The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
AIPAC Is Good at What It Does
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Source.

Even Islam tolerates Israel (though the Muslim sample, at just 66, is the smallest one represented here by far). Only in America!

Parenthetically, is the post’s title anti-Semitic? If not, good. Let free expression be. If so, would it be more, less, or equally anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC is bad at what it does?

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Israel, Jews, Polling 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’m not on board with the Joo monomania polluting a lot of right-wing comment sections but even I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic. Just another case of the powerful making the rules, I guess.

    CAIR also seems to be pretty good at what they do. They even got the Jews wailing about “Islamophobia”. All of these massive foreign lobby groups are immensely powerful and successful. It’d be swell if we had one for Americans.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Hail

    I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic
     
    The truth or untruth of a thing is often of secondary (or lower) importance. The reactions are instructive. Here is one reaction many reading this may not have seen:

    Following the Somalian Congresswoman's public humiliation ('ritual' humiliation?) (Feb. 11), Stephen Walt came out with a hand-wringing editorial (Feb. 15) in Foreign Policy, in which he took the bold step of criticizing anti-Semitism.

    (Yes, this is the very same Walt of Mearsheimer and Walt renown; Professor of International Affairs at Harvard, and of typically Middle America, NW-European Christian origin, though his wife is half Russian-Jewish by ancestry.)

    "How (and How Not) to Talk About the Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt.

    Excerpts and comment:


    The recent uproar over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s tweets criticizing the conduct of Israel’s government and its U.S. supporters, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes one thing clear: U.S.-Israel relations (and U.S. Middle East policy more broadly) remains a third rail that one touches at one’s peril. The harsh responses to Omar are hardly surprising, and unfortunately—as in the past—this latest furor has generated considerably more heat than light. But the breadth and vehemence of the reaction are still instructive.

    Let’s start with some obvious but vital points. Anti-Semitism has a long and loathsome history dating back centuries
     


    Anti-Semites have fanned the flames with bizarre conspiracy theories about secret cabals (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and sinister claims about the influence of “Jewish money,” along with divisive accusations of national disloyalty (as in the notorious Dreyfus affair in France). Such hateful beliefs and tropes have had fatal consequences, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust
     

    Given all that, Jews are understandably alarmed and angry when similar ideas or tropes are invoked today. Indeed, everyone should be. We should all be outraged when a world leader such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban directs classic anti-Semitic accusations at someone like George Soros
     
    Slamming Viktor Orban for criticizing George Soros? Insinuating that Orban is a scarlet-letter "anti-Semite," and therefore someone to shun at the least? This is just disgraceful.

    Many will recall that Professor Walt was himself slammed for anti-Semitism starting in the mid 2000s, and for years thereafter, because of his co-authored work on the Israel Lobby (first published in article form in March 2006; Steve Sailer wrote about it at the time).

    Mearsheimer & Walt in 2006:


    No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism [...]
     
    That was then. Is this Feb. 2019 editorial indicative that Walt has 'evolved'? One wonders.

    In fairness to Walt, he goes on to say this in the Feb. 2019 editorial:


    But at the same time, we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about all the forces that shape U.S. politics today, including groups like AIPAC and related organizations that seek to influence U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East
     
    , @14WordsToFreedom

    “I’m not on board with the Joo monomania polluting a lot of right-wing comment sections but even I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic.”
     
    It’s very simple: Jews operate by having a strong ingroup preference, in societies where the majority doesn’t have an ingroup preference. Then they hide their identities to obscure their group identification from their hosts. It’s like a secret society, it only works when it’s a secret. So pointing out that they are a) not part of the host society, and b) part of a secret society, which c) is exploiting their host society, spoils the game and puts them at danger of being made to leave once again.

    It’s yet another case predicted by Goebbels:

    The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
     
    Usually, if something helps you better understand the present and predict the future, you can consider it “true,” even if you don’t like the truth.
  2. The title can be interpreted in two ways. Either AIPAC is doing a good job in communicating the truth, or AIPAC is doing a good job in deceiving the American people.

    Both ways it attributes unnatural power to a single organisation. The latter comes with the added negative of removing agency from, and therefore insulting, the absolute majority of Americans. Something that doesn’t tend to be the most persuasive technique…

    Also, clearly, elements of the above have been used as justification for some pretty horrible stuff, so it is ordinary that many people are sensitised to it.

    The problem with innocently fitting a genuine pre-established pattern of malign behaviour is that people will rush to judge you as malign. This may be unfair but it is not their fault. They are being rational. The problem is with those who behave malignantly. (I’m sure commenters will provide numerous examples.)

    As I’d say to a young black American man who is annoyed at being stopped and searched a lot – blame your fellow young black American men who commit too much crime. Also, wear glasses.

    So what are “glasses” when it comes to this stuff? Probably some sort of fair-minded balancing comment of the type that everyone normal uses when any sensitive subject is brought up. Even had I recently had an argument with a friend over something small and dumb, I wouldn’t bring up something related without picking my words fairly carefully. Perhaps, rationally this shouldn’t be needed, but then mutual understanding is the problem among well-intentioned people, and refusing to move beyond what is strictly rational in order to further mutual understanding is autistic. Though obviously that can be taken too far and disingenuously used to shut speech down…

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  3. It’s interesting to see that Russian approval of Israel is about the same as in the US (as of 1-2 years ago, anyway; it will likely be a bit lower now, after Israel baited the Syrians into shooting down a Russian recon plane).

    Russia has no AIPAC.

    OTOH, it has no ZOG, either. (There are of course other major influence groups, but I think Jewish influence in Russia is honestly very minor. Even Armenians have a stronger lobby). So I guess that balances out.

    While I’m not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point. When your representatives are undermining your own Constitution for Israel’s benefit and even pointing that out is a career killer – you are ruled by ZOG. In contrast, ritualistically proclaiming that Drumpf is a Russian puppet – despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics – is a near requirement for handshakeworthiness.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @iffen
    despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics

    So you are claiming that Adelson placed Trump in the White House then convinced the SJWs that the "Russian" hackers did it. They be damn good!

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Those figures for northwest Europe really are markedly different than in the US.

    Indeed, AIPAC is good at what it does.
    , @Hail
    Any data on relative magnitude by country of "critical of Israel from the left" vs. "critical of Israel from the right"?

    There is a risk of looking at that map and seeing a pattern not really there.
    , @Anonymous

    While I’m not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point.
     
    Respectfully, I don't think that's really true. The Israel lobby fervently opposed the JCPOA, but---until the election of President Trump---was unable to stop it. The US has not done either a 2011 Libya style air campaign or 1980s Afghanistan training/equipment of the rebels campaign to overthrow Assad, despite heavy lobbying from AIPAC. The outgoing Obama administration refused to veto a UN resolution condemning Israel's illegal settlements, much to Netanyahu's chagrin.

    Ironically, President Trump has so far been considerably more supportive of the Israel lobby's agenda than President Obama.

    Moving back the clock, people like to talk about "wars for Israel" in some abstract sense, but they have a hard time specifying which wars fought for which reasons benefited Israel. (The conclusions of the oft-cited Clean Break memo were in fact rejected by Netanyahu, and it was drafted by people who became low to mid-level officials in the Bush administration.) Afghanistan in 2001 was not a threat to Israel in any sense, nor was Libya in 2011. Neither was Iraq in 2003; though Hussein was antagonistic towards Israel, as long as he was in power he limited Iranian influence in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly. Just as Israel is now for all intents and purposes aligned with the Sunni Gulf States, I think it would have reached some sort of detente with Hussein's Iraq absent the US invasion. Deposing him predictably led to an increase of Iranian influence, which is obviously highly contrary to Israel's interests.

    Israel has a malign influence on US politics and foreign policy. However, I would say that in practical terms this is mainly in the form of the US giving generous military aid packages to Israel and diplomatic cover at the UN. When it comes to high-level substantive decisions about war, peace and diplomacy, though, I don't think the evidence suggests that the Israel lobby exercises the kind of massive influence that many people on the dissident right think it does.

  4. Parenthetically, is the post’s title anti-Semitic?

    Not necessarily anti-Semitic, but it does have the built-in premise that AIPAC, and by implication the Jews and Israel, are only viewed favorable because of propaganda and lobbying. It’s not that much different from the SJW view that the NRA is the only reason that we want to protect and exercise our 2nd amendment rights.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  5. @Anatoly Karlin
    It's interesting to see that Russian approval of Israel is about the same as in the US (as of 1-2 years ago, anyway; it will likely be a bit lower now, after Israel baited the Syrians into shooting down a Russian recon plane).

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-europe-approval-israel.png

    Russia has no AIPAC.

    OTOH, it has no ZOG, either. (There are of course other major influence groups, but I think Jewish influence in Russia is honestly very minor. Even Armenians have a stronger lobby). So I guess that balances out.

    While I'm not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point. When your representatives are undermining your own Constitution for Israel's benefit and even pointing that out is a career killer - you are ruled by ZOG. In contrast, ritualistically proclaiming that Drumpf is a Russian puppet - despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics - is a near requirement for handshakeworthiness.

    despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics

    So you are claiming that Adelson placed Trump in the White House then convinced the SJWs that the “Russian” hackers did it. They be damn good!

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    No, I am certainly not claiming that. However, it is clear that US foreign policy is extremely favorably disposed to Jewish/Israeli interests, and it's not hard to see why.

    https://twitter.com/GuiDurocher/status/1095237969030594560
  6. @iffen
    despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics

    So you are claiming that Adelson placed Trump in the White House then convinced the SJWs that the "Russian" hackers did it. They be damn good!

    No, I am certainly not claiming that. However, it is clear that US foreign policy is extremely favorably disposed to Jewish/Israeli interests, and it’s not hard to see why.

  7. However, it is clear that US foreign policy is extremely favorably disposed to Jewish/Israeli interests

    I haven’t run across anyone who disputes this.

    and it’s not hard to see why.

    Apparently it is hard to see that it is not one-dimensional. Granted, powerful lobbying has to have a major effect.

  8. America largely resembles a plutocracy. It would be great if society could get around to calling top political “donors” (I am not sure if that is the most accurate term) in America oligarchs.

  9. I’m glad to see you’re right back A.E. and that everything should be OK.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
  10. “Just because the Poll says…” It may not be a true and accurate ‘description’ of the factual opinions. The lack of accurate polling was profoundly demonstrated in the months leading up to Hillary overwhelmingly being elected President.

    Regarding this poll in particularly the 40.4 % Muslim “favorable view of Israel” should give one pause and consider the validity and accuracy of the poll. It seems a very high number.

    Similarly, the 69% White favorable seems low. I cannot think of a single white person I have know for decades who did not have a favorable opinion, let alone 3 in 10.

    PS
    Thankfully your hibernation was short lived!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The 2016 presidential election polling gets a worse rap than it deserves, and I note this as someone who was quite critical of it. The RCP average had Hillary winning by ~4 points. She eneded up winning the popular by 2 points (at least to the extent that the vote counting was accurate).
  11. They are not ten feet tall you know. George HW Bush was officially endorsed as a presidential candidate by AIPAC.

    • Replies: @iffen
    They are not ten feet tall you know.

    When surrounded by pygmies ...

