5 ms·

>Not what I claimed Yet what you directly claimed hinges upon this fallacy. >Vocal, motivated minorities who are willing to back a primary challenger Or fore

by pydry 1y ago

>Not what I claimed Yet what you directly claimed hinges upon this fallacy. >Vocal, motivated minorities who are willing to back a primary challenger Or foreign countries. (is Russia also a "vocal, motivated minority" in Moldova...? or is it just plain and simple foreign meddling? Russia believes it's motivated minorities). >What the majority loosely believes is irrelevant Sure. But, this would make your clain of "Israel has had unique sway in America because for most of its history it has been uniquely popular" uniquely self-contradictory.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> what you directly claimed hinges upon this fallacy No. It doesn’t. It’s why I never cite general popularity for Israel. Only strong favour for and against. > this would make your clain of "Israel has had unique sway in America because for most of its history it has been uniquely popular" completely untrue Nope. Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it. Most people don’t care, and when they gave a view on caring, it was mild support. That’s a unique popularity profile that I don’t think any other country, other than maybe Cubans, have held. Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio. Several would for a pro-Israeli one. It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies. Sometimes that is true. In this case, the theory requires a level of coördination across decades and the American public that borders on anti-vaccine levels of delusion. (It’s also, again, a self-defeating mythology. If Israel’s influence is untouchable, it isn’t worth touching.)
- pydry 1y ago
  >It doesn’t. It’s why I never cite general popularity for Israel Yet you cited "Israel is uniquely popular" as a reason for why they get their way. Which is not true. >Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it It not only had a vocal minority that hates it it had a vocal minority of Jews that loathe it. The minorities arent the point though, the money and the foreign influence over America's government is. Remember the "vocal minority" in Moldova who fight for pro Russian policy? Theyre not "vocal minorities" thats just Russia. Israel is no different. It's a foreign country taking control over the American government. >Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio That's probably increasingly less true these days (genocide isnt a historically popular policy) but beside the point. The "minority" which operates on behalf of a foreign government is getting real close to ramming $200 per barrel oil down everybody's throats not because theyre "motivated" but because America is run along plutocratic lines and is fully captured by that foreign government. >It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies I assume that'd where the "uniquely popular" thing came from.
  - avoutos 1y ago
    To say that Israel has fully captured the American government is ridiculous. Pro-Israel spending is a fraction of all political spending. take aipac, which barely scratches the top 10 of single-issue focused organizations. Aipac donated 43 mil to campaigns in 2023-24. The League of Conservation Warriors donated 50 million. Is the U.S. gov't being captured by environmental advocacy groups? If you look at foreign agent registered spending, Israel spent 5.7 million in 2024. Compare that with China who spent 5.8 billion with a B.
    - pydry 1y ago
      Israel's influence is not just about how much money it spends openly on candidates and AIPAC is not the only foreign agent of Israel channeling cash to political campaigns.

by pydry 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> what you directly claimed hinges upon this fallacy No. It doesn’t. It’s why I never cite general popularity for Israel. Only strong favour for and against. > this would make your clain of "Israel has had unique sway in America because for most of its history it has been uniquely popular" completely untrue Nope. Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it. Most people don’t care, and when they gave a view on caring, it was mild support. That’s a unique popularity profile that I don’t think any other country, other than maybe Cubans, have held. Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio. Several would for a pro-Israeli one. It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies. Sometimes that is true. In this case, the theory requires a level of coördination across decades and the American public that borders on anti-vaccine levels of delusion. (It’s also, again, a self-defeating mythology. If Israel’s influence is untouchable, it isn’t worth touching.)

pydry 1y ago
>It doesn’t. It’s why I never cite general popularity for Israel Yet you cited "Israel is uniquely popular" as a reason for why they get their way. Which is not true. >Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it It not only had a vocal minority that hates it it had a vocal minority of Jews that loathe it. The minorities arent the point though, the money and the foreign influence over America's government is. Remember the "vocal minority" in Moldova who fight for pro Russian policy? Theyre not "vocal minorities" thats just Russia. Israel is no different. It's a foreign country taking control over the American government. >Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio That's probably increasingly less true these days (genocide isnt a historically popular policy) but beside the point. The "minority" which operates on behalf of a foreign government is getting real close to ramming $200 per barrel oil down everybody's throats not because theyre "motivated" but because America is run along plutocratic lines and is fully captured by that foreign government. >It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies I assume that'd where the "uniquely popular" thing came from.
- avoutos 1y ago
  To say that Israel has fully captured the American government is ridiculous. Pro-Israel spending is a fraction of all political spending. take aipac, which barely scratches the top 10 of single-issue focused organizations. Aipac donated 43 mil to campaigns in 2023-24. The League of Conservation Warriors donated 50 million. Is the U.S. gov't being captured by environmental advocacy groups? If you look at foreign agent registered spending, Israel spent 5.7 million in 2024. Compare that with China who spent 5.8 billion with a B.
  - pydry 1y ago
    Israel's influence is not just about how much money it spends openly on candidates and AIPAC is not the only foreign agent of Israel channeling cash to political campaigns.