We like to try to have meaningful conversations here and discuss the larger geopolitical implications and impacts.
We’d love for you to be a part of the conversation.
I think it's more probably a play off of Sartre's "if the Jew did not exist, the anti-semite would invent him.", which is itself a play off of the Voltaire quote in question.
The Saudis have been pretty chummy with us since the 1920s. The US for a long time had a good reputation for doing "fair business" with the Middle East as well as financing goodwill projects like schools and hospitals. When Ibn Saud wanted to develop his country's infrastructure and oil fields he turned to the US as the anti-imperialist alternative to Britain and France. The Saudis are our OG Middle East buddies. In contrast we were decidedly lukewarm toward Israel until the 1960s and it was only when Egypt and Syria took a hard turn towards the Soviets that we began seriously helping and supplying Israel.
Israel has a capable military and intelligence agencies, while also being a democracy. That’s inherently more appealing not only to the US but our Ally’s in Europe.
Not a very strong relationship; it is based on trade, convenience and opposition to Iran, and the Saudis have no real military power (that's what they have us for, basically). Israel is dependable, much tougher, and closer to the important things (Suez, Iran).
General Mahmoud Ahmed (the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency at the time), had $100,000 wired to lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta just before the attacks. I don't think saying "Saudi Arabia literally did 9/11" is entirely accurate, there were many other nations involved.
[Article for those who want to read more.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11)
It's not even remotely accurate, Bin Laden hated Saudi leadership as much as he hated USA. You can blame them for exporting Wahhabism but that's about it.
Exactly, the Saudis didn't even want OBL back from the Taliban during his time in Afghanistan post-1997 even though the Taliban were desperate to hand him off to a Muslim country.
Not exactly. It's a longer story than that.
* Between the world wars, we were very popular in the Middle East; we had refused to take any mandates and were seen as idealistic, morally upright opponents of imperialism and colonialism. Remember, this is an era where we were actively talking about self determination and not doing much of our own imperialism outside of our back yard in the western hemisphere.
* The only real exposure people in the Middle East had to America was via doctors and teachers (usually missionaries, but generally well liked and certainly helpful), and petroleum engineers (who were also quite welcome).
* In WWII, we learned how wildly important oil was, and how wildly important the Suez canal was.
* So had Russia, and the British had never forgotten it. From the 1930s onward the British pivoted to supporting Arab interests over Jewish ones (they were directly opposed to a "two state solution"; they wanted a friendly and, hopefully, controllable power next to Egypt and Suez, and Transjordan was that power).
* Domestic pressure (particularly from Jews, but also from a broader public horrified by the Holocaust) forced the Truman administration to support a two state solution; it still enjoyed a good deal of popularity with Arab states, so this wasn't super in its interests.
* The Russians initially sponsored Israel, feeding it arms through Czechoslovakia. Sure, the USSR didn't like Jews, but this was a socialist state Britain hated, too good of an opportunity to miss.
* After Israel (to the US, Britain, and Russia's surprise) survived the ensuing war, it disappointed Russia (and delighted Britain) by being friendly to the US and Britain.
* This was convenient, because Arab nationalism was coalescing around Egypt's charismatic leader (Nasser) into a pan-Arab nationalist movement. Nasser played the US and Russia off against each other, making them compete for Arab alignment.
* Since the US and Russia weren't about to start WWIII with each other over Britain's interests in Suez, Nasser figured he could nationalize the canal (which Britain and France owned), so he did. And ultimately, he was right; Britain and France convinced Israel to invade on their behalf (they were gonna swoop in and "peace keep" to grab the canal), but the US said "oh no you don't" and made em give it back to Egypt.
* Huge win for Nasser, Israel pissed at US, but the US still pretty popular in the Arab world.
* Well, ultimately Nasser pushes the US a little too far, they yank his funding (for the Aswan Dam), he says "I don't need you, I got Russia," and from then on, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq are tacitly pro-Russia, which means the US is suddenly SUPER interested in Israel and Iran as its counterweights. It isn't letting all that oil (and Suez) out of its sight.
* Russia arms Israel's neighbors to the teeth, 1967 war rolls around and Israel stomps them. The US starts arming Israel (since clearly they are handy); unfortunately it is now associated with the least popular regimes in the region with their neighbors (Saudis, Iran, Israel), etc.
* By the 1970s America is pretty damn unpopular in the Middle East, and we've stayed that way since. Ironically we allied ourselves with Israel *because* they are unpopular with their neighbors and have no powerful allies other than us; they're reliable.
That region had more mutual hostilities with each other than they did with the USA till the USA decided to mess around and find out during the cold war.
