If the UN never created the nation of Israel
- Thread starter Red Dawn
- Start date
Oh, yeah. These nutjobs who claim to represent the Islamic faith only want a target and an excuse. Israel just happens to be handy.
Of course the history here goes back several thousand years...... And the UN acted upon the groundwork laid before it got involved (reference for example the Balfour Declaration) and most likely an Israel State would have come about with or without the UN.........but for the sake of entertaining your question lets just assume its as simple as you ask it:
The world at large would still likely consist of alliances similar to what we have today. I do think the war against Islamic Facism/Terrorism would be quite different, likely not as accelerrated. The thing to understand is that radical Islam hates the West/America for several reasons namely our support of Israel, a close second is our "world influence" and general decadance (in their opinion). Our culture is offensive to them, our movies, our books, our ideas, our lifestyles. Another lessor reason is our Christian roots/large number of Christian people.
History clearly teaches radical Islam IS BENT ON world conquest and will likely always be. Thats why the Muslim population in various contries and regions, Islamic influence in politcal circles, and access to significant military hardware is a legitimate concern for now and the centuries ahead. The enemy wants and Islamic planet earth not just Middle East.
To me the really scary part is the thought of the eventual emergence of an Islamic superpower with nuclear weapons that would no doubt spell the end.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,894
- 10,720
- 147
What a stunningly stupid answer to a truly intriguing question! Been spinning possible scenarios in my mind while my poptart carbonizes in my treacherous toaster. Oil -- them that gots and them that needs -- would still be in play. No reason to think that the political and social backwardness of the Mideast regimes would be markedly different -- minimally responsive authoritarian regimes sitting on a simmering post colonial cauldron of tribes, clans and sects. The militarization of the area might be on a lesser scale. We'd have that 90% plus of our foreign aid that goes to Egypt and Israel back to distribute amongst our domestic and international needs more evenly and rationally.
Yet all that I just hypothesized rests on the assumption that the pressures of Jews worldwide to return to their heraldic homeland (Zionism, a word that is hard to use these days without invoking a host of negative conotations, unfortuantely), even without a UN mandate, wouldn't be causing a one land/two peoples ruckus in that region anyway. But on what scale? And with what implications?
Hmmmm. Since this would be an alternative universe, and taking into account the theory of the so called butterfly effect (a butterfly in Patagonia beats its gossamer wings and the resulting ripple in the space/time continuum changes everything), I'm going with the dread spcetre of militant mutant space monkeys flipping us off on gigantic jumbotrons from their forward military installation cum casino/theme park on the moon.
Or not.
It's hard to tell.
It would be less of an issue than it is today but we would still have problems/violence in Kashmir, Chechen, Algeria etc.
The ironic thing is that would Israel exist if Jews had not been so persecuted everywhere in the world? I heard Libya recently made an offer to Jews it had driven out in the past. They said they are now welcomed back and they should leave Israel and come back to their country. I think it was a SNL news sketch or something.
The ironic thing is that would Israel exist if Jews had not been so persecuted everywhere in the world? I heard Libya recently made an offer to Jews it had driven out in the past. They said they are now welcomed back and they should leave Israel and come back to their country. I think it was a SNL news sketch or something.
That is a VERY interesting question. I think i will have to think about it for a while before i give an answer.
Not including loans, those two nations only receive about $7 billion total. Before anyone argues "only $7 billion? wtf that's a crazy amount of cash!", let us put it into perspective. That is less than 0.1% of our GDP. Whether we give that money as aid or not, I doubt any American would notice the difference, especially with the amount of pork Congress is throwing around.
They don't hate the west namely for our support for Israel, it is more like they hate Israel for their support of the west. We have to remember, Israel, ignoring the religious aspects of the country, is something th rest of those countries are not: a democractic and westernized nation. Our support for Israel is more beneficial than negative as well, although some will argue this. The fact is that if we did not support them, Israel would not have much of a reason not to turn its neighbors into a sheet of glass. Sure, you can argue but then they would not be receiving our aid, which could hurt a little bit. Well, the last figure I saw was only about $3.7 billion. If Israel wanted to, they could easily make that up by increasing weapons sales to countries like China, India or others looking to advance their militaries.