  12. @Sean
    They are not ten feet tall you know. George HW Bush was officially endorsed as a presidential candidate by AIPAC.

    They are not ten feet tall you know.

    When surrounded by pygmies …

    • Replies: @Sean
    Bush the Elder did defy AIPAC over the incorporation of the occupied territories, as had Carter before him. Obama ended up by saying "I don't see how this issue gets resolved in a way that maintains Israel as both Jewish and a democracy". AIPAC is not very good at convincing the US foreign policy establishment, which has a more realistic view of the long term future.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/
    The very purpose of setting up the State of Israel was to make sure that Jews would never again have to live in a country where they are a minority and, as such, exposed to discrimination and persecution of every kind. Yet already today, counting Israel’s own Arab citizens, about as many Palestinians as Jews live in the land west of the Jordan. In every way that matters, all of them come under the same government, i.e. that of Israel in Jerusalem. Had it not been for Israel, Abu Mazen’s Palestinian Authority, such as it is, would have been toppled by its own people in a very short time. In this sense the single Palestinian State, reaching from the Mediterranean in the west to the Jordan River in the ease, already exists or will do so quite soon. As in the former unlamented South Africa, all that is needed is a change of government. And of the flag, of course. [...]

    And just as the conflict over Alsace-Lorraine played a large role in turning what started as a relatively minor conflict in the Balkans into World War I, so the collapse of the Jordanian State, the outbreak of terrorism from across the Jordan, and an Israeli attempt to throw at least a considerable number of the Palestinians currently under its rule across the river is almost certain to lead to a much larger war in the Middle East. Just as in 1948, let me add.
     

    , @Stan d Mute

    When surrounded by pygmies …
     
    What? I thought Tyrion and Twinkle were the only ones, you’re saying there are more here?
  13. Parenthetically, is the post’s title anti-Semitic? If not, good. Let free expression be. If so, would it be more, less, or equally anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC is bad at what it does?

    Good or bad is irrelevant. It is anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC does anything other than advance the interests of the United States and is totally patriotic.

    By the way, color me surprised about Asians being the least Israel-friendly in the U.S. among the major ethno-racial groups.

    I’d love to see a religious-denominational break down.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    Twinkie—Asians being the least Israel-friendly

    An ADL survey found that 53 per cent of South Koreans were anti-Semitic, just shy of Iran’s 56 per cent.

    , @Johann Ricke

    By the way, color me surprised about Asians being the least Israel-friendly in the U.S. among the major ethno-racial groups.
     
    Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians and non-Muslim majority country East and South Asian Muslims are considered Asians. That may skew the numbers. I happen to know a number of East and South Asian Muslims who aren't big fans of Israel for the usual Islamic reasons.
  14. @Twinkie

    Parenthetically, is the post’s title anti-Semitic? If not, good. Let free expression be. If so, would it be more, less, or equally anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC is bad at what it does?
     
    Good or bad is irrelevant. It is anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC does anything other than advance the interests of the United States and is totally patriotic.

    By the way, color me surprised about Asians being the least Israel-friendly in the U.S. among the major ethno-racial groups.

    I'd love to see a religious-denominational break down.

    Twinkie—Asians being the least Israel-friendly

    An ADL survey found that 53 per cent of South Koreans were anti-Semitic, just shy of Iran’s 56 per cent.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    An ADL survey found that 53 per cent of South Koreans were anti-Semitic, just shy of Iran’s 56 per cent.
     
    While that, too, is a surprise for me (those evil Koreans!), that same survey says this:

    One of the largest surprises in the survey were the results for South Korea. According to the ADL metric, an astounding 53 percent of the population were found to by anti-Semitic. This compares unfavorably to the just 20 percent of Chinese and 23 percent of Japanese respondents who were also found to hold anti-Semitic viewpoints. In non-Muslim majority countries in Southeast Asian countries, the percentage of respondents holding anti-Semitic viewpoints was even lower. For example, in Laos just 0.2 percent of those surveyed held anti-Semitic viewpoints, along with 3 percent in the Philippines and 6 percent in Vietnam.
     
    In other words, most Asians are quite philo-Semitic/Israel-friendly, which certainly fits my life experiences and observations. However, much of that "admiration" by Asians is expressed bluntly in terms that many Jews would find, er, let's just say, a bit uncomfortable, i.e. "Jews are good at making money," "Jews are very smart and dominate banking, politics, and media," etc.

    It is really curious to me, nonetheless, why Koreans are so unusually "anti-Semitic." Perhaps they are just cranky people who hate everyone.* According to the Pew study, among Asians in America, they have the worst opinion of race-relations here, no doubt in large part due to their violent conflict with blacks (in contrast, Filipinos have the sunniest view on race-relations in the U.S.).

    *Though American-born Koreans have the highest intermarriage rates among Asians in America, for both men and women, and they tend to disappear into whites after a couple of generations as Japanese immigrants did in the past.

    Perhaps Ken Jeong knows his people, when he says that Koreans are the angriest mo-fos in the world:
    https://youtu.be/yi6fX2Qbvvo
  15. Very interesting stat about Muslims at 40% “positive”. I’d like to know what exact questions they asked.

    I can safely say I’ve never met one Muslim in person that did not dislike Israel and I’ve met hundreds since I’ve moved around quite a bit. But maybe these are the kind that don’t attend mosques or something.

    I do know of those that are put out and paid by groups like Clarion and stuff that talk positive about Israel. And dudes like this, but you don’t see these guys hanging out with Muslims:

    On the positive side – we are the least affected by Israeli propaganda so – break out that halal beer boys!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The question was straightforward--do you have a "favorable" or "unfavorable" view of Israel as a country?

    I was also surprised by the results. The Muslim sample is the smallest by far at just 66. I should've included that in the initial post. I've updated it.
  16. @iffen
    They are not ten feet tall you know.

    When surrounded by pygmies ...

    Bush the Elder did defy AIPAC over the incorporation of the occupied territories, as had Carter before him. Obama ended up by saying “I don’t see how this issue gets resolved in a way that maintains Israel as both Jewish and a democracy”. AIPAC is not very good at convincing the US foreign policy establishment, which has a more realistic view of the long term future.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/
    The very purpose of setting up the State of Israel was to make sure that Jews would never again have to live in a country where they are a minority and, as such, exposed to discrimination and persecution of every kind. Yet already today, counting Israel’s own Arab citizens, about as many Palestinians as Jews live in the land west of the Jordan. In every way that matters, all of them come under the same government, i.e. that of Israel in Jerusalem. Had it not been for Israel, Abu Mazen’s Palestinian Authority, such as it is, would have been toppled by its own people in a very short time. In this sense the single Palestinian State, reaching from the Mediterranean in the west to the Jordan River in the ease, already exists or will do so quite soon. As in the former unlamented South Africa, all that is needed is a change of government. And of the flag, of course. […]

    And just as the conflict over Alsace-Lorraine played a large role in turning what started as a relatively minor conflict in the Balkans into World War I, so the collapse of the Jordanian State, the outbreak of terrorism from across the Jordan, and an Israeli attempt to throw at least a considerable number of the Palestinians currently under its rule across the river is almost certain to lead to a much larger war in the Middle East. Just as in 1948, let me add.

  17. @Anatoly Karlin
    It's interesting to see that Russian approval of Israel is about the same as in the US (as of 1-2 years ago, anyway; it will likely be a bit lower now, after Israel baited the Syrians into shooting down a Russian recon plane).

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-europe-approval-israel.png

    Russia has no AIPAC.

    OTOH, it has no ZOG, either. (There are of course other major influence groups, but I think Jewish influence in Russia is honestly very minor. Even Armenians have a stronger lobby). So I guess that balances out.

    While I'm not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point. When your representatives are undermining your own Constitution for Israel's benefit and even pointing that out is a career killer - you are ruled by ZOG. In contrast, ritualistically proclaiming that Drumpf is a Russian puppet - despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics - is a near requirement for handshakeworthiness.

    Those figures for northwest Europe really are markedly different than in the US.

    Indeed, AIPAC is good at what it does.

  18. @Tom Verso
    “Just because the Poll says…” It may not be a true and accurate ‘description’ of the factual opinions. The lack of accurate polling was profoundly demonstrated in the months leading up to Hillary overwhelmingly being elected President.

    Regarding this poll in particularly the 40.4 % Muslim “favorable view of Israel” should give one pause and consider the validity and accuracy of the poll. It seems a very high number.

    Similarly, the 69% White favorable seems low. I cannot think of a single white person I have know for decades who did not have a favorable opinion, let alone 3 in 10.

    PS
    Thankfully your hibernation was short lived!

    The 2016 presidential election polling gets a worse rap than it deserves, and I note this as someone who was quite critical of it. The RCP average had Hillary winning by ~4 points. She eneded up winning the popular by 2 points (at least to the extent that the vote counting was accurate).

    • Replies: @Tom Verso
    I'm not sure what RCP is; but my understanding of the polling results in the link below shows that for all major polls - one cannot say the "polling gets a worse rap than it deserves." I recall reading time and again analysis of polls that were weighted with Democrats, minorities and youth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
    , @LondonBob
    They got individual states catastrophically wrong, Trump's yuge win in Ohio for example. Only Richard Baris at PPD and the Trafalgar Group deserve any credit.
  19. @Talha
    Very interesting stat about Muslims at 40% “positive”. I’d like to know what exact questions they asked.

    I can safely say I’ve never met one Muslim in person that did not dislike Israel and I’ve met hundreds since I’ve moved around quite a bit. But maybe these are the kind that don’t attend mosques or something.

    I do know of those that are put out and paid by groups like Clarion and stuff that talk positive about Israel. And dudes like this, but you don’t see these guys hanging out with Muslims:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6nBkA3_duzQ

    On the positive side - we are the least affected by Israeli propaganda so - break out that halal beer boys!

    Peace.

    The question was straightforward–do you have a “favorable” or “unfavorable” view of Israel as a country?

    I was also surprised by the results. The Muslim sample is the smallest by far at just 66. I should’ve included that in the initial post. I’ve updated it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, that's a straightforward question. I wonder about the intensity of the answers, as in how much the respondent actually gives a damn about it. I mean specifically the Hispanics and Asians - I don't think they really care much about the place and what happens in politics regarding Jews. So, if I were of that persuasion, I'd probably just check a box really quickly just to get it over with.

    It's hard to get it through to people, and I doubt the pollsters even try, but damn, if you really don't care or know, DON'T ANSWER. That's even more important for the real polls, elections that is.

    , @Talha
    Yeah a 66 sample is not reliable at all. I mean maybe among Muslims that work in DC or something. I can say safely that my sample size is much larger. I happened to come across my kids’ Quran teacher today and asked him if he has met any Muslim with such a view and he started laughing. He mentioned on his campus, every Muslim student he has come across belongs to the pro-Palestinian advocacy group and even some Jews are part of it.

    I shared this on Twitter and one person thinks it may be because those guys thought their answer might be leaked/recorded and they may face consequences. I tend to agree.

    Take away: the numbers for Muslims is not very reliable, I would ignore it.

    Peace.

  20. @Audacious Epigone
    The question was straightforward--do you have a "favorable" or "unfavorable" view of Israel as a country?

