing is the religion. Quite another thing is the people who follow that religion or have ancestors who did. The truth of the matter is that the Israeli Zionists originated from the countries that they inhabited before they emigrated to Palestine. The Palestinians, by and large, originated in Palestine and the areas in that region of the Levant.

Begging the question, however, the Palestinians have much more of a right to Palestine than people claiming ancient ancestry from there.

This idea of a moral basis for accepting Israel's right to exist doesn't hold water, as it were.

Which is why you engage with him because it's easy. It's also why you can't answer the real reason for US support of Israel, hegemony/ neo-colonialism and arms. You're frightened of the truth which is why, like Oralboy you retreat into a fantasy world where the only reason the US supports Israel is because of some horseshit biblical prophecy.

It's a load of old bollocks which makes it easy to argue against, that's why you do it. Truth is the ME is far more complex, Infrared has pointed huge holes in your knowledge and you're way out of your depth.

Stick to domestic issues, the outside world requires grown up knowledge.

Read Genesis 11 and 12. That will explain it pretty well.

Izzy,

Two things. First of all, both you and Oralloy have an absolutist view of the world where everything is black or white, good or bad. Both of you are incapable of even admitting when facts don't match your arguments. And both of you commonly use personal attacks and ad hominems when people present another point of view.

I sit in the middle of you and Oralloy. You and Oralloy are at the extremes. I have never seen either you or he acknowledge with someone with a different point of view has a point. You disagree about the issues based on your political ideologies, but you both view me in the same way.

That amuses me.

Just for the record, I see what Infrared is saying and I think that he has some points particiularly in his analysis of US political interests in the Middle East. I understand that US involvement in this issue is more complex.

However, my interest in this post involves US domestic support for our Israel policy. Domestic support is important to the US system of politics, without strong enough support, politicians can't move forward.

My hypothesis is that US domestic support for a hawkish policy on Israel stems largely fom Evangelical Christian religious ideas.

For 8 years I've been called a racist because I criticized Obama. I don't recall seeing any such protest.

I am pretty sure I have stood up for you on more than one occasion McGentrix. I will state clearly that I think that the racism ad hominem is bogus.

In other words. I protest.

Ok then.

That's absolute nonsense, you refuse to see the situation in the ME for what it is. It's about securing America's interests, end of. That's why there's such a stink about Iran and why America is happy to sell state of the art weaponry to a country that does not allow women to drive.

You can't acknowledge that, you prefer living in a fantasy world where you're a bunch of white hatted do gooders. You're too scared to deal with reality which is why you accuse others of absolutism.

You can't even see the varying shades of political/religious/cultural difference throughout the ME which is why you retreat into your pseudo biblical bollocks, yet you accuse me of absolutism. Now that really is irony, you know, the quality you claim to enjoy, but have no understanding of.

The situation in the ME is way too complicated for someone with such ostrich reflexes. You don't understand it, nor do you possess the intellectual curiosity to try to understand it. In that you and Oralboy are exactly the same.

Btw, there's nothing remotely centrist or moderate about you. That's another fantasy.

This thread isn't about political/religious/cultural difference in the Middle East.

This thread is about religous-based support for Israel among "American Christians" in the United States. The first three words I wrote on this thread are "Many American Christians..."

Maybe this is the reason you are having trouble understanding.

You are wrong about what I can't acknowledge.... so let me go ahead and acknowledge it again very clearly so you can see.

I acknowledge that the situation in the Middle East is about securing America's interests. I acknowledge that this is responsible for the contradictory foreign policy such as why we sell weaponry to Saudi Arabia and make "such a stink" about Iran.

I agree with you fairly often, Izzy. And I have no problem admitting when I agree with you. And I don't feel the need to attack your intelligence when I disagree with you (except when I feel your attacks have gone too far). The only real complaint I have about your behavior is the number of times you resort to unprovoked personal attacks merely because someone has a different point of view. I don't like bullying behavior.

This thread is about religious based popular support for Israel, particularly from American Christians. The title of the thread implies that. The initial post imples that.

I believe you are correct in most of your statements about American policy in the Middle East... but I also believe that, as you say, things are complicated and this can be seen through several different lenses.

"Bible mythology"?
A self-defining system.

Israel is not governed by Jews.
NVM - You deserve your reality.