Israeli and Zionist influence in the USA is a purposeful choice of the American government. It allows the American government to circumvent many domestic and international laws by allowing Israeli firms to do the spying and dirty work for them. Israel is essentially a rogue state that is entirely controlled by the American intelligence apparatus (and therefore, American capital). This has created a feedback loop of constantly reinforcing settler colonialism and American economic extraction of the Middle East. If America withdrew support to Israel, this feedback loop would cease and Israel would be greatly diminished or completely collapse.

Saying Israel controls America is simply wrong, stop saying this. I will remove your post. ✌️

edit: altered title for clarification and to avoid nonsensical semantic arguments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 36 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

There is a huge difference between Israel controlling politicians and it controlling the US government overall. The latter is ridiculous and antisemitic and false, but the former is true. AIPAC only exists because the US lets it exist, but it and other projects the US permits are obviously strong influences on some US politicians.

THANK YOU. Why are we taking the position of literally ignoring reality here? Of course many American politicians are under the influence of the "Israeli" lobby. It's precisely because "Israel" relies on American support that this is the case. It allows them to maintain that support even when their actions are deeply unpopular in America and sometimes harmful to American interests, while still continuing those actions.

It's sort of a weird situation, but denying the effect of Israel directly lobbying people or acting like every instance of lobbying is based on the unilateral dictate of the US rather than existing in a broader framework of the US allowing Israel to pursue an agenda of buying zionism because that is beneficial to US foreign interests anyway is silly.

Exactly this. The net result is that while "Israel" can only exist with American support, it's a sovereign state with nuclear weapons that also exerts some amount of influence on US politics and has its own, sometimes divergent interests. The idea that it's just a puppet leads people to try to force every "Israeli" action into the mold of "how does this benefit America" and come to completely incorrect conclusions. Sometimes "Israel" does things that benefit America because they also benefit "Israel", very rarely (only when forced) "Israel" does things that benefit America and harm "Israel", but most often "Israel" does things that benefit "Israel" without much regard for the benefit of others because it's a sovereign state (with nuclear weapons).

Some people on this site are claiming that this absolves the US of responsibility (which isn't true), but by that logic the framing of "Israel" as a tool of America and nothing else absolves "Israel" of responsibility, which I think is much more grotesque.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I wonder how this compares to the UK and France, given that they also have hundreds of nuclear weapons.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 17 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The UK and France are also sovereign states. They're not American puppets, and any analysis that they are is fundamentally unserious.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well, I was just thinking about how people are saying that it's reductive to say that one country strictly controls another, but at the same time it feels reductive to me to act like having nuclear weapons grants a country complete, supreme, perfect, and total sovereignty over itself. But you aren't saying that, anyways: you're saying that (intelligent actors within) both the Zionist entity and Seppoland can and do influence each other and can be pushed by the other to do things that go against their own interests, despite both polities being nuclear states.

Now your analysis of mutual influence to me seems absolutely correct, but I still think it raises the question of what the limits of nuclear weapons are when it comes to guaranteeing national sovereignty, and what the mechanisms of influence tend to be between two nuclear states. Because puppets or not, it still feels fair to say that the Zionist entity, UK, and France are all below Seppoland in the "pecking order", right? When painting in broad strokes, at least. So I figured it might be useful to compare and contrast these four polities' relationships to each other, basically. That this might be a way to land on a more holistic and accurate understanding of the dynamics at play.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 11 points 6 days ago

Because puppets or not, it still feels fair to say that the Zionist entity, UK, and France are all below Seppoland in the "pecking order", right?

Absolutely. I think you bring up great points and it's an interesting discussion to have. I agree 100% that just having nuclear weapons doesn't automatically grant perfect sovereignty. Nothing does that. I'm only saying that puppet states don't develop their own nuclear weapons.

But you aren't saying that, anyways: you're saying that (intelligent actors within) both the Zionist entity and Seppoland can and do influence each other and can be pushed by the other to do things that go against their own interests, despite both polities being nuclear states.

Yes, basically this. And of course the power balance there skews towards the US (how could it not).

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 5 points 6 days ago

airstrip one, but of course they do plenty of things on their own for their own reasons.