    I was also surprised by the results. The Muslim sample is the smallest by far at just 66. I should've included that in the initial post. I've updated it.

    OK, that’s a straightforward question. I wonder about the intensity of the answers, as in how much the respondent actually gives a damn about it. I mean specifically the Hispanics and Asians – I don’t think they really care much about the place and what happens in politics regarding Jews. So, if I were of that persuasion, I’d probably just check a box really quickly just to get it over with.

    It’s hard to get it through to people, and I doubt the pollsters even try, but damn, if you really don’t care or know, DON’T ANSWER. That’s even more important for the real polls, elections that is.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    R-I usually provides a "don't know" response for poll-takers, but not always. I'm not sure why.
  21. @Michael S
    I'm not on board with the Joo monomania polluting a lot of right-wing comment sections but even I don't understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic. Just another case of the powerful making the rules, I guess.

    CAIR also seems to be pretty good at what they do. They even got the Jews wailing about "Islamophobia". All of these massive foreign lobby groups are immensely powerful and successful. It'd be swell if we had one for Americans.

    I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic

    The truth or untruth of a thing is often of secondary (or lower) importance. The reactions are instructive. Here is one reaction many reading this may not have seen:

    Following the Somalian Congresswoman’s public humiliation (‘ritual’ humiliation?) (Feb. 11), Stephen Walt came out with a hand-wringing editorial (Feb. 15) in Foreign Policy, in which he took the bold step of criticizing anti-Semitism.

    (Yes, this is the very same Walt of Mearsheimer and Walt renown; Professor of International Affairs at Harvard, and of typically Middle America, NW-European Christian origin, though his wife is half Russian-Jewish by ancestry.)

    How (and How Not) to Talk About the Israel Lobby,” by Stephen Walt.

    Excerpts and comment:

    [MORE]

    The recent uproar over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s tweets criticizing the conduct of Israel’s government and its U.S. supporters, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes one thing clear: U.S.-Israel relations (and U.S. Middle East policy more broadly) remains a third rail that one touches at one’s peril. The harsh responses to Omar are hardly surprising, and unfortunately—as in the past—this latest furor has generated considerably more heat than light. But the breadth and vehemence of the reaction are still instructive.

    Let’s start with some obvious but vital points. Anti-Semitism has a long and loathsome history dating back centuries

    Anti-Semites have fanned the flames with bizarre conspiracy theories about secret cabals (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and sinister claims about the influence of “Jewish money,” along with divisive accusations of national disloyalty (as in the notorious Dreyfus affair in France). Such hateful beliefs and tropes have had fatal consequences, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust

    Given all that, Jews are understandably alarmed and angry when similar ideas or tropes are invoked today. Indeed, everyone should be. We should all be outraged when a world leader such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban directs classic anti-Semitic accusations at someone like George Soros

    Slamming Viktor Orban for criticizing George Soros? Insinuating that Orban is a scarlet-letter “anti-Semite,” and therefore someone to shun at the least? This is just disgraceful.

    Many will recall that Professor Walt was himself slammed for anti-Semitism starting in the mid 2000s, and for years thereafter, because of his co-authored work on the Israel Lobby (first published in article form in March 2006; Steve Sailer wrote about it at the time).

    Mearsheimer & Walt in 2006:

    No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism […]

    That was then. Is this Feb. 2019 editorial indicative that Walt has ‘evolved’? One wonders.

    In fairness to Walt, he goes on to say this in the Feb. 2019 editorial:

    But at the same time, we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about all the forces that shape U.S. politics today, including groups like AIPAC and related organizations that seek to influence U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about

    Everything. We need to be able to talk openly and calmly about everything. Political correctness is the great intellectual disease of the 21st century.
    , @Michael S
    I think you misunderstood my quip. Or I communicated poorly. Of course this is about power and not truth. But even when one speaks power to truth, there has to be something at least semi-logical so that listeners can take the hint and not just walk away confused and bewildered.

    AIPAC isn't mysterious. Their mission is right in the name. Every mainstream and non-mainstream source labels them pro-Israel. Their own website labels them pro-Israel and says that they seek to "build relationships with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship". If they intended to keep their mission a secret, they really missed the boat. They missed several boats.

    It's like being told that the NAACP doesn't advocate for blacks, or the Council on Foreign Relations doesn't seek to influence foreign policy. O RLY? What do they do, then? If AIPAC doesn't advocate for Israel, what exactly does it do, and why does its name and its mission statement say that it advocates for Israel? It's baffling. The ACLU, SPLC, ADL, and so on, are all very cagey about their true purpose, and when someone claims that their name is a lie, it's usually someone opposed to them. What possible sense is there in AIPAC supporters telling us to not believe what AIPAC says about itself?

    The only sane conclusion I can come up with is that talking about AIPAC at all is supposed to be taboo, like the Freemasons or Skull and Bones. Apparently we are supposed to treat them like a secret society. But they don't operate like a secret society, so again, confusing.
  22. @Anatoly Karlin
    It's interesting to see that Russian approval of Israel is about the same as in the US (as of 1-2 years ago, anyway; it will likely be a bit lower now, after Israel baited the Syrians into shooting down a Russian recon plane).

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-europe-approval-israel.png

    Russia has no AIPAC.

    OTOH, it has no ZOG, either. (There are of course other major influence groups, but I think Jewish influence in Russia is honestly very minor. Even Armenians have a stronger lobby). So I guess that balances out.

    While I'm not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point. When your representatives are undermining your own Constitution for Israel's benefit and even pointing that out is a career killer - you are ruled by ZOG. In contrast, ritualistically proclaiming that Drumpf is a Russian puppet - despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics - is a near requirement for handshakeworthiness.

    Any data on relative magnitude by country of “critical of Israel from the left” vs. “critical of Israel from the right”?

    There is a risk of looking at that map and seeing a pattern not really there.

  23. @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, that's a straightforward question. I wonder about the intensity of the answers, as in how much the respondent actually gives a damn about it. I mean specifically the Hispanics and Asians - I don't think they really care much about the place and what happens in politics regarding Jews. So, if I were of that persuasion, I'd probably just check a box really quickly just to get it over with.

    It's hard to get it through to people, and I doubt the pollsters even try, but damn, if you really don't care or know, DON'T ANSWER. That's even more important for the real polls, elections that is.

    R-I usually provides a “don’t know” response for poll-takers, but not always. I’m not sure why.

  24. @Audacious Epigone
    The question was straightforward--do you have a "favorable" or "unfavorable" view of Israel as a country?

    I was also surprised by the results. The Muslim sample is the smallest by far at just 66. I should've included that in the initial post. I've updated it.

    Yeah a 66 sample is not reliable at all. I mean maybe among Muslims that work in DC or something. I can say safely that my sample size is much larger. I happened to come across my kids’ Quran teacher today and asked him if he has met any Muslim with such a view and he started laughing. He mentioned on his campus, every Muslim student he has come across belongs to the pro-Palestinian advocacy group and even some Jews are part of it.

    I shared this on Twitter and one person thinks it may be because those guys thought their answer might be leaked/recorded and they may face consequences. I tend to agree.

    Take away: the numbers for Muslims is not very reliable, I would ignore it.

    Peace.

  25. @Hail

    I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic
     
    The truth or untruth of a thing is often of secondary (or lower) importance. The reactions are instructive. Here is one reaction many reading this may not have seen:

    Following the Somalian Congresswoman's public humiliation ('ritual' humiliation?) (Feb. 11), Stephen Walt came out with a hand-wringing editorial (Feb. 15) in Foreign Policy, in which he took the bold step of criticizing anti-Semitism.

    (Yes, this is the very same Walt of Mearsheimer and Walt renown; Professor of International Affairs at Harvard, and of typically Middle America, NW-European Christian origin, though his wife is half Russian-Jewish by ancestry.)

    "How (and How Not) to Talk About the Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt.

    Excerpts and comment:


    The recent uproar over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s tweets criticizing the conduct of Israel’s government and its U.S. supporters, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes one thing clear: U.S.-Israel relations (and U.S. Middle East policy more broadly) remains a third rail that one touches at one’s peril. The harsh responses to Omar are hardly surprising, and unfortunately—as in the past—this latest furor has generated considerably more heat than light. But the breadth and vehemence of the reaction are still instructive.

    Let’s start with some obvious but vital points. Anti-Semitism has a long and loathsome history dating back centuries
     


    Anti-Semites have fanned the flames with bizarre conspiracy theories about secret cabals (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and sinister claims about the influence of “Jewish money,” along with divisive accusations of national disloyalty (as in the notorious Dreyfus affair in France). Such hateful beliefs and tropes have had fatal consequences, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust
     

    Given all that, Jews are understandably alarmed and angry when similar ideas or tropes are invoked today. Indeed, everyone should be. We should all be outraged when a world leader such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban directs classic anti-Semitic accusations at someone like George Soros
     
    Slamming Viktor Orban for criticizing George Soros? Insinuating that Orban is a scarlet-letter "anti-Semite," and therefore someone to shun at the least? This is just disgraceful.

    Many will recall that Professor Walt was himself slammed for anti-Semitism starting in the mid 2000s, and for years thereafter, because of his co-authored work on the Israel Lobby (first published in article form in March 2006; Steve Sailer wrote about it at the time).

    Mearsheimer & Walt in 2006:


    No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism [...]
     
    That was then. Is this Feb. 2019 editorial indicative that Walt has 'evolved'? One wonders.

    In fairness to Walt, he goes on to say this in the Feb. 2019 editorial:


    But at the same time, we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about all the forces that shape U.S. politics today, including groups like AIPAC and related organizations that seek to influence U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East
     

    we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about

    Everything. We need to be able to talk openly and calmly about everything. Political correctness is the great intellectual disease of the 21st century.

    • Agree: Talha, Stan d Mute
  26. Anonymous[679] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    It's interesting to see that Russian approval of Israel is about the same as in the US (as of 1-2 years ago, anyway; it will likely be a bit lower now, after Israel baited the Syrians into shooting down a Russian recon plane).

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-europe-approval-israel.png

    Russia has no AIPAC.

    OTOH, it has no ZOG, either. (There are of course other major influence groups, but I think Jewish influence in Russia is honestly very minor. Even Armenians have a stronger lobby). So I guess that balances out.

    While I'm not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point. When your representatives are undermining your own Constitution for Israel's benefit and even pointing that out is a career killer - you are ruled by ZOG. In contrast, ritualistically proclaiming that Drumpf is a Russian puppet - despite Russians not having one hundredth the influence of Jews on US politics - is a near requirement for handshakeworthiness.

    While I’m not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point.

    Respectfully, I don’t think that’s really true. The Israel lobby fervently opposed the JCPOA, but—until the election of President Trump—was unable to stop it. The US has not done either a 2011 Libya style air campaign or 1980s Afghanistan training/equipment of the rebels campaign to overthrow Assad, despite heavy lobbying from AIPAC. The outgoing Obama administration refused to veto a UN resolution condemning Israel’s illegal settlements, much to Netanyahu’s chagrin.

    Ironically, President Trump has so far been considerably more supportive of the Israel lobby’s agenda than President Obama.

