U.S. Middle Middle east relations 1949-98

[Squishy Cheeks]

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sept_11_2001/WhyDoTheyHateUs.html

[Gilgamesh in a Hat]

The world hates us because America is like the stupid younger brother. You usually don't let it get involved but then the U.S goes crying to its mom (*cough Britain *cough) and you are forced to have the U.S do somthing importent. Then the U.S screws it up and blames it on everyone else. I ask you, with all of the mistakes the U.S has done it's hard to like it right? I don't hate the U.S at all, I hate the retarded people (*cough George Bush *cough) who made it look bad. Also is that a list of bad things the U.S did? I don't get it.

[icythaco]

Alright, this list may not put the U.S. in a great light at all, but we must keep in mind that satatistics and facts can still be biased, because the author decides which to include or disclude. It'd be interesting to see a list of the GOOD things the U.S. has done for the Middle East. It would probably be a little more boring, but just as long as this one. But people tend to forget the good in the face of the bad, and this is holding true for the Middle-Easterners as well: This list is exactly what they think of when they picture America; all that aid and other good things we provided for them seems to amount to nothing when compared to the "bad" things we did. Also, more people know about the bad than the good in the world, simply because the bad usually makes a better news story.

[Archbio]

I don't know, icythaco, but I've heard the opposite view quite more often (I rarely hear the middle-eastern view itself, so that explains part of that). And usually, the lists of the good things the U.S. have done aren't named "list of good things the U.S. have done", but just "list of the things the U.S. have done". The object of this list is openly stated and precise enough: it doesn't pretend that's the whole of U.S. action.

Also, funny how you put bad in quotes ("bad"), and put good in caps once (GOOD).

[icythaco]

Also, funny how you put bad in quotes ("bad"), and put good in caps once (GOOD).
Just for emphasis. I probably shouldn't have included it anyway...

But in reponse, yes, I agree that around here you mostly see the U.S.-supported 'good' list, and not much of the 'bad' list (except maybe in Michael Moore films). Heck, the U.S. probably has given tons of aid to the middle-east, but it still doesn't make any difference:

In the middle-east, the things that stick in the locals' minds are the bombings and the anti-middle-eastern policies carried out by the U.S. against them. Every time we take a side in a conflict between factions in the Middle-East, the entire middle-east gets POd at us because we are still technically fighting against middle-eaterners. Anything we do that effects any faction negatively is just another log on the fire.

[Mr. Wind-Up Bird]

I can shorten that list down to one reason the middle east doesn't like the US.

1. $134,791,507,200 or so in aid to Israel while ignoring the rest of the region.

[Archbio]

In the middle-east, the things that stick in the locals' minds are the bombings and the anti-middle-eastern policies carried out by the U.S. against them. Every time we take a side in a conflict between factions in the Middle-East, the entire middle-east gets POd at us because we are still technically fighting against middle-eaterners. Anything we do that effects any faction negatively is just another log on the fire.

There's really something paradoxal there, the kind of middle-eastern (or islamic, I don't know which one actually applies here) "overnationalism", that kind of works above/under of the other, official national dynamics. [Edit: where am going with this? Who knows? Not me!]

On the other hand, to consider that the bombings/overthrows would be outweighed by aid in the mind of people personally affected by the former, is pretty irrational in its own right. Especially if one counts on the "overnationalism" to convey the good will created by aid in one middle-eastern country to the others.

[icythaco]

On the other hand, to consider that the bombings/overthrows would be outweighed by aid in the mind of people personally affected by the former, is pretty irrational in its own right. Especially if one counts on the "overnationalism" to convey the good will created by aid in one middle-eastern country to the others.
Sure, I agree with you. However, our aid only helps a certain small percentage of the population, but our military and political actions against any part of the middle-east has resounding repurcussions in the minds of all of the middle-easterners. Think of it this way: what are muslims living in the middle-east most likely to hear about? The most rescent bombing conducted by the U.S.? or the U.S.'s food-drops in Afganistan? In the eyes of the media, one makes a good news story, the other doesn't.

Edit:
1. $134,791,507,200 or so in aid to Israel while ignoring the rest of the region.
I'm not sure that first figure's right (can you source it, please?), but we haven't exactly ignored the rest of the middle-east: We've provided alot of aid to them as well, although maybe not as much as Israel.

[Gilgamesh in a Hat]

It's not the fact that were giving so much to Israel and no one else, we are helping other countries. The part that pisses arab countries off is that Israel is their swarn enemy! and we are giving them monet, lots of it.