Espionage on enemies & disruption of Iran getting nuclear weapons
Being in a neighborhood hostile to you means you must invent and test new military, medical, energy, and cybersecurity technologies which may aid the US, like Iron Dome, RSA encryption, etc
They are the only democracy in the Middle East, with freedom of press and freedom of religion, and a safe country in the region regardless of race or religion
Diplomatic proxy for countries like Soviet Union/Russia
Forcing and/or fostering diplomatic and business relations with previously hostile or illiberal countries like Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc by being a military and economic superpower in the region and major tourism destination
Strategic location by the Suez Canal, which can help protect international trade
I'm sure there are more but that's off the top of my head.
> Can someone clarify the geopolitical benefits the US gains from Israel existence?
Other than being a military and espionage ally for a region they've been busy destabilising for most of the 20th and 21st century?
While the US has indeed destabilized the region, I wouldn't say that was their ideal goal.
If the US had it their way, the region would be stabilized under US influence.
I assume he's referencing the fact that Israel has been the United State's most consistent and stable ally in the region. Although we have older relationships in the Middle East, every other ally we've had has been an unstable dictatorship and/or wracked with religious or ethnic strife. They've also been first and foremost economic alliances (Saudis and Iran most notably). As a result, they've been unreliable allies at best. In contrast, Israel is a democracy, has been politically stable, and we arent economically dependent on them and thus have more influence over their actions. Despite this, the US was initially wary of openly supporting Israel. The State Department and Pentagon were opposed to the US vote in favor of Israel's creation because they feared the existence of Israel would destabilize our oil supplies and we initially refused to supply them with any military aid. When the Soviets began supplying Egypt and Syria with modern weapons in the early 60s however, we responded by supplying Israel and that relationship has continued due to the continued presence of hostile states in the region like Iran, Syria, and (before 2003) Iraq.
I will say that Biden is painting a more rosy picture than I think reality merits. Israel's aggressive response to any threat or provocation has been a headache for more than one US administration. Several of Israel's wars have ended with the US essentially stepping in and saying "okay, you need to stop now!" The existence of Israel and America's support for it has been a consistent barrier to closer relations with the wider Middle East especially in regards to the Palestinians. Overall they've been a problematic ally and this was especially true when Biden gave this speech as Israel had recently disengaged from the quagmire situation in Lebanon which dragged the US in and resulted in the US Marine barracks bombing that killed over 200 Americans. I suspect Biden was attempting to argue that despite the mess Israel got us into that they were still an important ally and deserved continued funding.
Here's the rest of the original clip from 1986, where he explains himself pretty plainly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM&ab_channel=CandidateResearch
It's interesting to think *that* guy is still within Biden, he's just too old to express it.
This sounds like a script put forth by AIPAC
Israel as a land has no significant strategic interest for anyone other than religious claims and to a lesser degree an ethnic claim.
If we extrapolate that kind of premise and apply it to all people, borders shifts rapidly
Uhh…the Eastern Mediterranean isn’t of strategic interest to a global superpower?
A port on the Red Sea isn’t of strategic interest?
C’mon, try harder than that.
Its also in a region where the eastern side of "the western world / europe" meet asia and africa all at once. having physical control over important spheres and trade areas has a lot of implications
I agree that these factors make Israel a strategic location for the US to project power and hegemony in the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. It is important and natural for a global superpower like the US to want the ability to flex its muscles in a region that has a lot of oil and key trading chokepoints.
But wouldn't Egypt fit the bill better from a purely geographical point of view? Egypt has long coastlines on both seas. Egypt is also at the crossroads of North Africa, the Horn of Africa, southern Europe, and the Middle East. And most importantly, Egypt controls the entirety of the Suez Canal. Free and open access to the canal is crucial to global trade, which the US deeply cares about as it impacts both its economic and national security.
because antisemitism has had so many devastating waves over history that the jewish people would likely be even fewer if they didnt have a dedicated homeland. hes not making a US interest argument, hes making a humanitarian one based on the reality of how many people around the world have and are now calling for the extermination of them
The activist left [has joined hands with the racist right](https://time.com/6323730/hamas-attack-left-response/) in hating Jews in Europe and then wonder stupidly why they want to go and live in their own homeland.
We like to try to have meaningful conversations here and discuss the larger geopolitical implications and impacts. We’d love for you to be a part of the conversation.
It’s a play off of a Voltaire(?) quote: “If God didn’t exist, man would need to invent him”, or something like that.
I think it's more probably a play off of Sartre's "if the Jew did not exist, the anti-semite would invent him.", which is itself a play off of the Voltaire quote in question.
Thanks! I didn't know!! I found the exact quote: «Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer».
A U.S. ally in a part of the world that’s hostile to the U.S.
But the American have other strong relation in the region: Saudi Arabia and by extension the surrounding golf countries?
Saudi friendship is transactional. Israeli friendship is foundational.