    Moving back the clock, people like to talk about “wars for Israel” in some abstract sense, but they have a hard time specifying which wars fought for which reasons benefited Israel. (The conclusions of the oft-cited Clean Break memo were in fact rejected by Netanyahu, and it was drafted by people who became low to mid-level officials in the Bush administration.) Afghanistan in 2001 was not a threat to Israel in any sense, nor was Libya in 2011. Neither was Iraq in 2003; though Hussein was antagonistic towards Israel, as long as he was in power he limited Iranian influence in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly. Just as Israel is now for all intents and purposes aligned with the Sunni Gulf States, I think it would have reached some sort of detente with Hussein’s Iraq absent the US invasion. Deposing him predictably led to an increase of Iranian influence, which is obviously highly contrary to Israel’s interests.

    Israel has a malign influence on US politics and foreign policy. However, I would say that in practical terms this is mainly in the form of the US giving generous military aid packages to Israel and diplomatic cover at the UN. When it comes to high-level substantive decisions about war, peace and diplomacy, though, I don’t think the evidence suggests that the Israel lobby exercises the kind of massive influence that many people on the dissident right think it does.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    What the specific strategical benefit for Israel in each one of the many wars America has started, or been involved with, is one thing. I don't know the answers on that. I think the big picture is this: They want the US to continue to be involved militarily in the region for all time. They absolutely would not like to hear any crap (to them) about the US Constitution from Ron Paul and others, and "What are we wasting money for, and getting men killed and maimed for, in these conflicts? Let's get out and bring the hardware and people home."

    It benefits Israel greatly for the US to have a big military presence in the region. They know we would become involved on their side if they are attacked, with carrier groups, fighter wings, and big air-lift capacity handy. That's the big picture.
    , @utu
    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it. Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance.
    , @LondonBob
    Iraq was entirely Israel, Syria also.
  27. @Anonymous

    While I’m not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point.
     
    Respectfully, I don't think that's really true. The Israel lobby fervently opposed the JCPOA, but---until the election of President Trump---was unable to stop it. The US has not done either a 2011 Libya style air campaign or 1980s Afghanistan training/equipment of the rebels campaign to overthrow Assad, despite heavy lobbying from AIPAC. The outgoing Obama administration refused to veto a UN resolution condemning Israel's illegal settlements, much to Netanyahu's chagrin.

    Ironically, President Trump has so far been considerably more supportive of the Israel lobby's agenda than President Obama.

    Moving back the clock, people like to talk about "wars for Israel" in some abstract sense, but they have a hard time specifying which wars fought for which reasons benefited Israel. (The conclusions of the oft-cited Clean Break memo were in fact rejected by Netanyahu, and it was drafted by people who became low to mid-level officials in the Bush administration.) Afghanistan in 2001 was not a threat to Israel in any sense, nor was Libya in 2011. Neither was Iraq in 2003; though Hussein was antagonistic towards Israel, as long as he was in power he limited Iranian influence in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly. Just as Israel is now for all intents and purposes aligned with the Sunni Gulf States, I think it would have reached some sort of detente with Hussein's Iraq absent the US invasion. Deposing him predictably led to an increase of Iranian influence, which is obviously highly contrary to Israel's interests.

    Israel has a malign influence on US politics and foreign policy. However, I would say that in practical terms this is mainly in the form of the US giving generous military aid packages to Israel and diplomatic cover at the UN. When it comes to high-level substantive decisions about war, peace and diplomacy, though, I don't think the evidence suggests that the Israel lobby exercises the kind of massive influence that many people on the dissident right think it does.

    What the specific strategical benefit for Israel in each one of the many wars America has started, or been involved with, is one thing. I don’t know the answers on that. I think the big picture is this: They want the US to continue to be involved militarily in the region for all time. They absolutely would not like to hear any crap (to them) about the US Constitution from Ron Paul and others, and “What are we wasting money for, and getting men killed and maimed for, in these conflicts? Let’s get out and bring the hardware and people home.”

    It benefits Israel greatly for the US to have a big military presence in the region. They know we would become involved on their side if they are attacked, with carrier groups, fighter wings, and big air-lift capacity handy. That’s the big picture.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It benefits Israel greatly for the US to have a big military presence in the region. They know we would become involved on their side if they are attacked, with carrier groups, fighter wings, and big air-lift capacity handy. That’s the big picture.
     
    True, but none of the wars that the US has fought in the Middle East have advanced that aim; if anything, they've somewhat retarded it.

    Furthermore, I think that, since the 1973 war or so, Israel has not been in any danger of head-on attack, given its nuclear arsenal, powerful conventional forces and reasonably defensible post-1973 borders.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The Crusader states never want to lose the support of Euro--er, the United States. It's obvious why they don't want to lose the support. Why the US should want to give it in perpetuity is less obvious.
  28. Anonymous[679] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    What the specific strategical benefit for Israel in each one of the many wars America has started, or been involved with, is one thing. I don't know the answers on that. I think the big picture is this: They want the US to continue to be involved militarily in the region for all time. They absolutely would not like to hear any crap (to them) about the US Constitution from Ron Paul and others, and "What are we wasting money for, and getting men killed and maimed for, in these conflicts? Let's get out and bring the hardware and people home."

    It benefits Israel greatly for the US to have a big military presence in the region. They know we would become involved on their side if they are attacked, with carrier groups, fighter wings, and big air-lift capacity handy. That's the big picture.

    It benefits Israel greatly for the US to have a big military presence in the region. They know we would become involved on their side if they are attacked, with carrier groups, fighter wings, and big air-lift capacity handy. That’s the big picture.

    True, but none of the wars that the US has fought in the Middle East have advanced that aim; if anything, they’ve somewhat retarded it.

    Furthermore, I think that, since the 1973 war or so, Israel has not been in any danger of head-on attack, given its nuclear arsenal, powerful conventional forces and reasonably defensible post-1973 borders.

  29. @Hail

    I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic
     
    The truth or untruth of a thing is often of secondary (or lower) importance. The reactions are instructive. Here is one reaction many reading this may not have seen:

    Following the Somalian Congresswoman's public humiliation ('ritual' humiliation?) (Feb. 11), Stephen Walt came out with a hand-wringing editorial (Feb. 15) in Foreign Policy, in which he took the bold step of criticizing anti-Semitism.

    (Yes, this is the very same Walt of Mearsheimer and Walt renown; Professor of International Affairs at Harvard, and of typically Middle America, NW-European Christian origin, though his wife is half Russian-Jewish by ancestry.)

    "How (and How Not) to Talk About the Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt.

    Excerpts and comment:


    The recent uproar over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s tweets criticizing the conduct of Israel’s government and its U.S. supporters, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes one thing clear: U.S.-Israel relations (and U.S. Middle East policy more broadly) remains a third rail that one touches at one’s peril. The harsh responses to Omar are hardly surprising, and unfortunately—as in the past—this latest furor has generated considerably more heat than light. But the breadth and vehemence of the reaction are still instructive.

    Let’s start with some obvious but vital points. Anti-Semitism has a long and loathsome history dating back centuries
     


    Anti-Semites have fanned the flames with bizarre conspiracy theories about secret cabals (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and sinister claims about the influence of “Jewish money,” along with divisive accusations of national disloyalty (as in the notorious Dreyfus affair in France). Such hateful beliefs and tropes have had fatal consequences, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust
     

    Given all that, Jews are understandably alarmed and angry when similar ideas or tropes are invoked today. Indeed, everyone should be. We should all be outraged when a world leader such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban directs classic anti-Semitic accusations at someone like George Soros
     
    Slamming Viktor Orban for criticizing George Soros? Insinuating that Orban is a scarlet-letter "anti-Semite," and therefore someone to shun at the least? This is just disgraceful.

    Many will recall that Professor Walt was himself slammed for anti-Semitism starting in the mid 2000s, and for years thereafter, because of his co-authored work on the Israel Lobby (first published in article form in March 2006; Steve Sailer wrote about it at the time).

    Mearsheimer & Walt in 2006:


    No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism [...]
     
    That was then. Is this Feb. 2019 editorial indicative that Walt has 'evolved'? One wonders.

    In fairness to Walt, he goes on to say this in the Feb. 2019 editorial:


    But at the same time, we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about all the forces that shape U.S. politics today, including groups like AIPAC and related organizations that seek to influence U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East
     

    I think you misunderstood my quip. Or I communicated poorly. Of course this is about power and not truth. But even when one speaks power to truth, there has to be something at least semi-logical so that listeners can take the hint and not just walk away confused and bewildered.

    AIPAC isn’t mysterious. Their mission is right in the name. Every mainstream and non-mainstream source labels them pro-Israel. Their own website labels them pro-Israel and says that they seek to “build relationships with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship”. If they intended to keep their mission a secret, they really missed the boat. They missed several boats.

    It’s like being told that the NAACP doesn’t advocate for blacks, or the Council on Foreign Relations doesn’t seek to influence foreign policy. O RLY? What do they do, then? If AIPAC doesn’t advocate for Israel, what exactly does it do, and why does its name and its mission statement say that it advocates for Israel? It’s baffling. The ACLU, SPLC, ADL, and so on, are all very cagey about their true purpose, and when someone claims that their name is a lie, it’s usually someone opposed to them. What possible sense is there in AIPAC supporters telling us to not believe what AIPAC says about itself?

    The only sane conclusion I can come up with is that talking about AIPAC at all is supposed to be taboo, like the Freemasons or Skull and Bones. Apparently we are supposed to treat them like a secret society. But they don’t operate like a secret society, so again, confusing.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    talking about AIPAC at all is supposed to be taboo ... Apparently we are supposed to treat them like a secret society. But they don’t operate like a secret society, so again, confusing.
     
    Not so confusing when you think of it as a tool used to beat us and demonstrate Jewish power in a passive aggressive manner. It’s a bit like the negro rioting phenomenon - if you fail to recognize the victim status of the group and speak only of them in that regard, they’ll begin a rampage of destruction. The Jews are a bit more focused (on you) in their attacks, that’s the chief difference.
  30. @Anonymous

    While I’m not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point.
     
    Respectfully, I don't think that's really true. The Israel lobby fervently opposed the JCPOA, but---until the election of President Trump---was unable to stop it. The US has not done either a 2011 Libya style air campaign or 1980s Afghanistan training/equipment of the rebels campaign to overthrow Assad, despite heavy lobbying from AIPAC. The outgoing Obama administration refused to veto a UN resolution condemning Israel's illegal settlements, much to Netanyahu's chagrin.

    Ironically, President Trump has so far been considerably more supportive of the Israel lobby's agenda than President Obama.

    Moving back the clock, people like to talk about "wars for Israel" in some abstract sense, but they have a hard time specifying which wars fought for which reasons benefited Israel. (The conclusions of the oft-cited Clean Break memo were in fact rejected by Netanyahu, and it was drafted by people who became low to mid-level officials in the Bush administration.) Afghanistan in 2001 was not a threat to Israel in any sense, nor was Libya in 2011. Neither was Iraq in 2003; though Hussein was antagonistic towards Israel, as long as he was in power he limited Iranian influence in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly. Just as Israel is now for all intents and purposes aligned with the Sunni Gulf States, I think it would have reached some sort of detente with Hussein's Iraq absent the US invasion. Deposing him predictably led to an increase of Iranian influence, which is obviously highly contrary to Israel's interests.