[icythaco]

It's not the fact that were giving so much to Israel and no one else, we are helping other countries. The part that pisses arab countries off is that Israel is their swarn enemy! and we are giving them monet, lots of it.
I'm not sure that Israel is the "swarn" enemy of every muslim: there is no single reason for their dislike of the U.S., but rather a combination of many things. Money, politics, policies, diplomacy, location, culture, these all play a part in their distrust and hatred.

[Sesshoumaru]

And the fact that many Mid-East countries are extremeist theocracies where someone can get a death sentence for criticizing any part of Islam.

[Gilgamesh in a Hat]

Not really, you are only executed for converting out of Islam while in a country that has an islamic government like Saudia Arabia. But the reason for this is politcal not religious, the reason is the GOVERNMENT is islamic therefor if your against islam your against the government.

Now on to Israel, another thing that I don't see why people notice is that every other country supports Israel. Not a single one has ever done any military action against the state of Israel. Also, HOW CAN IT BE CONSIDERED A STATE! It's Arab land that was given away by everyone BUT the arabs! WHATS THE DEAL WITH THAT?

[icythaco]

Actually, it was originally Jewish land, taken by the Arabs. And if you disagree, we already came to a conclusion about this in another thread...

by the way, give some credit to Monte Python in your signature...the guy's a freakin' genius.

[Archbio]

Actually, it was originally Jewish land, taken by the Arabs.

Doesn't the diaspora predate the Arab invasions by a lot, lot, lot of time?

[on second thought... no, I'm not getting into this now]

And the fact that many Mid-East countries are extremeist theocracies where someone can get a death sentence for criticizing any part of Islam.

A bit meaningless in this context, nay?

[Gilgamesh in a Hat]

Whoa nally, no it was not Jewish land nor was it ever...unless you count now.

The fact is the land was owned by the turkish rulers, not the jews. In fact at the creation of the Israeli state the more strict jews believed that the Holy land was not to be jewish until the Massiah returns. Also even if the land was jewish before, it doesn't matter, at the time of the israeli state's creation it was arab land. IT WAS THEIR LAND AND EVERY ONE GOT IT FROM THEM ILLEAGALLY!

p.s Just because you say somthing on another thread, doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

[Viper Daimao]

another thing that I don't see why people notice is that every other country supports Israel. Not a single one has ever done any military action against the state of Israel.
Every other country? I dont get it, you are not talking about all the arab countries are you? you know, like the 6 that invaded israel the day it declared independence. The Six Days war, the War of Attrition, The Yom Kippur war. These werent military actions against Israel? or was that not what you were talking about?

and the fact that the land was jewish before doesnt matter, but the fact that it was arab after that does? damn man, go hate on jews somewhere else, or at least stop pulling stuff from your ass. There have been jewish people living in israel for thousands of years. by the early 19th century there were more than 10,000 jews living there.

Israel granted full citizenship to all of the Palestinian Arabs who fell within its borders after the War of Independence. Arabic is an official language in Israel. Israel remains to this day one of the few countries in the Middle East where Arabs can legitimately vote--and it is the only one where women can vote. The approximately one million non-Jews (mostly Arabs) who are citizens of Israel have the same civil rights that Jews have. They vote, are members of the Knesset (parliament), and are part of Israel's civil and diplomatic services, just as their Jewish follow citizens. Arabs have complete religious freedom and full access to the Israeli legal, health and educational systems, including Arabic and Moslem universities. The only difference between the "rights" of Arabs and Jews is that Jewish young men must serve three years in the military and at least one month a year until age 50. Young Jewish women serve for two years.

The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is that from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins. Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:

It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original)

Why hate on the only, ONLY democracy in the middle east? The ONLY state where womens rights are respected.

p.s. just because you say something in this thread, doesnt mean it isnt wrong.

[Archbio]

The refugees must be imagined then, same thing with controversy surrounding a certain "right of return"?

Ah yes, the totally irrational Arabs. Charming. If only the Palestinians would accept their heavenly conditions. That's sarcasm.

[Edit: Ah, that's true, the refugees are outside of Israel. Now. And other Palestinians (who didn't sell their, I'm pretty sure) who live outside of Israel's boundaries, in the non-state of Palestine, also don't count, however dependant their condition is on the jiggsaw boundaries.]

[Edit 2: I probably over assumed on the range of the previous post, which might just be, after all, a rebuttal of Gilgamesh' overstatement. That's where I make an ass of myself. In any case, arguments by cultural superiority tick me off, so I'll leave all of this up]

[Edit 3: Don't smite me!]

But yeah, that:

Whoa nally, no it was not Jewish land nor was it ever...unless you count now.

