Is it logical to support Israel?

[AdHoc]

Many christians support Israel perhaps because of the shared biblical history but in general, more and more non-christians today seem to see Israel in a negative light and want to withdraw support from that country.

Is it logical to support Israel as a secular free democracy in a part of the world where that isn't common?

Or is it more logical to not support Israel?

I would especially like to hear the reasons why some christians support Israel and why some non-theists don't support Israel.

[Paprika]

I think this should be in the politics section.

I wouldn't really consider Israel to be a secular, free democracy. It clearly grants a privileged status to the religion of Judaism, which means it isn't secular. It also participates in a colonization effort of Palestinian land (and has launched violent attacks on Palestinians), which seems to disqualify it from being a "free democracy."

I always enjoy reading Yankees condemning the measured counterattacks Israel conducts against Hamas, when the USA would flatten Mexico if it launched at the US only a fraction of the rockets Hamas has fired, not to mention the US' own history of colonisation efforts and violent attacks.

I always enjoy British commentary on American chauvinism when in fact a lot of the issue we are dealing with today are a result of British Imperialism.

As do I. The Brits have decided to have collective amnesia about the past imperial ambitions and the mess of colonialism, which makes for great reading.

[Paprika]

I think this should be in the politics section.

I wouldn't really consider Israel to be a secular, free democracy. It clearly grants a privileged status to the religion of Judaism, which means it isn't secular. It also participates in a colonization effort of Palestinian land (and has launched violent attacks on Palestinians), which seems to disqualify it from being a "free democracy."

I always enjoy reading Yankees condemning the measured counterattacks Israel conducts against Hamas, when the USA would flatten Mexico if it launched at the US only a fraction of the rockets Hamas has fired, not to mention the US' own history of colonisation efforts and violent attacks.

I always enjoy British commentary on American chauvinism when in fact a lot of the issue we are dealing with today are a result of British Imperialism.

1. Iran

America protecting British oil interests

2. Iraq

Britain consolidating the various tribal groups into a singular country to make it easier to transport and ship oil

3. Palestine/Israel

British takeover in the region and handing over the land to create Israel.

I am sure we could go on and on but European Imperialism in general has been problematic to much of the modern world as we are still dealing with its repercussions.

Guys, I think we could compile two lists of great and not so great things both countries have done.

Who helped Britain against Germany? America.

Who helped America against Irag an Afghanistan? Britain.

Who helped Britain against Argentina?... Er ok they took care of that on their own but my main point is for many years the two countries have been very important allies. They haven't even fought a war against each other since 1815!

I'm not a Brit (nor am I a Yankee) so I feel especially free to criticise the actions of both nations

And so if you have an ally isn't it better to support them? Isn't Israel an ally in the war on terror?

What common enemy group are Israel and the US actively fighting against? 'Terror' doesn't quite cut it since it's hardly a monolithic whole; many terror groups will happily slaughter each other if given the opportunity to do so.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 14 by AdHoc]

That's a lot of money. I don't know if they need that level of support or not but I imagine its a lot less than what the west has spent on supporting Iraq and Afghanistan. If Israel is overrun then we might have one more chaotic failed state to baby sit.

Like I said they are more than capable of raising that on their own Israel is a very wealthy country. Their GDP is 290.6 billion USD and have a ~$33,000 per Capita. They have other allies in the region and they have nuclear weapons. Israel is not getting over run seeing as they have the most powerful air-force in the region and a ton of western allies. There are American bases all over the region. The chance of Israel getting over run is about as absurd as North Korea taking over the United States.

But the aid that Israel receives is not cash it's military aid so like you said they won't be overrun because of the US military presence.

Supporting Iraq and Afghanistan is only necessitated because we went in and wrecked those countries to begin with. What would have happened if we didn't rebuild these countries? What would happen if we ended aid to Israel? Israel would raise taxes by a fraction and Iraq and Afghanistan would fall apart to anarchy and civil war (well they are there already but it could be worse.)

What other 1st world allies do we give billions of aid to?

Or... Support them with whatever fraction of that bill now and keep one working free democracy in the region.

Except they are not the only democracy in the region. Supporting them also won't spread democracy. People have to sort of want to choose democracy you can't force it on them. Just look at every single instance of intervention to force democracies throughout the world during the cold war. Mistake after mistake after mistake. It is the same concept of economics, you have to let the free market decide otherwise if you over regulate you distort the market and increase instability into the system.

That's a good point I didn't know that there were any other democracies so you got me there.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 14 by AdHoc]

I don't think Israel and the west need to agree on everything. Even within our own countries we don't all agree. But if you are referring to helping Iran move forward with their nuclear program I actually think I understand why Israel might have some concerns about that.

There are several problems with this thesis. I have gone on at length on other forums about this. Perhaps it could fill its own thread. I will give a short bullet point list and if you would like to expound upon that perhaps we should create a new thread.

1. Israel has nuclear weapons already
2. Iran wants to remove Israel so that Palestine and the Palestinians can return.
3. Iran supports Hammas
4.Hammas and all the Palestinians are within Israel
5. If they nuked Israel they would kill all the Palestinians

This a rational way of thinking but even rational people do irrational things. During the Cuban missile crisis rational people brought the world to the edge of destruction. In Iran one person could have a finger on the button of doom.

6. If they nuked Israel they would be erased from the earth by the US and Israel.

ditto my comment above.

7. If they nuked Israel prevalent winds would carry the fallout right back to Iran

Thats what I always thought but do you know how many nuclear explosions have taken place on earth? You'll never guess. 2474.
About 500 of those were above ground. So you'd think we'd be experiencing nuclear winter now.

8. Iran can only complete its objectives by invading Israel.
9. Israel has a superior military and is backed by the united states
10. Leaving the only course of action is to continue supporting Hammas and achieve their goals via subterfuge.

I hope you're right and I hope the US continues to back Israel.

There is no scenario in which Iran could openly attack Israel. Israel knows this the Israeli spy agency Mossad knows this(leaked cables showed Netanyahu was lying about Iran's enrichment).

Aside from that. This intervention wasn't about killing the deal. It was about politics. The deal couldn't be killed. The frozen Iranian assets are held by other countries outside the US. If the US did no deal Iran would escalate its enrichment program, with support from Russia. Israel could not have killed this deal and surprise surprise they didn't kill this deal.

No this was about politics. It was about getting as many people who agree with PM Netanyahu's hawkish vision of government. It was to collate allies within congress and perhaps the next Presidency who would not be critical of their policies on settlements in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and to keep their $3,000,000,000 in foreign aid flowing.

When a magician is performing a magic trick they try to get you to look at the right hand or the pretty girl while the left one is loading the deck.

I definitely do think one of the countries in this story is tricking the other.

[AdHoc]

I think this should be in the politics section.

I wouldn't really consider Israel to be a secular, free democracy. It clearly grants a privileged status to the religion of Judaism, which means it isn't secular. It also participates in a colonization effort of Palestinian land (and has launched violent attacks on Palestinians), which seems to disqualify it from being a "free democracy."

I always enjoy reading Yankees condemning the measured counterattacks Israel conducts against Hamas, when the USA would flatten Mexico if it launched at the US only a fraction of the rockets Hamas has fired, not to mention the US' own history of colonisation efforts and violent attacks.

I always enjoy British commentary on American chauvinism when in fact a lot of the issue we are dealing with today are a result of British Imperialism.

As do I. The Brits have decided to have collective amnesia about the past imperial ambitions and the mess of colonialism, which makes for great reading.

Well I guess even if we were to hypothetically blame the US for imperialism or geopolitics it would still be the Brits fault because they colonized America.

Is there a country on earth that Britannia didn't effect or at least affect? A person could theoretically blame that empire for everything.

[AdHoc]

I think this should be in the politics section.

I wouldn't really consider Israel to be a secular, free democracy. It clearly grants a privileged status to the religion of Judaism, which means it isn't secular. It also participates in a colonization effort of Palestinian land (and has launched violent attacks on Palestinians), which seems to disqualify it from being a "free democracy."

I always enjoy reading Yankees condemning the measured counterattacks Israel conducts against Hamas, when the USA would flatten Mexico if it launched at the US only a fraction of the rockets Hamas has fired, not to mention the US' own history of colonisation efforts and violent attacks.

I always enjoy British commentary on American chauvinism when in fact a lot of the issue we are dealing with today are a result of British Imperialism.

1. Iran

America protecting British oil interests

2. Iraq

Britain consolidating the various tribal groups into a singular country to make it easier to transport and ship oil

3. Palestine/Israel

British takeover in the region and handing over the land to create Israel.

I am sure we could go on and on but European Imperialism in general has been problematic to much of the modern world as we are still dealing with its repercussions.

Guys, I think we could compile two lists of great and not so great things both countries have done.

Who helped Britain against Germany? America.

Who helped America against Irag an Afghanistan? Britain.

Who helped Britain against Argentina?... Er ok they took care of that on their own but my main point is for many years the two countries have been very important allies. They haven't even fought a war against each other since 1815!

I'm not a Brit (nor am I a Yankee) so I feel especially free to criticise the actions of both nations

Hey-o!
We both walked into that one...
He whose country is without sin cast the first monolith.

And so if you have an ally isn't it better to support them? Isn't Israel an ally in the war on terror?

What common enemy group are Israel and the US actively fighting against? 'Terror' doesn't quite cut it since it's hardly a monolithic whole; many terror groups will happily slaughter each other if given the opportunity to do so.

I don't understand why the enemy needs to be monlithic in order to be considered an enemy worthy of forming an alliance? Are heterogeneous enemies not dangerous or effective? I'd rather fight a lion than a swarm of various poisonous insects... As long as I had a rifle... If I only had my bare hands I'd rather fight neither.

[Paprika]

And so if you have an ally isn't it better to support them? Isn't Israel an ally in the war on terror?

What common enemy group are Israel and the US actively fighting against? 'Terror' doesn't quite cut it since it's hardly a monolithic whole; many terror groups will happily slaughter each other if given the opportunity to do so.

I don't understand why the enemy needs to be monlithic in order to be considered an enemy worthy of forming an alliance? Are heterogeneous enemies not dangerous or effective? I'd rather fight a lion than a swarm of various poisonous insects... As long as I had a rifle... If I only had my bare hands I'd rather fight neither.

*Sigh*

Name one single terror group that Israel and US are both actively fighting against. 'Terror' is not a monolithic whole as there are many terror groups with their own ideologies and aims, many opposed to each other. Conflation of them all as 'terror' might be good for making simplistic soundbites, but hardly facilitates any detailed analysis or understanding.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by AdHoc]

This a rational way of thinking but even rational people do irrational things. During the Cuban missile crisis rational people brought the world to the edge of destruction. In Iran one person could have a finger on the button of doom.

This is true of any country with nukes and would not be isolated to Iran. North Korea has had nuclear weapons for quite sometimes and has a history of irrational behavior far encompassing anything Iran has done. Yet they are not a threat to launch anytime soon. Following that logic then, we should apply sanctions to every country that currently has nukes or has a nuclear energy program since anyone has the potentiality to use them irrationally. If the issue is the potentiality for nuclear threat every country should disarm.There is also only one country that has a precedence for using nukes.

Let's really think about who the threat in the region really is. Which country has invaded another country in the last decade within that region? Which country has invaded another country in that region for false pretences in the last decade? Within that list I have made which course of action is Iran presently pursuing?

We also have to assume several things for this nightmare scenario to occur

1. Everyone in the Iran governance will act irrationally towards Israel.(if they were they would already be invading with or without nukes)
2. That the Iran government can obtain nukes in short order under this arrangement.(the number of centrifuges will be significantly reduced and uranium stockpiles significantly reduced)
3. That indeed only one person and one person only controls the ability to fire a nuclear device. There are a lot of logistics even for our government to initiate a nuclear launch.
4. Even when people act irrationally they lack the ability to override our innate desire for self-preservation. We would have to assume that the vast majority of those in power are suicidal.
5.They don't want to help Palestinians.

[AdHoc]

And so if you have an ally isn't it better to support them? Isn't Israel an ally in the war on terror?

What common enemy group are Israel and the US actively fighting against? 'Terror' doesn't quite cut it since it's hardly a monolithic whole; many terror groups will happily slaughter each other if given the opportunity to do so.

I don't understand why the enemy needs to be monlithic in order to be considered an enemy worthy of forming an alliance? Are heterogeneous enemies not dangerous or effective? I'd rather fight a lion than a swarm of various poisonous insects... As long as I had a rifle... If I only had my bare hands I'd rather fight neither.

*Sigh*

Name one single terror group that Israel and US are both actively fighting against. 'Terror' is not a monolithic whole as there are many terror groups with their own ideologies and aims, many opposed to each other. Conflation of them all as 'terror' might be good for making simplistic soundbites, but hardly facilitates any detailed analysis or understanding.

The war on terror is part hyperbole but also part literal war. I don't think I was specifically looking for a simplistic sound bite per se... it just naturally comes out that way. I'm not interested in doing a detailed analysis of all the terror groups that need to be prevented from bringing their evil machinations to life against either the US or Israel.
So I'll concede the point to you.

[Paprika]

And so if you have an ally isn't it better to support them? Isn't Israel an ally in the war on terror?

What common enemy group are Israel and the US actively fighting against? 'Terror' doesn't quite cut it since it's hardly a monolithic whole; many terror groups will happily slaughter each other if given the opportunity to do so.

I don't understand why the enemy needs to be monlithic in order to be considered an enemy worthy of forming an alliance? Are heterogeneous enemies not dangerous or effective? I'd rather fight a lion than a swarm of various poisonous insects... As long as I had a rifle... If I only had my bare hands I'd rather fight neither.

*Sigh*

Name one single terror group that Israel and US are both actively fighting against. 'Terror' is not a monolithic whole as there are many terror groups with their own ideologies and aims, many opposed to each other. Conflation of them all as 'terror' might be good for making simplistic soundbites, but hardly facilitates any detailed analysis or understanding.

The war on terror is part hyperbole but also part literal war. I don't think I was specifically looking for a simplistic sound bite per se... it just naturally comes out that way. I'm not interested in doing a detailed analysis of all the terror groups that need to be prevented from bringing their evil machinations to life against either the US or Israel.
So I'll concede the point to you.

Well then: without using the premise of 'Israel is the US' ally', why should the US support Israel?