    Israel has a malign influence on US politics and foreign policy. However, I would say that in practical terms this is mainly in the form of the US giving generous military aid packages to Israel and diplomatic cover at the UN. When it comes to high-level substantive decisions about war, peace and diplomacy, though, I don't think the evidence suggests that the Israel lobby exercises the kind of massive influence that many people on the dissident right think it does.

    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it. Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance.

    • Replies: @Sean
    The Arab countries were inherently unstable because they were ruled by minorities, Israel wants to avoid that. The big Middle Eastern wars have been the Iran Iraq war and the Syrian Civil war and both were won by the side that the Soviets decided to help (Saddam won the Iran Iraq war because of Soviet supplied rocket artillery). The ultimate objective of Israeli policy is to get rid of their main problem (Arabs of the occupied territories) and weakening Arab countries can be a means to that end.

    As has now become obvious, Israel is not going to hand over the West Bank, and so they will have to kick the West Bank, Palestinians over the river, which means going to war with the Arab counties. Iran has managed to isolate itself from the Russians ,and everyone else so they would be easy. Egypt is, as usual the real deterrent. It is difficult to see what could be done about Egypt.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance

    The term "parting shot" comes from the older term "Parthian shot", so using it here is brilliant, intentionally or not.
    , @Anonymous

    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it.
     
    The Yinon Plan was a proposal in a periodical by a single Israeli official, not a statement of Israeli policy. It made some accurate predictions, like the continuing devolution of Iraq into three separate entities. It accurately described some events that had already transpired, like Israel's attempt to interfere with/divide Lebanon.

    However, it also made quite a few, at least so far, inaccurate predictions. It predicted that the Camp David Accords status quo would not hold and that Israel would need to retake the Sinai, which has not proven to be the case. It predicted that Jordan would break up, which has not transpired and seems unlikely to me. It also predicated its analysis on the USSR as a major, even dominant, player in global politics, and failed to predict the rise of Iran as a serious adversary of Israel.

    The problem with this "destabilization" logic is that it's so elastic that almost anything that happens in a conflict-prone region like the greater Middle East can be made to fit it. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan certainly destabilized it, for instance, but AFAIK no mention of Afghanistan was made in either the Clean Break memo or the Yinon Plan.

    I may elaborate on this at length some other time, but it is, in my view, a serious mistake to think of the US as somehow manufacturing out of whole cloth the widespread popular/violent opposition to the Assad government in Syria. There are many nations, like Cuba or North Vietnam during the Cold War or Russia presently, where the US would love to "destabilize" the government through mass protest/violent internal uprising, if it had the power to do so. However, these governments had/have a significant degree of popular support that it makes it impossible for the US to do so.

    Whereas there is quite genuine hatred of the minority Alawite Assad government by much of Syria's Sunni majority. I would say that the primary cause of the Syrian Civil War was this endogenous ethno-religious split, followed by the support given by Turkey and the Gulf States to the opposition, followed by the lesser support given by Israel and the US to the opposition.
  31. @utu
    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it. Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance.

    The Arab countries were inherently unstable because they were ruled by minorities, Israel wants to avoid that. The big Middle Eastern wars have been the Iran Iraq war and the Syrian Civil war and both were won by the side that the Soviets decided to help (Saddam won the Iran Iraq war because of Soviet supplied rocket artillery). The ultimate objective of Israeli policy is to get rid of their main problem (Arabs of the occupied territories) and weakening Arab countries can be a means to that end.

    As has now become obvious, Israel is not going to hand over the West Bank, and so they will have to kick the West Bank, Palestinians over the river, which means going to war with the Arab counties. Iran has managed to isolate itself from the Russians ,and everyone else so they would be easy. Egypt is, as usual the real deterrent. It is difficult to see what could be done about Egypt.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    As has now become obvious, Israel is not going to hand over the West Bank, and so they will have to kick the West Bank, Palestinians over the river, which means going to war with the Arab counties.
     
    No real surprise. Russia had a bigger population than any of its immediate European neighbors and a thousand miles of space in which to catch its breath after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and invaded. And yet it almost succumbed to the Axis armies. Whereas at its narrowest point, without the West Bank, Israel is less than 10 miles wide. The point of hanging on to the West Bank is to increase that width to a still pretty skimpy, but more manageable, 30+ miles.
  32. @Audacious Epigone
    The 2016 presidential election polling gets a worse rap than it deserves, and I note this as someone who was quite critical of it. The RCP average had Hillary winning by ~4 points. She eneded up winning the popular by 2 points (at least to the extent that the vote counting was accurate).

    I’m not sure what RCP is; but my understanding of the polling results in the link below shows that for all major polls – one cannot say the “polling gets a worse rap than it deserves.” I recall reading time and again analysis of polls that were weighted with Democrats, minorities and youth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The Real Clear Politics averages.

    They did converge towards a closer election in the weeks leading up. I posted on the Democrat oversampling multiple times in the leadup, but the final polls were pretty close at the national level. That doesn't mean you're incorrect, of course--putatively objective polls could be serving as push-poll operations to drive opinion as much as to shape it, especially on something like this where there will never be any real way to test it against empirical reality.
  33. @Twinkie

    Parenthetically, is the post’s title anti-Semitic? If not, good. Let free expression be. If so, would it be more, less, or equally anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC is bad at what it does?
     
    Good or bad is irrelevant. It is anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC does anything other than advance the interests of the United States and is totally patriotic.

    By the way, color me surprised about Asians being the least Israel-friendly in the U.S. among the major ethno-racial groups.

    I'd love to see a religious-denominational break down.

    By the way, color me surprised about Asians being the least Israel-friendly in the U.S. among the major ethno-racial groups.

    Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians and non-Muslim majority country East and South Asian Muslims are considered Asians. That may skew the numbers. I happen to know a number of East and South Asian Muslims who aren’t big fans of Israel for the usual Islamic reasons.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians and non-Muslim majority country East and South Asian Muslims are considered Asians. That may skew the numbers.
     
    Okay, but they are not so large among "Asians" in America that the numbers would be so heavily affected. Still, that's something to ponder (and the actual effect can be calculated).

    I suspect the real reason, though, has to do with competition/affirmative action. Asians, especially East Asians, tend to compete with Jews, and perhaps more crucially, come off poorly in that competition (outside of academia in any case, though even there the administrative control and professoriate are heavily tilted toward Jews). Losing - whether fairly or unfairly - tends to create resentment.

    That probably explains why Asians in Asia (except Koreans and Muslims) view Jews/Israel favorably. They are not in competition.

    In any case, these are just my conjectures and further statistical analysis would be in order to find the real reasons.
  34. @Sean
    The Arab countries were inherently unstable because they were ruled by minorities, Israel wants to avoid that. The big Middle Eastern wars have been the Iran Iraq war and the Syrian Civil war and both were won by the side that the Soviets decided to help (Saddam won the Iran Iraq war because of Soviet supplied rocket artillery). The ultimate objective of Israeli policy is to get rid of their main problem (Arabs of the occupied territories) and weakening Arab countries can be a means to that end.

    As has now become obvious, Israel is not going to hand over the West Bank, and so they will have to kick the West Bank, Palestinians over the river, which means going to war with the Arab counties. Iran has managed to isolate itself from the Russians ,and everyone else so they would be easy. Egypt is, as usual the real deterrent. It is difficult to see what could be done about Egypt.

    As has now become obvious, Israel is not going to hand over the West Bank, and so they will have to kick the West Bank, Palestinians over the river, which means going to war with the Arab counties.

    No real surprise. Russia had a bigger population than any of its immediate European neighbors and a thousand miles of space in which to catch its breath after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and invaded. And yet it almost succumbed to the Axis armies. Whereas at its narrowest point, without the West Bank, Israel is less than 10 miles wide. The point of hanging on to the West Bank is to increase that width to a still pretty skimpy, but more manageable, 30+ miles.

    • Replies: @Sean

    without the West Bank, Israel is less than 10 miles wide. The point of hanging on to the West Bank is to increase that width to a still pretty skimpy, but more manageable, 30+ miles
     
    Maybe that is objectively true, but the Israelis are not arraying the West Bank and 10 mile strip with tanks as if they seriously fear an invasion across it. Far from preparing to repulse armored divisions it is settled with Jewish families at huge cost in apparent furtherance of a slow motion annexation that is already a virtual fait accompli. Sixty per cent of the West Bank is off limits to Palestinian development.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama

    Later, Kerry presented some of the maps to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President. Kerry’s goal was to show Abbas that the Obama Administration understood the extent to which the two-state solution was threatened. Abbas was taken aback. Instead of feeling reassured, he told a confidant that the maps convinced him that the Americans believed “the chances of a viable Palestinian state is next to nil.” Alarmed by Israeli actions depicted in the maps, Obama decided to abstain on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the settlements, clearing the way for its passage. It would be Obama’s final act of defiance against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, before Donald Trump took office and put in place policies that were far more accepting of the settlers.

    https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5b4280778ffba43192e8420f/master/w_774,c_limit/Entous-West-Bank-Settlements-Map.jpg


     

    The greatest challenge's AIPAC has faced (eg Bush the Elder who they had officially endorsed) were over US trying to stop Israel using US subsidies to further Israel demographic aggression across the Green Line. America is happy to give Israel sophisticated arms and Leaders of the House and Presidents have said that America will destroy any country that attacks Israel (only reason you don't hear that any more is the Israelis asked US politicians to stop saying it so publicly) Folllwing the destruction of Iraq and Syria, Israel has nothing to fear in that direction until you get to Iran hundreds of miles away and I have a feeling Iran would be unable to bridge the gap.

    There is not enough land left for a viable Palestinian state, yet the West Bank is not something that Israel can keep without becoming a non Jewish state or an Apartheid one. The only solution for Israel is transferring most of the West Bank Arabs across the river into Jordan, and that would require the cover of a general war. Syria is in chaos, so Is Iraq, so who will attack into the West Bank ? No one. The Egyptian front is the problem for Israel. I expect US aid to Egypt will increase greatly.

  35. @Achmed E. Newman
    What the specific strategical benefit for Israel in each one of the many wars America has started, or been involved with, is one thing. I don't know the answers on that. I think the big picture is this: They want the US to continue to be involved militarily in the region for all time. They absolutely would not like to hear any crap (to them) about the US Constitution from Ron Paul and others, and "What are we wasting money for, and getting men killed and maimed for, in these conflicts? Let's get out and bring the hardware and people home."

    It benefits Israel greatly for the US to have a big military presence in the region. They know we would become involved on their side if they are attacked, with carrier groups, fighter wings, and big air-lift capacity handy. That's the big picture.

    The Crusader states never want to lose the support of Euro–er, the United States. It’s obvious why they don’t want to lose the support. Why the US should want to give it in perpetuity is less obvious.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Sure, but specifically Israel would like the US military NEARBY, not holed up in bases back in the States (or better yet, per US Constitution, not formed up into an army until there's a declared war on). I think any agreements we have would be honored at this point, but maybe not later on when we are economically even weaker and the people have had enough. If the carrier groups and large bases are still over there in the Middle East, they KNOW we will come flying in, come trouble.

    As for your last sentence, I guess your post title here is part of the explanation indeed.

  36. @utu
    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it. Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance.

    Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance

    The term “parting shot” comes from the older term “Parthian shot”, so using it here is brilliant, intentionally or not.

    • Replies: @utu
    “Parthian shot”. - I did not know. Interesting. Thanks. From what I read Parthians when doing it were only feigning retreat. Obama, did it out of spite only. It was his last shot.
  37. @Tom Verso
    I'm not sure what RCP is; but my understanding of the polling results in the link below shows that for all major polls - one cannot say the "polling gets a worse rap than it deserves." I recall reading time and again analysis of polls that were weighted with Democrats, minorities and youth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

    The Real Clear Politics averages.

    They did converge towards a closer election in the weeks leading up. I posted on the Democrat oversampling multiple times in the leadup, but the final polls were pretty close at the national level. That doesn’t mean you’re incorrect, of course–putatively objective polls could be serving as push-poll operations to drive opinion as much as to shape it, especially on something like this where there will never be any real way to test it against empirical reality.

  38. @Audacious Epigone
    The 2016 presidential election polling gets a worse rap than it deserves, and I note this as someone who was quite critical of it. The RCP average had Hillary winning by ~4 points. She eneded up winning the popular by 2 points (at least to the extent that the vote counting was accurate).

    They got individual states catastrophically wrong, Trump’s yuge win in Ohio for example. Only Richard Baris at PPD and the Trafalgar Group deserve any credit.

  39. @Anonymous

    While I’m not the most hardcore anti-Semite, I really do think the US is run by something that could be unironically termed ZOG by this point.
     
    Respectfully, I don't think that's really true. The Israel lobby fervently opposed the JCPOA, but---until the election of President Trump---was unable to stop it. The US has not done either a 2011 Libya style air campaign or 1980s Afghanistan training/equipment of the rebels campaign to overthrow Assad, despite heavy lobbying from AIPAC. The outgoing Obama administration refused to veto a UN resolution condemning Israel's illegal settlements, much to Netanyahu's chagrin.

    Ironically, President Trump has so far been considerably more supportive of the Israel lobby's agenda than President Obama.

    Moving back the clock, people like to talk about "wars for Israel" in some abstract sense, but they have a hard time specifying which wars fought for which reasons benefited Israel. (The conclusions of the oft-cited Clean Break memo were in fact rejected by Netanyahu, and it was drafted by people who became low to mid-level officials in the Bush administration.) Afghanistan in 2001 was not a threat to Israel in any sense, nor was Libya in 2011. Neither was Iraq in 2003; though Hussein was antagonistic towards Israel, as long as he was in power he limited Iranian influence in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly. Just as Israel is now for all intents and purposes aligned with the Sunni Gulf States, I think it would have reached some sort of detente with Hussein's Iraq absent the US invasion. Deposing him predictably led to an increase of Iranian influence, which is obviously highly contrary to Israel's interests.

    Israel has a malign influence on US politics and foreign policy. However, I would say that in practical terms this is mainly in the form of the US giving generous military aid packages to Israel and diplomatic cover at the UN. When it comes to high-level substantive decisions about war, peace and diplomacy, though, I don't think the evidence suggests that the Israel lobby exercises the kind of massive influence that many people on the dissident right think it does.

    Iraq was entirely Israel, Syria also.

  40. @Audacious Epigone
    The Crusader states never want to lose the support of Euro--er, the United States. It's obvious why they don't want to lose the support. Why the US should want to give it in perpetuity is less obvious.

    Sure, but specifically Israel would like the US military NEARBY, not holed up in bases back in the States (or better yet, per US Constitution, not formed up into an army until there’s a declared war on). I think any agreements we have would be honored at this point, but maybe not later on when we are economically even weaker and the people have had enough. If the carrier groups and large bases are still over there in the Middle East, they KNOW we will come flying in, come trouble.

    As for your last sentence, I guess your post title here is part of the explanation indeed.

  41. AIPAC is severely atrophied. You go to war with the Zionazis you have, not the Zionazis you want, but they really fucked up when they installed Bari Weiss at the NYT. There’s nothin sadder than a dumb Jew, even when her Daddy runs the Jew State Fifth Column and gets her a job. All the young Jurks are like this. Their fellow Jews greased them into the Ivies because they could never get in on their own, and they sat on their hairy asses masturbating over goys instead of learning how to think. They’re lazy and shiftless.

    https://mondoweiss.net/2019/02/clumsily-regurgitates-hasbara/

  42. @Audacious Epigone
    Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance

    The term "parting shot" comes from the older term "Parthian shot", so using it here is brilliant, intentionally or not.

    “Parthian shot”. – I did not know. Interesting. Thanks. From what I read Parthians when doing it were only feigning retreat. Obama, did it out of spite only. It was his last shot.

  43. This is REALLY depressing. Especially Muslims at 40.4%. Have they heard of Palestinians? I’ve been hanging around the Unz Review too long I guess. Looks like the tens of hundreds of Americans who do not have a “favorable view of Israel as a country” are all here.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I have a mildly favorable view of Israel, full disclosure. They're doing nationalism right.
  44. @iffen
    They are not ten feet tall you know.

    When surrounded by pygmies ...

    When surrounded by pygmies …

    What? I thought Tyrion and Twinkle were the only ones, you’re saying there are more here?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    What? I thought Tyrion and Twinkle were the only ones, you’re saying there are more here?
     
    As I understand from Tyrion's own words, he is something like 5-foot-tall.

    I am 6' 2". So, I hardly a "pygmy."

    And the nom de Internet is "Twinkie" (not "Twinkle") - as in "yellow on the outside and white on the inside." It was a derisive moniker given to me in high school by certain anti-assimilationist Asians in America. I wear it as a badge of pride.
  45. @Michael S
    I'm not on board with the Joo monomania polluting a lot of right-wing comment sections but even I don't understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic. Just another case of the powerful making the rules, I guess.

    CAIR also seems to be pretty good at what they do. They even got the Jews wailing about "Islamophobia". All of these massive foreign lobby groups are immensely powerful and successful. It'd be swell if we had one for Americans.

    “I’m not on board with the Joo monomania polluting a lot of right-wing comment sections but even I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic.”

    It’s very simple: Jews operate by having a strong ingroup preference, in societies where the majority doesn’t have an ingroup preference. Then they hide their identities to obscure their group identification from their hosts. It’s like a secret society, it only works when it’s a secret. So pointing out that they are a) not part of the host society, and b) part of a secret society, which c) is exploiting their host society, spoils the game and puts them at danger of being made to leave once again.

    It’s yet another case predicted by Goebbels:

    The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

    Usually, if something helps you better understand the present and predict the future, you can consider it “true,” even if you don’t like the truth.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Are American Jews shady about their ethnic/religious identities? I've not noticed that myself.
  46. Parenthetically, is the post’s title anti-Semitic? If not, good. Let free expression be. If so, would it be more, less, or equally anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC is bad at what it does?

    Either way, it’s anti-Semitic. Noticing that there are Jews, working in a group, towards their own ends, is anti-Semitic, regardless of whether their outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent, for any party involved.

  47. @Michael S
    I think you misunderstood my quip. Or I communicated poorly. Of course this is about power and not truth. But even when one speaks power to truth, there has to be something at least semi-logical so that listeners can take the hint and not just walk away confused and bewildered.

    AIPAC isn't mysterious. Their mission is right in the name. Every mainstream and non-mainstream source labels them pro-Israel. Their own website labels them pro-Israel and says that they seek to "build relationships with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship". If they intended to keep their mission a secret, they really missed the boat. They missed several boats.

    It's like being told that the NAACP doesn't advocate for blacks, or the Council on Foreign Relations doesn't seek to influence foreign policy. O RLY? What do they do, then? If AIPAC doesn't advocate for Israel, what exactly does it do, and why does its name and its mission statement say that it advocates for Israel? It's baffling. The ACLU, SPLC, ADL, and so on, are all very cagey about their true purpose, and when someone claims that their name is a lie, it's usually someone opposed to them. What possible sense is there in AIPAC supporters telling us to not believe what AIPAC says about itself?

    The only sane conclusion I can come up with is that talking about AIPAC at all is supposed to be taboo, like the Freemasons or Skull and Bones. Apparently we are supposed to treat them like a secret society. But they don't operate like a secret society, so again, confusing.

    talking about AIPAC at all is supposed to be taboo … Apparently we are supposed to treat them like a secret society. But they don’t operate like a secret society, so again, confusing.

    Not so confusing when you think of it as a tool used to beat us and demonstrate Jewish power in a passive aggressive manner. It’s a bit like the negro rioting phenomenon – if you fail to recognize the victim status of the group and speak only of them in that regard, they’ll begin a rampage of destruction. The Jews are a bit more focused (on you) in their attacks, that’s the chief difference.

  48. @Johann Ricke

    As has now become obvious, Israel is not going to hand over the West Bank, and so they will have to kick the West Bank, Palestinians over the river, which means going to war with the Arab counties.
     
    No real surprise. Russia had a bigger population than any of its immediate European neighbors and a thousand miles of space in which to catch its breath after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and invaded. And yet it almost succumbed to the Axis armies. Whereas at its narrowest point, without the West Bank, Israel is less than 10 miles wide. The point of hanging on to the West Bank is to increase that width to a still pretty skimpy, but more manageable, 30+ miles.

    without the West Bank, Israel is less than 10 miles wide. The point of hanging on to the West Bank is to increase that width to a still pretty skimpy, but more manageable, 30+ miles

    Maybe that is objectively true, but the Israelis are not arraying the West Bank and 10 mile strip with tanks as if they seriously fear an invasion across it. Far from preparing to repulse armored divisions it is settled with Jewish families at huge cost in apparent furtherance of a slow motion annexation that is already a virtual fait accompli. Sixty per cent of the West Bank is off limits to Palestinian development.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama

    Later, Kerry presented some of the maps to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President. Kerry’s goal was to show Abbas that the Obama Administration understood the extent to which the two-state solution was threatened. Abbas was taken aback. Instead of feeling reassured, he told a confidant that the maps convinced him that the Americans believed “the chances of a viable Palestinian state is next to nil.” Alarmed by Israeli actions depicted in the maps, Obama decided to abstain on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the settlements, clearing the way for its passage. It would be Obama’s final act of defiance against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, before Donald Trump took office and put in place policies that were far more accepting of the settlers.

    The greatest challenge’s AIPAC has faced (eg Bush the Elder who they had officially endorsed) were over US trying to stop Israel using US subsidies to further Israel demographic aggression across the Green Line. America is happy to give Israel sophisticated arms and Leaders of the House and Presidents have said that America will destroy any country that attacks Israel (only reason you don’t hear that any more is the Israelis asked US politicians to stop saying it so publicly) Folllwing the destruction of Iraq and Syria, Israel has nothing to fear in that direction until you get to Iran hundreds of miles away and I have a feeling Iran would be unable to bridge the gap.

    There is not enough land left for a viable Palestinian state, yet the West Bank is not something that Israel can keep without becoming a non Jewish state or an Apartheid one. The only solution for Israel is transferring most of the West Bank Arabs across the river into Jordan, and that would require the cover of a general war. Syria is in chaos, so Is Iraq, so who will attack into the West Bank ? No one. The Egyptian front is the problem for Israel. I expect US aid to Egypt will increase greatly.