Also, in my opinion, our support for repressive authoritarian governments in the middle hurts us much more than any support for Israel.
Why do you attack me and try to make some sick point out of rearranging my words? Get a life and leave mine alone.
Red ask for opinion and I offered mine like everyone else, you come in and attack me and for what? Do you get to decide whose opinion is acceptable. Your a Bigot
Lets be clear about something, even if the UN hadn't "authorized" Israel it would still exist. The creation of Israel is a direct result of the Holocaust and the lingering anti-sematism in Europe. Had Hitler not concieved the "final solution" zionism would have been a fringe movement in the Jewish faith that would have never gained steam and acceptance. Arabs and the world owe the creation of Israel to Hitler.
Every event in human history has an effect on its future, with more significant events typically causing more significant effects. Would the world be the same? Perhaps not... Would it be any better? Who knows... Would there still be a conflict between Islamic fascists who resort to acts of terrorism? If nothing else changed, probably yes.
You have to bear in mind that a lot happened at around the same time that contributed to the friction between the United States and various other countries. Its support of the way in which Israeli state was founded and evolved is not the root cause, in minds of opponents, so much as it's one of many examples of perceived imperialistic colonialism and nation-building. For much of my generation, for example, the word "terrorism" immediately brought to mind the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. And for most Americans, it was nothing more than an act of unprovoked aggression perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists. But for the Iranians, it was a direct reaction to the United States' continued encroachment on their rights to self-determination. And the reason most don't understand this stems from their ignorance of the history involved.
When a foreign country that ostensibly stands for democracy begins overturning democratically-elected governments and forcing governmental systems upon peoples who don't want it, that tends to make them unpopular in at least some people's eyes. And so for them, the United States' involvement in the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Mohammad Mosadeq in 1953, their willingness to destabilize the country just to score a preemptive strike against the USSR (whom they feared would step in if the US didn't first), their unflinching support of the brutal and sadistic Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and their refusal to allow Iranian courts to try the deposed Shah for his crimes against the state all worked together to justify, in their eyes, the taking of US hostages.
More importantly, this entire episode is seen as being symptomic of a seeming willingness on the part of the US, Britain, and their allies to deliberately cause unrest and instability in an effort to better situate itself as a world power. The lines that the allied powers drew on maps in the 1940's caused unrest not only in the Arab world, but beyond. Their division of such countries as Korea and Vietnam were other such examples, with the US support not only of the French colonization of the latter, but also of the dictatorial rule of Ngo Dinh Diem and the overtuning/abortment of general elections when it seemed clear that Ho Chi Minh was going to sweep the popular vote serving to further emplify this. Examples like Vietnam/Indochina, Korea, Iran were all as contributory to the growth of anti-Ango/American sentiment in certain parts of the world as its seemingly unwavering support of Israel has been.
The problem is multi-fold and was most likely impossible to avert by the time the 1940's rolled around. It stemmed, unfortunately, from a feeling of xenophobia that had grown in the west and that made it apparent that the support of the creation of the Israeli state was not wholly altruistic. For some, it was akin to the support of the creation of the Liberian state in that it was an example of wanting to make a group of people "somebody's else's problem." For others, it was an exercise in hypocrisy as the forced displacement and relocation of one persecuted people was remedied by the displacement and relocation of another. And for yet others, it was an example of a willingness to force one nation's world order upon others without regard for how it will affect the region. And as the US railed against some countries for violations of resolutions, but refused to condemn (or let others condemn) their allies for the same kinds of violations and actions, not only was their objectivity and fair-mindnedness called to question... those questions seemed, for some, so clearly to be answered.
Just my two cents,
cumhail
You have to bear in mind that a lot happened at around the same time that contributed to the friction between the United States and various other countries. Its support of the way in which Israeli state was founded and evolved is not the root cause, in minds of opponents, so much as it's one of many examples of perceived imperialistic colonialism and nation-building. For much of my generation, for example, the word "terrorism" immediately brought to mind the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. And for most Americans, it was nothing more than an act of unprovoked aggression perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists. But for the Iranians, it was a direct reaction to the United States' continued encroachment on their rights to self-determination. And the reason most don't understand this stems from their ignorance of the history involved.