Is so obviously false... ow

[icythaco]

p.s Just because you say somthing on another thread, doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
True, but my point was that you are making an argument about another topic entirely. One that we have already discussed, and, if you want to make an oppinion about it, you should use that thread. Otherwise, stay on topic... please?

(this doesn't apply to Viper Daimao, who was just giving a rebuttle to an obviously false statement. Besides, he totally kicked your butt...verbally that is.) getting back to the topic at hand.

So the point was that not necessarily all Arabs hate the Jews, this reason alone is not enough to explain their dislike of the U.S., and there are, in fact, a miasma of other reasons for much of their heartfelt hatred of America (some reasonable, others...not so much).

[Gilgamesh in a Hat]

What I meant was that the only people backing the arabs are the arabs. no other country is fighting for them or helping them.

There have been a lot of jews in palistine...under islamic rule.

And no, arabs don't have the same rights right now. They need to carry constant identification, they must go through security check points, houses have been bulldowzed by the government, and any armed israeli can kill any arab and get off practically scot free. This is not a democracy. This is a civilian dictatorship. Ruled by Ariel Sharon. I don't hate the jews, I just hate people who think they can, and do, get away with stealing other peoples land.

Now I ask you. Why do you support a group of people who live in, then settle in, then take over another persons land.

And this is why Arabs hate the U.S, or at least one reason, because we support their enemy.

[icythaco]

And this is why Arabs hate the U.S, or at least one reason, because we support their enemy.
At least now you say "at least one reason".

But your whole argument that the Jews took the Arabs' land is completely flawed. For some great evidence why, just check out Viper Daimao's post. Besides, Jews have been living in the Western middle-east since the dawn of civillization, and although the diaspora occured (as referenced by ArchBio earlier), thousands still found ways to stay behind, and many migrated back again after Roman rule ended. There have always been Jews living on the Middle-Eastern coast of the Mediterranean.

[Royalspork]

My opinion is that they hate us because we grouped them wrong. When the brittish and french grabbed parts of the african coast and middle east, they grouped it without any consideration of the ethnic devisions of the middle east.

also, saying that isrial is jewish property is like selling a house and then having your son claim it to be his. SHOULDN'T WORK THAT WAY

[icythaco]

also, saying that isrial is jewish property is like selling a house and then having your son claim it to be his. SHOULDN'T WORK THAT WAY
Might be true, but, if so, do you think it is the Arab's property instead? I'm not claiming it to be Jewish property, just like I'm not claiming America to be The church's property. I think it's the property of whoever lives there, and if the majority of its people are Jewish, the Muslims who are angry about this are just going to have to deal with it.

[Royalspork]

Might be true, but, if so, do you think it is the Arab's property instead? I'm not claiming it to be Jewish property, just like I'm not claiming America to be The church's property. I think it's the property of whoever lives there, and if the majority of its people are Jewish, the Muslims who are angry about this are just going to have to deal with it.
You act as if you need one group to be "in the right", no one is in the right, also works both ways, no one is in the wrong either.

Was the crusifiction of countless jews right? in our standard, no. But our standard isn't the only one
Was the countless land grabs by english right? In our standards, no. But we were produced by it
Was our land grabs in the middle east right? apperintly, yes. But how is it that different from what brittan did?

-----I want to get off of my arguement for a second.
how ever wrong land grabs may look, they have shaped the world as we know it

greak and roman rule caused the rule of europe to always be in the west.
brittish conquest cause: US, problems in Africa and middle east, communism in china and countless other problems/feats.
russian conquest created the little contries around it

so don't worry Iraq, some day the US will fall and you will be a world power :D

[icythaco]

You act as if you need one group to be "in the right", no one is in the right, also works both ways, no one is in the wrong either.

Was the crusifiction of countless jews right? in our standard, no. But our standard isn't the only one
Was the countless land grabs by english right? In our standards, no. But we were produced by it
Was our land grabs in the middle east right? apperintly, yes. But how is it that different from what brittan did?
All this may be true, but what I'M saying is that the land belongs to whoever lives there. It doesn't belong to the Jews: it just happens that the majority of the population is Jewish. But neither does it belong to the Muslims, for the reason that a country doesn't belong to a group or a religion: It is its own orginization, its own entity apart from whatever classification its inhabitants are grouped as. Just because a majority of Americans are Christians doesn't mean we are a Christian country. This is an idea the rest of the world seems vastly ignorant of.

However, I think we both agree that land-grabs are what has shaped our current political map of the world.

[Royalspork]

All this may be true, but what I'M saying is that the land belongs to whoever lives there. It doesn't belong to the Jews: it just happens that the majority of the population is Jewish. But neither does it belong to the Muslims, for the reason that a country doesn't belong to a group or a religion: It is its own orginization, its own entity apart from whatever classification its inhabitants are grouped as. Just because a majority of Americans are Christians doesn't mean we are a Christian country. This is an idea the rest of the world seems vastly ignorant of.

However, I think we both agree that land-grabs are what has shaped our current political map of the world.
just a question before I argue some more, what was the population ratio in isreal before zoinist movement (it is called zionist right? Darn Matrix for messing with my brain) If you don't know what I am trying to say, then what was the ratio before 1949?

[Archbio]

[A] country doesn't belong to a group or a religion: It is its own orginization, i its own entity apart from whatever classification its inhabitants are grouped as. Just because a majority of Americans are Christians doesn't mean we are a Christian country. This is an idea the rest of the world seems vastly ignorant of.

I know this is entierely off topic, but quite a few North Americans (maybe excepting Mexico), or at least a small number of very vocal people, also don't understand that concept. It's not that old a concept, either.

[icythaco]

Damn, I can't find it for before the zionist movement. I can only find the current percentage: Israel is 80.1% Jewish. I'll try looking a little harder...

Edit: Damn, the official Israeli beaureau of statistic's archive only goes back to 1996...

Edit2: Yeah, I agree with you on that ArchBIo...

[Royalspork]

maybe you should look at the zionist movement itself.
We all agree on that, but it is offtopic.Rwrrr

I think the key part is what was the pop before the zionist movement

[icythaco]

Yeah, I still can't find it...

Anyway, I get what your striving at: You're trying to prove that there were more Arabs than Jews in Israel before the zionist movement, right?

If so, it supports your whole theory about Israel being a land grab, and how, by my own definition, it should really belong to the Arabs because they were the original one's "living there". I could go back to the diaspora, and how the Jews still originally lived there, but that's too far back in history. I admit that during the middle-ages, and up until the beggining of the zionist movement, there were probably more Arabs than Jews living in Israel.

But I still hold that a country is defined by who lives there, not by what organization its inhabitants are part of. No matter how they got there, the Jews still live in Israel, and just because they immigrated there does not give the Middle-East the right to look at them as invaders and land-stealers. You didn't stop them when they first started immigrating into your land, and by the time you tried to do anything about it, it was too late. If the middle-east had just tried to co-exist with the Jews, then the U.N. wouldn't have been forced to make a state of Israel, and they wouldn't have lost that chunk of land.

[Robot Jesus]

Actually that’s a pretty common misconception about the creation of Israel. Initially the Arabs didn’t have a problem with the Jews emigrating, they where buying the land fairly and there where few of them, but as the numbers increased opposition grew. Then outside force stepped in (I cant remember if it was the early UN or just an international coalition), created the nation of Israel and strong armed the Arabs into selling there land.

This demonstrates why the Arab world sees Israel as a nation of invaders, but it also demonstrates why it isn’t there fault, it’s ours. Beyond being the ones who forced the deal on the Arabs, one of the primary motivations for the creation of Israel I that the “civilized world” wasn’t willing to accepts so many refugees.

[icythaco]

Actually that’s a pretty common misconception about the creation of Israel. Initially the Arabs didn’t have a problem with the Jews emigrating, they where buying the land fairly and there where few of them, but as the numbers increased opposition grew. Then outside force stepped in (I cant remember if it was the early UN or just an international coalition), created the nation of Israel and strong armed the Arabs into selling there land.
If this is true, then my history text book must be lying. I've always been told that the creation of Israel was in response to the long-lasting chain of conflicts/skirmishes between the Israelis and the Arabs. The U.N. saw no resolution between the two ethnicities, so they were forced to take matters into their own hands.

We don't know and have know why of proving which one, either your post or my textbook, is correct. This is because of one of the huge flaws in our system of record-keeping: although the facts don't lie, the reasons given for the occurence of specific events in history can be altered, and can therefore be biased in favor of the recorder or reciter.

[Viper Daimao]

I thought it was more like, theres a bunch of jews and muslims living together and conflict is happening, so lets split them up so they can each have their own nations. Thus Israel and Transjordan (later became Jordan) were made.

[Robot Jesus]

Well we are both right, the skirmishes are what I’m referring to as opposition. It was a classic case of “I have a simple answer” on the part of the UN and those never work. One of the main reason for the presence of Jews in the region was because they where rejected from most other ports. They came in slowly but there numbers grew, Arabs fearing a dilution of there culture struck back.

I’d say more but drink hath slowed mien wit and thus I must slumber.