  49. @Johnny Rottenborough
    Twinkie—Asians being the least Israel-friendly

    An ADL survey found that 53 per cent of South Koreans were anti-Semitic, just shy of Iran’s 56 per cent.

    An ADL survey found that 53 per cent of South Koreans were anti-Semitic, just shy of Iran’s 56 per cent.

    While that, too, is a surprise for me (those evil Koreans!), that same survey says this:

    One of the largest surprises in the survey were the results for South Korea. According to the ADL metric, an astounding 53 percent of the population were found to by anti-Semitic. This compares unfavorably to the just 20 percent of Chinese and 23 percent of Japanese respondents who were also found to hold anti-Semitic viewpoints. In non-Muslim majority countries in Southeast Asian countries, the percentage of respondents holding anti-Semitic viewpoints was even lower. For example, in Laos just 0.2 percent of those surveyed held anti-Semitic viewpoints, along with 3 percent in the Philippines and 6 percent in Vietnam.

    In other words, most Asians are quite philo-Semitic/Israel-friendly, which certainly fits my life experiences and observations. However, much of that “admiration” by Asians is expressed bluntly in terms that many Jews would find, er, let’s just say, a bit uncomfortable, i.e. “Jews are good at making money,” “Jews are very smart and dominate banking, politics, and media,” etc.

    It is really curious to me, nonetheless, why Koreans are so unusually “anti-Semitic.” Perhaps they are just cranky people who hate everyone.* According to the Pew study, among Asians in America, they have the worst opinion of race-relations here, no doubt in large part due to their violent conflict with blacks (in contrast, Filipinos have the sunniest view on race-relations in the U.S.).

    *Though American-born Koreans have the highest intermarriage rates among Asians in America, for both men and women, and they tend to disappear into whites after a couple of generations as Japanese immigrants did in the past.

    Perhaps Ken Jeong knows his people, when he says that Koreans are the angriest mo-fos in the world:

  50. @Johann Ricke

    By the way, color me surprised about Asians being the least Israel-friendly in the U.S. among the major ethno-racial groups.
     
    Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians and non-Muslim majority country East and South Asian Muslims are considered Asians. That may skew the numbers. I happen to know a number of East and South Asian Muslims who aren't big fans of Israel for the usual Islamic reasons.

    Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians and non-Muslim majority country East and South Asian Muslims are considered Asians. That may skew the numbers.

    Okay, but they are not so large among “Asians” in America that the numbers would be so heavily affected. Still, that’s something to ponder (and the actual effect can be calculated).

    I suspect the real reason, though, has to do with competition/affirmative action. Asians, especially East Asians, tend to compete with Jews, and perhaps more crucially, come off poorly in that competition (outside of academia in any case, though even there the administrative control and professoriate are heavily tilted toward Jews). Losing – whether fairly or unfairly – tends to create resentment.

    That probably explains why Asians in Asia (except Koreans and Muslims) view Jews/Israel favorably. They are not in competition.

    In any case, these are just my conjectures and further statistical analysis would be in order to find the real reasons.

  51. @Stan d Mute

    When surrounded by pygmies …
     
    What? I thought Tyrion and Twinkle were the only ones, you’re saying there are more here?

    What? I thought Tyrion and Twinkle were the only ones, you’re saying there are more here?

    As I understand from Tyrion’s own words, he is something like 5-foot-tall.

    I am 6′ 2″. So, I hardly a “pygmy.”

    And the nom de Internet is “Twinkie” (not “Twinkle”) – as in “yellow on the outside and white on the inside.” It was a derisive moniker given to me in high school by certain anti-assimilationist Asians in America. I wear it as a badge of pride.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    You are like the bright star that heralded the birth of the messiah, a 6’2” oriental angel from the east, so I think Twinkle is far more appropriate and hence Twinkle you shall be.

    Twinkle on.
    , @Tyrion 2
    I said "4 foot tall."
  52. @Twinkie

    What? I thought Tyrion and Twinkle were the only ones, you’re saying there are more here?
     
    As I understand from Tyrion's own words, he is something like 5-foot-tall.

    I am 6' 2". So, I hardly a "pygmy."

    And the nom de Internet is "Twinkie" (not "Twinkle") - as in "yellow on the outside and white on the inside." It was a derisive moniker given to me in high school by certain anti-assimilationist Asians in America. I wear it as a badge of pride.

    You are like the bright star that heralded the birth of the messiah, a 6’2” oriental angel from the east, so I think Twinkle is far more appropriate and hence Twinkle you shall be.

    Twinkle on.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I don’t know about an angel. But my nickname at a previous gig used to be the Grim Reaper.
  53. @Stan d Mute
    You are like the bright star that heralded the birth of the messiah, a 6’2” oriental angel from the east, so I think Twinkle is far more appropriate and hence Twinkle you shall be.

    Twinkle on.

    I don’t know about an angel. But my nickname at a previous gig used to be the Grim Reaper.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    I suppose dark stars can twinkle too, just not in the visible spectrum perhaps.
  54. Good lord, the Muslims are the only ones with any brains. How can so many people have a positive opinion of a country that has such massive influence on the USA, lures it into wars, and attacks its warships?

    Israel’s track record is that of an enemy, not an ally.

  55. @WorkingClass
    This is REALLY depressing. Especially Muslims at 40.4%. Have they heard of Palestinians? I've been hanging around the Unz Review too long I guess. Looks like the tens of hundreds of Americans who do not have a "favorable view of Israel as a country" are all here.

    I have a mildly favorable view of Israel, full disclosure. They’re doing nationalism right.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    They’re doing nationalism right.
     
    I did a stint in Israel. Sabras are good people. I just wish my fellow Americans were as patriotic, especially our elites. Likewise, I don’t begrudge the Israeli government’s actions and policies - the people who run it, by and large, are looking out for the interests of their citizens. I wish our political leaders had such national interests of our country at heart.

    On the other hand, it’s easy to be patriotic when you have a garrison state, not a country with an army, but an army with a country (to borrow the line about Prussia). En brera (“No choice”) and all that.
  56. @14WordsToFreedom

    “I’m not on board with the Joo monomania polluting a lot of right-wing comment sections but even I don’t understand why pointing out that AIPAC does what AIPAC clearly and officially does is somehow anti-Semitic.”
     
    It’s very simple: Jews operate by having a strong ingroup preference, in societies where the majority doesn’t have an ingroup preference. Then they hide their identities to obscure their group identification from their hosts. It’s like a secret society, it only works when it’s a secret. So pointing out that they are a) not part of the host society, and b) part of a secret society, which c) is exploiting their host society, spoils the game and puts them at danger of being made to leave once again.

    It’s yet another case predicted by Goebbels:

    The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
     
    Usually, if something helps you better understand the present and predict the future, you can consider it “true,” even if you don’t like the truth.

    Are American Jews shady about their ethnic/religious identities? I’ve not noticed that myself.

    • Replies: @14WordsToFreedom
    Not your average Jew on the street. The ones that get into TV, film, and media moreso. Contrast with African Americans who proudly name their children such that you know their heritage immediately.
  57. @Audacious Epigone
    Are American Jews shady about their ethnic/religious identities? I've not noticed that myself.

    Not your average Jew on the street. The ones that get into TV, film, and media moreso. Contrast with African Americans who proudly name their children such that you know their heritage immediately.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    That's unreasonable on many levels.

    1. It lumps in assimilation with "shady" behaviour.

    2. It says that those Jews who don't take Judaism to be their defining quality (most Jews) are hiding something. When, in reality, people are complicated and most people still think of their place, family and friends as more defining of who they are than their ancestral background. Naturally, that is different if they are properly religious.

    The two above are especially rich given that they run counter to the usual critique in these parts.

    3. Even for those who want Jewish names, given that Jacob, Joshua and Ethan are the 1st, 3rd and 5th most popular male baby names in the US, it isn't those Jews' fault that they aren't distinctive...
  58. @Audacious Epigone
    I have a mildly favorable view of Israel, full disclosure. They're doing nationalism right.

    They’re doing nationalism right.

    I did a stint in Israel. Sabras are good people. I just wish my fellow Americans were as patriotic, especially our elites. Likewise, I don’t begrudge the Israeli government’s actions and policies – the people who run it, by and large, are looking out for the interests of their citizens. I wish our political leaders had such national interests of our country at heart.

    On the other hand, it’s easy to be patriotic when you have a garrison state, not a country with an army, but an army with a country (to borrow the line about Prussia). En brera (“No choice”) and all that.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Have you seen the TV show HaMadrisha (English title , "Mossad 101") at all? It's not trying to be realistic (the tech effects are downright videogamish), or tied closely to particular current events (which it does vaguely name-drop), but it is entertaining, with more done in a half-hour episode than most NetFlix type shows do in hours, and with noteworthy general conceptual discussion. The stories have some CT moral, which is usually palatably propagandistic without being stupid, and is often but not always punctuated by the reality-TV-style dramatic last-minute expulsion of an aspirant who had illustrated a sin (believing social media without checking it, lacking a moral compass).
  59. @14WordsToFreedom
    Not your average Jew on the street. The ones that get into TV, film, and media moreso. Contrast with African Americans who proudly name their children such that you know their heritage immediately.

    That’s unreasonable on many levels.

    1. It lumps in assimilation with “shady” behaviour.

    2. It says that those Jews who don’t take Judaism to be their defining quality (most Jews) are hiding something. When, in reality, people are complicated and most people still think of their place, family and friends as more defining of who they are than their ancestral background. Naturally, that is different if they are properly religious.

    The two above are especially rich given that they run counter to the usual critique in these parts.

    3. Even for those who want Jewish names, given that Jacob, Joshua and Ethan are the 1st, 3rd and 5th most popular male baby names in the US, it isn’t those Jews’ fault that they aren’t distinctive…

  60. @Twinkie

    What? I thought Tyrion and Twinkle were the only ones, you’re saying there are more here?
     
    As I understand from Tyrion's own words, he is something like 5-foot-tall.

    I am 6' 2". So, I hardly a "pygmy."

    And the nom de Internet is "Twinkie" (not "Twinkle") - as in "yellow on the outside and white on the inside." It was a derisive moniker given to me in high school by certain anti-assimilationist Asians in America. I wear it as a badge of pride.

    I said “4 foot tall.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Are you a child or a "little person"?
  61. If so, would it be more, less, or equally anti-Semitic to assert that AIPAC is bad at what it does?

    It would be equally anti-semitic to say AIPAC is bad or good at it. It would also be anti-semitic to consciously not mention AIPAC. However, it might not be anti-semitic to be silent because you don’t know about AIPAC. Please contact your local synagogue for further guidance.

  62. AIPAC Is Good at What It Does

    I wonder why?

    Glad you asked.

    1) organized group
    2) reasonably smart members, LOL
    3) well-funded, LOL
    4) a limited and well defined organizing principle: everything is open for discussion except support for Israel which is explicitly defined as support for Israel and Israeli government policies

  63. Anonymous[679] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it. Obama not-vetoing of the UN resolution was the parting shot of his defiance.

    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it.

    The Yinon Plan was a proposal in a periodical by a single Israeli official, not a statement of Israeli policy. It made some accurate predictions, like the continuing devolution of Iraq into three separate entities. It accurately described some events that had already transpired, like Israel’s attempt to interfere with/divide Lebanon.