When a foreign country that ostensibly stands for democracy begins overturning democratically-elected governments and forcing governmental systems upon peoples who don't want it, that tends to make them unpopular in at least some people's eyes. And so for them, the United States' involvement in the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Mohammad Mosadeq in 1953, their willingness to destabilize the country just to score a preemptive strike against the USSR (whom they feared would step in if the US didn't first), their unflinching support of the brutal and sadistic Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and their refusal to allow Iranian courts to try the deposed Shah for his crimes against the state all worked together to justify, in their eyes, the taking of US hostages.
More importantly, this entire episode is seen as being symptomic of a seeming willingness on the part of the US, Britain, and their allies to deliberately cause unrest and instability in an effort to better situate itself as a world power. The lines that the allied powers drew on maps in the 1940's caused unrest not only in the Arab world, but beyond. Their division of such countries as Korea and Vietnam were other such examples, with the US support not only of the French colonization of the latter, but also of the dictatorial rule of Ngo Dinh Diem and the overtuning/abortment of general elections when it seemed clear that Ho Chi Minh was going to sweep the popular vote serving to further emplify this. Examples like Vietnam/Indochina, Korea, Iran were all as contributory to the growth of anti-Ango/American sentiment in certain parts of the world as its seemingly unwavering support of Israel has been.
The problem is multi-fold and was most likely impossible to avert by the time the 1940's rolled around. It stemmed, unfortunately, from a feeling of xenophobia that had grown in the west and that made it apparent that the support of the creation of the Israeli state was not wholly altruistic. For some, it was akin to the support of the creation of the Liberian state in that it was an example of wanting to make a group of people "somebody's else's problem." For others, it was an exercise in hypocrisy as the forced displacement and relocation of one persecuted people was remedied by the displacement and relocation of another. And for yet others, it was an example of a willingness to force one nation's world order upon others without regard for how it will affect the region. And as the US railed against some countries for violations of resolutions, but refused to condemn (or let others condemn) their allies for the same kinds of violations and actions, not only was their objectivity and fair-mindnedness called to question... those questions seemed, for some, so clearly to be answered.
Just my two cents,
cumhail
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
This can be a dangerous question. If one comes to the easy (not necessarily correct) answer (NO), one might also conclude that there should be no Israel today, and that stance will prolong the Israeli/Palestinian conflict indefinitely. Regardless of how you feel about the circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel, or how you feel about the right of Jews to a homeland, the fact remains that Israel is there today and will continue to be there for the foreseeable future. Any resolution to any that conflict that results, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from the existence of Israel must take that into account.
I'm not saying the question shouldn't be asked, just that you should be careful about the conclusions you draw.
Bravo! This is the most well thought out response here. The truth is, Red's question is silly as the creation of Israel is so much more complicated than the original question would have you believe.
While the absence of Israel would be a boon to many Jews and Arabs, it wouldn't prevent the US from becoming embroiled in Middle-Eastern politics. The US oil companies would still have demanded increases to their shares in the oil production of each of the Middle Eastern countries as a quid pro quo for American aid to the UK in WW2. The details would be different, but the UK and US still would have intervened in the Middle East by placing and keeping the last Shah of Iran in power and so forth.
I would be tempted here: "To me the really scary part is the reality of an Christian superpower with nuclear weapons that could no doubt spell the end." to change could to will.
He's got the whole Armageddon in His hand, He's got the whole Armageddon in His hand, ......da da ta da da da da da.
He's got the whole Armageddon in His hand, He's got the whole Armageddon in His hand, ......da da ta da da da da da.
have you considered that the facts of the situation don't warrant such a reversal? Maybe your attempt to point out a parity between the devout Christians of america and the divout Muslems of the middle east would be better done by showing the positives of both...
remember: only love can win :wine:
Its not so much that...... its just that it has nothing to do with the dicussion here in this thread. You come into this thread just to attack me and spew hatred toward Christians your the bigot and a major major hypocrite
yes, just as we have been for the past 1400 years. starting with islamic invasions of europe and the balkans that predate the crusades.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter