4 ms·

I assume by 1948 you mean Israel’s declaration and subsequent war of independence. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote

I assume by 1948 you mean Israel’s declaration and subsequent war of independence. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote - Britain was the architect of this part of the Middle East and is responsible for every border drawn by all nations there. This was fallout of the Ottoman Empire choosing to go to war against Western Europe and being defeated (after hundreds of years of incompetent leadership). [0] The US did not supply Israel in any way until 2 decades later, and it was Eastern European arms dealers first, France second. The first weapons sold to Israel by the US were in 1962 (anti air missiles), followed by some tanks and aircraft later in the decade. Things ramped up considerably after 1967 due to Arab states aligning with the USSR. [1] RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian terrorist in 1968. [2] 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Emp... 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._K...

aguaviva 2y ago
Overt U.S. meddling began (and in a very significant way) in 1956 with the Suez Crisis. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote True for the U.S. at the government -- but not for the U.S. as a country. One of the earliest major Zionist associations (the Federation of Zionist Societies - a forerunner of the modern ZOA) was formed in New York in 1897. The movement would continue to receive key funding from American backers, and held one of its key meetings in New York in 1942: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Conference The movement's ideological (some would even say "spiritual") underpinnings can be traced to the mid-19th century writings of this American playwright and utopian activist - said to be the originator of the idea of resettling Jews in Palestine, predating the efforts Herzl himself by half a century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Manuel_Noah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Manuel_Noah So American meddling in the region goes back quite far indeed.
- grumple 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    The US intervened AGAINST Israel, Britain, and France during the Suez crisis, in favor of the Arabs. Not against Israel (and certainly not in favor of the Arabs) - but rather against Dayan and Ben-Gurion's strategy of calculated provocations against Syria and Egypt. Dulles had actually decided in favor of providing arms to Israel by the end of late 1955. But his hand was tipped by Israel's severely destabilizing actions (most notably Operation Olive Leaves), and most decisively by Ben-Gurion's calculated decision to also conceal these plans from Washington. The other narratives that you're presenting above are similarly problematic. You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly. It isn't about the geographic origins of the Jewish people; but rather specifically about the idea of setting up a 19th century-style nation-state in their interest (and of resettling large numbers of people to a place where their ancestors had not set foot in for well over a millenium) -- by definition (and in every dictionary and encyclopedia definition you will find) an intrinsically modern concept. Nor is it "core" to Jewish people in general, only to some. I wish we could explore these topics further. Unfortunately, you are attributing statements to me that I simply didn't make (I never said that the American Zionists were "the center of the movement", or even remotely implied as much), which, on top of the multiplicity of broken narratives you are presenting here, suggests that continued discussion is unlikely to be productive.
    - golergka 2y ago
      > You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly. Many active zionists use the term this way, and not in the way you do. Secular Zionism of Hertzl was indeed more prominent, but already in 1902, Mizrahi organisation already saw a completely different concept of zionism, which didn't identify itself with European nation-state nationalism of 19th century. Ironically, both of these views are still Ashkenazi inventions. But most of israelis are not Ashkenazi, but Mizrahim. Role of Jerusalem in these communities, desire to live in historical Israel and restoration of Jewish state of Palestine is something which is completely forgotten. And while zionism as state-building was not the focus of the jews, zionism as resettling to Israel was always a thing. My own family has been dispersed after expultion from Spain, and while most moved to Italy, some people (I forget the name) decided to move to Jerusalem instead. There always were sizable Jewish communities in the area, and immigrating there was a decision that people did take sometimes.
Comma2976 2y ago
> The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote I put on my history hat and check the books > Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries. > After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed. > After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. > [......] Mind you that I am not calling foul play here, this is par for the course for politics. This is just to refute the quoted point above, unless you consider bribery and threats of sanctions a "nothing".

aguaviva 2y ago

Overt U.S. meddling began (and in a very significant way) in 1956 with the Suez Crisis. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote True for the U.S. at the government -- but not for the U.S. as a country. One of the earliest major Zionist associations (the Federation of Zionist Societies - a forerunner of the modern ZOA) was formed in New York in 1897. The movement would continue to receive key funding from American backers, and held one of its key meetings in New York in 1942: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Conference The movement's ideological (some would even say "spiritual") underpinnings can be traced to the mid-19th century writings of this American playwright and utopian activist - said to be the originator of the idea of resettling Jews in Palestine, predating the efforts Herzl himself by half a century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Manuel_Noah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Manuel_Noah So American meddling in the region goes back quite far indeed.

grumple 2y ago
[flagged]
- aguaviva 2y ago
  The US intervened AGAINST Israel, Britain, and France during the Suez crisis, in favor of the Arabs. Not against Israel (and certainly not in favor of the Arabs) - but rather against Dayan and Ben-Gurion's strategy of calculated provocations against Syria and Egypt. Dulles had actually decided in favor of providing arms to Israel by the end of late 1955. But his hand was tipped by Israel's severely destabilizing actions (most notably Operation Olive Leaves), and most decisively by Ben-Gurion's calculated decision to also conceal these plans from Washington. The other narratives that you're presenting above are similarly problematic. You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly. It isn't about the geographic origins of the Jewish people; but rather specifically about the idea of setting up a 19th century-style nation-state in their interest (and of resettling large numbers of people to a place where their ancestors had not set foot in for well over a millenium) -- by definition (and in every dictionary and encyclopedia definition you will find) an intrinsically modern concept. Nor is it "core" to Jewish people in general, only to some. I wish we could explore these topics further. Unfortunately, you are attributing statements to me that I simply didn't make (I never said that the American Zionists were "the center of the movement", or even remotely implied as much), which, on top of the multiplicity of broken narratives you are presenting here, suggests that continued discussion is unlikely to be productive.
  - golergka 2y ago
    > You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly. Many active zionists use the term this way, and not in the way you do. Secular Zionism of Hertzl was indeed more prominent, but already in 1902, Mizrahi organisation already saw a completely different concept of zionism, which didn't identify itself with European nation-state nationalism of 19th century. Ironically, both of these views are still Ashkenazi inventions. But most of israelis are not Ashkenazi, but Mizrahim. Role of Jerusalem in these communities, desire to live in historical Israel and restoration of Jewish state of Palestine is something which is completely forgotten. And while zionism as state-building was not the focus of the jews, zionism as resettling to Israel was always a thing. My own family has been dispersed after expultion from Spain, and while most moved to Italy, some people (I forget the name) decided to move to Jerusalem instead. There always were sizable Jewish communities in the area, and immigrating there was a decision that people did take sometimes.

Comma2976 2y ago

> The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote I put on my history hat and check the books > Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries. > After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed. > After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. > [......] Mind you that I am not calling foul play here, this is par for the course for politics. This is just to refute the quoted point above, unless you consider bribery and threats of sanctions a "nothing".