    However, it also made quite a few, at least so far, inaccurate predictions. It predicted that the Camp David Accords status quo would not hold and that Israel would need to retake the Sinai, which has not proven to be the case. It predicted that Jordan would break up, which has not transpired and seems unlikely to me. It also predicated its analysis on the USSR as a major, even dominant, player in global politics, and failed to predict the rise of Iran as a serious adversary of Israel.

    The problem with this “destabilization” logic is that it’s so elastic that almost anything that happens in a conflict-prone region like the greater Middle East can be made to fit it. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan certainly destabilized it, for instance, but AFAIK no mention of Afghanistan was made in either the Clean Break memo or the Yinon Plan.

    I may elaborate on this at length some other time, but it is, in my view, a serious mistake to think of the US as somehow manufacturing out of whole cloth the widespread popular/violent opposition to the Assad government in Syria. There are many nations, like Cuba or North Vietnam during the Cold War or Russia presently, where the US would love to “destabilize” the government through mass protest/violent internal uprising, if it had the power to do so. However, these governments had/have a significant degree of popular support that it makes it impossible for the US to do so.

    Whereas there is quite genuine hatred of the minority Alawite Assad government by much of Syria’s Sunni majority. I would say that the primary cause of the Syrian Civil War was this endogenous ethno-religious split, followed by the support given by Turkey and the Gulf States to the opposition, followed by the lesser support given by Israel and the US to the opposition.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Whereas there is quite genuine hatred of the minority Alawite Assad government by much of Syria’s Sunni majority. I would say that the primary cause of the Syrian Civil War was this endogenous ethno-religious split, followed by the support given by Turkey and the Gulf States to the opposition, followed by the lesser support given by Israel and the US to the opposition.
     
    The cause is the usual sectarian dislike of being ruled by minorities in general and the Sunni Arab hatred of being ruled by apostates specifically. The idea of a Sunni majority being ruled, not merely by infidels, but apostates is, in Daniel Pipes's words, like an untouchable becoming the Maharajah of India or a Jew become the Tsar of all the Russias. Foreign sponsors provided some fuel, but only after the 7:1 Sunni Arab:Alawite majority had lit a roaring fire with sacrifices marked by the mass graves of dead rebel fighters.

    Even if Assad manages to win this round, it's only a matter of time before the next brush fire starts up. Unless he can somehow convert Sunnis to the Alawite faith, drive them out of the country or get all Alawites comprising his power base to convert to the Sunni faith, the sectarian difference at the root of both the 80's era Hama massacre and the current revolt will rear its ugly head again, in the form of another insurrection.
  64. @Twinkie

    They’re doing nationalism right.
     
    I did a stint in Israel. Sabras are good people. I just wish my fellow Americans were as patriotic, especially our elites. Likewise, I don’t begrudge the Israeli government’s actions and policies - the people who run it, by and large, are looking out for the interests of their citizens. I wish our political leaders had such national interests of our country at heart.

    On the other hand, it’s easy to be patriotic when you have a garrison state, not a country with an army, but an army with a country (to borrow the line about Prussia). En brera (“No choice”) and all that.

    Have you seen the TV show HaMadrisha (English title , “Mossad 101”) at all? It’s not trying to be realistic (the tech effects are downright videogamish), or tied closely to particular current events (which it does vaguely name-drop), but it is entertaining, with more done in a half-hour episode than most NetFlix type shows do in hours, and with noteworthy general conceptual discussion. The stories have some CT moral, which is usually palatably propagandistic without being stupid, and is often but not always punctuated by the reality-TV-style dramatic last-minute expulsion of an aspirant who had illustrated a sin (believing social media without checking it, lacking a moral compass).

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    No, I have not. I cannot watch TV shows like that or those that depict healthcare, because most are wildly inaccurate in depicting reality.
  65. @J.Ross
    Have you seen the TV show HaMadrisha (English title , "Mossad 101") at all? It's not trying to be realistic (the tech effects are downright videogamish), or tied closely to particular current events (which it does vaguely name-drop), but it is entertaining, with more done in a half-hour episode than most NetFlix type shows do in hours, and with noteworthy general conceptual discussion. The stories have some CT moral, which is usually palatably propagandistic without being stupid, and is often but not always punctuated by the reality-TV-style dramatic last-minute expulsion of an aspirant who had illustrated a sin (believing social media without checking it, lacking a moral compass).

    No, I have not. I cannot watch TV shows like that or those that depict healthcare, because most are wildly inaccurate in depicting reality.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn't tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli's stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.
  66. @Tyrion 2
    I said "4 foot tall."

    Are you a child or a “little person”?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Both.
  67. @Twinkie
    Are you a child or a "little person"?

    Both.

  68. @Twinkie
    I don’t know about an angel. But my nickname at a previous gig used to be the Grim Reaper.

    I suppose dark stars can twinkle too, just not in the visible spectrum perhaps.

  69. @Twinkie
    No, I have not. I cannot watch TV shows like that or those that depict healthcare, because most are wildly inaccurate in depicting reality.

    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn’t tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli’s stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Watching an Israeli’s stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.
     
    Look no further than Martin van Creveld's writing on Diaspora Jews as "men without chests."
    , @Johann Ricke

    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn’t tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli’s stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.
     
    Stereotypes are a two way street. The American Jewish stereotype of Israelis is of unscrupulous rug merchants. Oddly enough, this stereotype might even be the foundation of some of the left-wing Jewish support for the Palestinians, a people I think would not be missed, by Muslims, Arabs or anyone else, if they were exiled to another galaxy.
  70. @J.Ross
    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn't tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli's stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.

    Watching an Israeli’s stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.

    Look no further than Martin van Creveld’s writing on Diaspora Jews as “men without chests.”

  71. @J.Ross
    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn't tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli's stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.

    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn’t tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli’s stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.

    Stereotypes are a two way street. The American Jewish stereotype of Israelis is of unscrupulous rug merchants. Oddly enough, this stereotype might even be the foundation of some of the left-wing Jewish support for the Palestinians, a people I think would not be missed, by Muslims, Arabs or anyone else, if they were exiled to another galaxy.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The American Jewish stereotype of Israelis is of unscrupulous rug merchants.
     
    Really? I’m not a Jew, so I can’t say for sure, but I’ve met quite a few American Jews who romanticizes Israelis as dashing fighter pilot- or commando (e.g. Sayeret Matkal)-types.
    , @Tyrion 2
    Embarrassingly, before I first went there I assumed they were just like middle class English people (I was quite young and probably assumed that of most places.)

    The general Jewish impression though, seems to be of tough men and funny, not mawkish, pretty women. Admittedly, my sample size is small.

  72. @Anonymous

    Nonsense. 2003 invasion of Iraq was realization of the Yinon Plan to destabilize all semi-secular Muslim countries and turn them into the killing fields of chaos and ethnic and sectarian strife. The next on the list was Syria and its destabilization began during Obama administration. Obama for various reason was not fully behind it but he could/would not stop it.
     
    The Yinon Plan was a proposal in a periodical by a single Israeli official, not a statement of Israeli policy. It made some accurate predictions, like the continuing devolution of Iraq into three separate entities. It accurately described some events that had already transpired, like Israel's attempt to interfere with/divide Lebanon.

    However, it also made quite a few, at least so far, inaccurate predictions. It predicted that the Camp David Accords status quo would not hold and that Israel would need to retake the Sinai, which has not proven to be the case. It predicted that Jordan would break up, which has not transpired and seems unlikely to me. It also predicated its analysis on the USSR as a major, even dominant, player in global politics, and failed to predict the rise of Iran as a serious adversary of Israel.

    The problem with this "destabilization" logic is that it's so elastic that almost anything that happens in a conflict-prone region like the greater Middle East can be made to fit it. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan certainly destabilized it, for instance, but AFAIK no mention of Afghanistan was made in either the Clean Break memo or the Yinon Plan.

    I may elaborate on this at length some other time, but it is, in my view, a serious mistake to think of the US as somehow manufacturing out of whole cloth the widespread popular/violent opposition to the Assad government in Syria. There are many nations, like Cuba or North Vietnam during the Cold War or Russia presently, where the US would love to "destabilize" the government through mass protest/violent internal uprising, if it had the power to do so. However, these governments had/have a significant degree of popular support that it makes it impossible for the US to do so.

    Whereas there is quite genuine hatred of the minority Alawite Assad government by much of Syria's Sunni majority. I would say that the primary cause of the Syrian Civil War was this endogenous ethno-religious split, followed by the support given by Turkey and the Gulf States to the opposition, followed by the lesser support given by Israel and the US to the opposition.

    Whereas there is quite genuine hatred of the minority Alawite Assad government by much of Syria’s Sunni majority. I would say that the primary cause of the Syrian Civil War was this endogenous ethno-religious split, followed by the support given by Turkey and the Gulf States to the opposition, followed by the lesser support given by Israel and the US to the opposition.

    The cause is the usual sectarian dislike of being ruled by minorities in general and the Sunni Arab hatred of being ruled by apostates specifically. The idea of a Sunni majority being ruled, not merely by infidels, but apostates is, in Daniel Pipes’s words, like an untouchable becoming the Maharajah of India or a Jew become the Tsar of all the Russias. Foreign sponsors provided some fuel, but only after the 7:1 Sunni Arab:Alawite majority had lit a roaring fire with sacrifices marked by the mass graves of dead rebel fighters.

    Even if Assad manages to win this round, it’s only a matter of time before the next brush fire starts up. Unless he can somehow convert Sunnis to the Alawite faith, drive them out of the country or get all Alawites comprising his power base to convert to the Sunni faith, the sectarian difference at the root of both the 80’s era Hama massacre and the current revolt will rear its ugly head again, in the form of another insurrection.

  73. @Johann Ricke

    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn’t tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli’s stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.
     
    Stereotypes are a two way street. The American Jewish stereotype of Israelis is of unscrupulous rug merchants. Oddly enough, this stereotype might even be the foundation of some of the left-wing Jewish support for the Palestinians, a people I think would not be missed, by Muslims, Arabs or anyone else, if they were exiled to another galaxy.

    The American Jewish stereotype of Israelis is of unscrupulous rug merchants.

    Really? I’m not a Jew, so I can’t say for sure, but I’ve met quite a few American Jews who romanticizes Israelis as dashing fighter pilot- or commando (e.g. Sayeret Matkal)-types.

  74. @Johann Ricke

    TV shows are often cartoonish but leverage their fictions on accepted commonplaces, which doesn’t tell you the truth, but does tell you local expectations. Watching an Israeli’s stereotype of an American Jew is interesting.
     
    Stereotypes are a two way street. The American Jewish stereotype of Israelis is of unscrupulous rug merchants. Oddly enough, this stereotype might even be the foundation of some of the left-wing Jewish support for the Palestinians, a people I think would not be missed, by Muslims, Arabs or anyone else, if they were exiled to another galaxy.

    Embarrassingly, before I first went there I assumed they were just like middle class English people (I was quite young and probably assumed that of most places.)

    The general Jewish impression though, seems to be of tough men and funny, not mawkish, pretty women. Admittedly, my sample size is small.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS