You skirted all the serious points. These arguments are mostly semantics or not relevant to our support of Israel.
elegant wrote:Actually the most dominant great power in the formative years of Israel (1948-1956) was the Republic of France, which is actually responsible for the fact Israel is a nuclear power.
I was exaggerating for effect. France did provide nuclear weapons and did help found Israel, but to say they were the main supporter is a stretch. Both the US and USSR backed their founding, with the British actually giving territory.
Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/194 ... ion-israel
elegant wrote:Unlike the money invested in Arab dictatorships, which usually finds its way in the pockets of the dictators themselves, most of the funds you mention can only be used to buy American weapon systems from American manufacturers.
This is hardly a reason to support Israel. Maybe a reason not to support certain dictatorships, but it is by no means a positive in the support of Israel.
elegant wrote:True, however there are huge pools of recently discovered natural gas.
So, does everyone and their brother (except Europe), and the US has a ridiculous amount. This is not a good reason to support Israel. Maybe for Europe it is, but not so much for us.
elegant wrote:Technically that isn't true, because the land was never "Palestinian", there was never a sovereign "Palestinian" political entity (or a "Palestinian" people for that matter. Palestinian nationalism is an artificial counter movement to Jewish nationalism known as Zionism).
The land mentioned was Ottoman, then British, then Jordanian. It was never "Palestinian".
This is just semantics. If I just say Israel is killing Arabs or Muslims is that better?
There is barely any real historical evidence of a sovereign political entity for Israel either. As you point out the land has been part of other countries and empires for almost all of history. The argument for Israel as it's own country is also the best argument for Palestine (see below).
Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/194 ... ion-israel
elegant wrote:Don't forget actual combat experience with US weapons, defending NATO's southeastern flank (without even being a part of NATO), conducting leading scientific research, etc.
This is big part of my argument against further support of Israel unless they get in line. This hasn't been important since the Berlin Wall fell, which makes supporting them now highly questionable.
elegant wrote:Besides, Israelis contributed a thing or to to mankind. From the top of my head: 12 Nobel laureates (including Daniel Kahneman's theory of irrational human economic choices), Babylon, ICQ, Viber, GetTaxi, Waze, Israeli kuskus, Krav Maga, Rummikub, USB Flash drives, Uzi submachine gun, Merkava tank, rooftop solar hot water system, cherry tomatoes.. etc
I will give you the Nobel Laureates and some scientific research, though much of it would probably have been done some where else if Israel hadn't been an option. But, "Babylon (I assume you mean the translation software), ICQ, Viber, GetTaxi, Waze, Israeli kuskus, Krav Maga, Rummikub, USB Flash drives, Uzi submachine gun, Merkava tank, rooftop solar hot water system, cherry tomatoes", these aren't that important. Most have direct competitors that were created without the help or, as a result, of the Israeli company. The others like the Uzi and the Merkava are at best interesting iterations on former designs, but it's not worth what we paid for it.
elegant wrote:Without American support Israel would have been destroyed by now and none of this could happen.
That's my point. They owe us. We don't owe them. They need to listen more (of course, we need to lead better than our past two Presidents).
Let China have them.
Bad idea?
First, I only made this comment because you suggested it was an option. Us cutting off aid and being a little tougher on them isn't exactly declaring them an enemy of the US. I would prefer to keep the aid and force a solution for the Palestinian problem.
But, why is it so bad if Israel did get close to China? Other than Israel giving them an actual military base on the Mediterranean, which they wouldn't do unless we actually threatened to invade Israel (which we would never do), what would be the downside?