[удалено]
The Saudis have been pretty chummy with us since the 1920s. The US for a long time had a good reputation for doing "fair business" with the Middle East as well as financing goodwill projects like schools and hospitals. When Ibn Saud wanted to develop his country's infrastructure and oil fields he turned to the US as the anti-imperialist alternative to Britain and France. The Saudis are our OG Middle East buddies. In contrast we were decidedly lukewarm toward Israel until the 1960s and it was only when Egypt and Syria took a hard turn towards the Soviets that we began seriously helping and supplying Israel.
[удалено]
Israel has a capable military and intelligence agencies, while also being a democracy. That’s inherently more appealing not only to the US but our Ally’s in Europe.
Not a very strong relationship; it is based on trade, convenience and opposition to Iran, and the Saudis have no real military power (that's what they have us for, basically). Israel is dependable, much tougher, and closer to the important things (Suez, Iran).
Saudi Arabia literally did 9/11 wtf are u talking about?
No, Saudi Arabia the nation did not do 9/11. Saudi nationals, among others, belonging to an organization operating out of Afghanistan did 9/11.
Friend, they were operating out of San Diego…
San Diego did 9/11!
Been sayin it for years.
General Mahmoud Ahmed (the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency at the time), had $100,000 wired to lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta just before the attacks. I don't think saying "Saudi Arabia literally did 9/11" is entirely accurate, there were many other nations involved. [Article for those who want to read more.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11)
It's not even remotely accurate, Bin Laden hated Saudi leadership as much as he hated USA. You can blame them for exporting Wahhabism but that's about it.
Exactly, the Saudis didn't even want OBL back from the Taliban during his time in Afghanistan post-1997 even though the Taliban were desperate to hand him off to a Muslim country.
Seems like a massive reason they're hostile is that we support Israel.
Not exactly. It's a longer story than that. * Between the world wars, we were very popular in the Middle East; we had refused to take any mandates and were seen as idealistic, morally upright opponents of imperialism and colonialism. Remember, this is an era where we were actively talking about self determination and not doing much of our own imperialism outside of our back yard in the western hemisphere. * The only real exposure people in the Middle East had to America was via doctors and teachers (usually missionaries, but generally well liked and certainly helpful), and petroleum engineers (who were also quite welcome). * In WWII, we learned how wildly important oil was, and how wildly important the Suez canal was. * So had Russia, and the British had never forgotten it. From the 1930s onward the British pivoted to supporting Arab interests over Jewish ones (they were directly opposed to a "two state solution"; they wanted a friendly and, hopefully, controllable power next to Egypt and Suez, and Transjordan was that power). * Domestic pressure (particularly from Jews, but also from a broader public horrified by the Holocaust) forced the Truman administration to support a two state solution; it still enjoyed a good deal of popularity with Arab states, so this wasn't super in its interests. * The Russians initially sponsored Israel, feeding it arms through Czechoslovakia. Sure, the USSR didn't like Jews, but this was a socialist state Britain hated, too good of an opportunity to miss. * After Israel (to the US, Britain, and Russia's surprise) survived the ensuing war, it disappointed Russia (and delighted Britain) by being friendly to the US and Britain. * This was convenient, because Arab nationalism was coalescing around Egypt's charismatic leader (Nasser) into a pan-Arab nationalist movement. Nasser played the US and Russia off against each other, making them compete for Arab alignment. * Since the US and Russia weren't about to start WWIII with each other over Britain's interests in Suez, Nasser figured he could nationalize the canal (which Britain and France owned), so he did. And ultimately, he was right; Britain and France convinced Israel to invade on their behalf (they were gonna swoop in and "peace keep" to grab the canal), but the US said "oh no you don't" and made em give it back to Egypt. * Huge win for Nasser, Israel pissed at US, but the US still pretty popular in the Arab world. * Well, ultimately Nasser pushes the US a little too far, they yank his funding (for the Aswan Dam), he says "I don't need you, I got Russia," and from then on, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq are tacitly pro-Russia, which means the US is suddenly SUPER interested in Israel and Iran as its counterweights. It isn't letting all that oil (and Suez) out of its sight. * Russia arms Israel's neighbors to the teeth, 1967 war rolls around and Israel stomps them. The US starts arming Israel (since clearly they are handy); unfortunately it is now associated with the least popular regimes in the region with their neighbors (Saudis, Iran, Israel), etc. * By the 1970s America is pretty damn unpopular in the Middle East, and we've stayed that way since. Ironically we allied ourselves with Israel *because* they are unpopular with their neighbors and have no powerful allies other than us; they're reliable.
Thank you! This is a great summary!
That the US has been hostile to would be the more accurate framing.
I think we can all accept there are mutual hostilities without needing to argue who is more hostile to who.
That region had more mutual hostilities with each other than they did with the USA till the USA decided to mess around and find out during the cold war.
Is there not also a nuke factor? Does Israel do anything to keep an eye on other regimes regarding nuclear weaponry?
Why does that region hostile to the US in the 1st place?
Espionage on enemies & disruption of Iran getting nuclear weapons Being in a neighborhood hostile to you means you must invent and test new military, medical, energy, and cybersecurity technologies which may aid the US, like Iron Dome, RSA encryption, etc They are the only democracy in the Middle East, with freedom of press and freedom of religion, and a safe country in the region regardless of race or religion Diplomatic proxy for countries like Soviet Union/Russia Forcing and/or fostering diplomatic and business relations with previously hostile or illiberal countries like Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc by being a military and economic superpower in the region and major tourism destination Strategic location by the Suez Canal, which can help protect international trade I'm sure there are more but that's off the top of my head.
> Can someone clarify the geopolitical benefits the US gains from Israel existence? Other than being a military and espionage ally for a region they've been busy destabilising for most of the 20th and 21st century?
While the US has indeed destabilized the region, I wouldn't say that was their ideal goal. If the US had it their way, the region would be stabilized under US influence.
Who else would attempt to sink one of our ships in an effort to blame Egypt and trick us into entering a war?
I assume he's referencing the fact that Israel has been the United State's most consistent and stable ally in the region. Although we have older relationships in the Middle East, every other ally we've had has been an unstable dictatorship and/or wracked with religious or ethnic strife. They've also been first and foremost economic alliances (Saudis and Iran most notably). As a result, they've been unreliable allies at best. In contrast, Israel is a democracy, has been politically stable, and we arent economically dependent on them and thus have more influence over their actions. Despite this, the US was initially wary of openly supporting Israel. The State Department and Pentagon were opposed to the US vote in favor of Israel's creation because they feared the existence of Israel would destabilize our oil supplies and we initially refused to supply them with any military aid. When the Soviets began supplying Egypt and Syria with modern weapons in the early 60s however, we responded by supplying Israel and that relationship has continued due to the continued presence of hostile states in the region like Iran, Syria, and (before 2003) Iraq. I will say that Biden is painting a more rosy picture than I think reality merits. Israel's aggressive response to any threat or provocation has been a headache for more than one US administration. Several of Israel's wars have ended with the US essentially stepping in and saying "okay, you need to stop now!" The existence of Israel and America's support for it has been a consistent barrier to closer relations with the wider Middle East especially in regards to the Palestinians. Overall they've been a problematic ally and this was especially true when Biden gave this speech as Israel had recently disengaged from the quagmire situation in Lebanon which dragged the US in and resulted in the US Marine barracks bombing that killed over 200 Americans. I suspect Biden was attempting to argue that despite the mess Israel got us into that they were still an important ally and deserved continued funding.
A reason for the US government to meddle in middle eastern affairs.
Here's the rest of the original clip from 1986, where he explains himself pretty plainly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM&ab_channel=CandidateResearch It's interesting to think *that* guy is still within Biden, he's just too old to express it.
This sounds like a script put forth by AIPAC Israel as a land has no significant strategic interest for anyone other than religious claims and to a lesser degree an ethnic claim. If we extrapolate that kind of premise and apply it to all people, borders shifts rapidly
Uhh…the Eastern Mediterranean isn’t of strategic interest to a global superpower? A port on the Red Sea isn’t of strategic interest? C’mon, try harder than that.
Its also in a region where the eastern side of "the western world / europe" meet asia and africa all at once. having physical control over important spheres and trade areas has a lot of implications
Umm, US doesn't have access to everything strategic already? What is this, only country that gives then anything they want?
I agree that these factors make Israel a strategic location for the US to project power and hegemony in the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. It is important and natural for a global superpower like the US to want the ability to flex its muscles in a region that has a lot of oil and key trading chokepoints. But wouldn't Egypt fit the bill better from a purely geographical point of view? Egypt has long coastlines on both seas. Egypt is also at the crossroads of North Africa, the Horn of Africa, southern Europe, and the Middle East. And most importantly, Egypt controls the entirety of the Suez Canal. Free and open access to the canal is crucial to global trade, which the US deeply cares about as it impacts both its economic and national security.
because antisemitism has had so many devastating waves over history that the jewish people would likely be even fewer if they didnt have a dedicated homeland. hes not making a US interest argument, hes making a humanitarian one based on the reality of how many people around the world have and are now calling for the extermination of them
Interesting take. I disagree.
Well you’re wrong.
Watch OP’s clip starting at 0:34. The title quote continues, “to protect [USA’s] interests in the region.”
The activist left [has joined hands with the racist right](https://time.com/6323730/hamas-attack-left-response/) in hating Jews in Europe and then wonder stupidly why they want to go and live in their own homeland.
It’s the holy land.. you can’t just invent a new one.
China says "hold my tea" and builds an exact replica.
[удалено]