Poll: Would Americans ditch Israel to avoid long gas lines?

A web site reader wrote to me that the U.S. would ally with Iran and
ditch Israel to avoid having long gas lines.

I wrote back that this scenario was impossible.

Here's his response:

> Many would have said the same thing about the US siding with the
> Soviets against the Germans prior to WW2. In fact, there was
> massive public support for Germany throughout the 30's, and
> influential figures from Henry Ford to Charles Lindberg to Henry
> Luce while a simultaneous 2 decades long demonization of
> Bolshevism from the Red Scare onwards.

> The fact remains that the potential of a pan-Arab unification
> under islamist guise and that decapitates the current Arab
> petromonarchies is the biggest threat that the US faces to its
> interests in the Middle East and globally.

> What 'kind of thing' do you think I am focusing on?

> I think I am focusing on identifying real interests of the US,
> interests that are truly existential, as opposed to optional, such
> as support of Israel, which has nothing to do with the long term
> viability of the US way of life.

> I think we all know that Americans would throw Israel overboard if
> it were a choice between Israel and keeping our car gastanks full
> and not waiting in riotous gas lines and rationing. I remember
> well the confused and sometimes violent rage during the '70's
> during the gas crises in Southern California. At that time, much
> of that rage was directed at the Arabs and later Iran complete
> with bullseye posters of Khomeini.

> As you point out frequently, this is not a pure repeat of the
> '70s. One of the main differences is that Iran is clearly more
> powerful now than before, and the US has almost exhausted its
> resolve in this theater for the time being.

> Furthermore, Israel has proven itself incapable of continuing as
> the US regional gendarme. Not only is it not effective in
> projecting American interests, it has become a continuing splinter
> in the wound, preventing advances on the other fronts.

> Think of Israel as a Dien Bien Phieu situation for the French in
> SE Asia. The US concentrated all of its regional plans around
> using Israel after losing the Shah of Iran, now Israel has proven
> to be useless, and rapidly counter-productive for buttressing the
> tottering regimes in the region.

> You yourself have acknowledged how the Pal-Israeli issue is
> paramount to resolving the principal fissure in the region.

> This contradiction has to be resolved.

> If Iran proves unwilling to back down the US will face the
> prospect of having to back down itself, which will mean the clear
> regional ascendance of Iran.

> And as many have noted, both the Afghan and Iraq wars have served
> to strengthen Iran.

> This next chapter will then either necessitate a confrontation or
> an accommodation. And even in the former case, it is likely to
> still result in the US accommodating itself with Iran (even a
> bombed out Iran), while Israel's current leadership will thrash
> against it.

> At some point, a significant percentage of Americans (and likely a
> section of the elite) will likely decide that keeping the lights
> on, keeping warm/cool and affordably driving to work is more
> important than backing Israel.

> Perhaps, that is the significance of Zbig, Carter's, and
> Scowcroft/Papa George/Baker's stances. They were always
> identified as Arabists, especially amongst Zionist Jews who
> despised them. They have a long history of close relationships
> with the Saudis, Prince Bandar is referred to as Bandar Bush. And
> the Saudis as the global swing producers of oil are the key
> determining factor for the lifeblood of the US economy, dollar,
> and overall way of life. You cannot possibly overestimate the
> importance of the rapidly scalable, marginal producer of the
> world's key commodity.

> Most Zionists Jews have contemplated the scenario of Israel being
> thrown overboard. My father has always feared it, and assumed
> that it could happen. That is why he always pushed for nuclear
> power as a mechanism for attaining energy independence. He would
> spit out "Let the Arabs drink their oil."

> This tradeoff between oil and Israel is something that Zionist
> Jews viscerally understand.

> I, however, don't see a massive anti-Jewish pogromist attitude
> inevitably taking hold within the US, but I do envision the basis
> for deep distrust over this matter. We already see it in
> embryonic forms amongst both far right and far left opposition to
> the Bush administration amidst insinuations about dual loyalties
> of neocon Jews.

> I think that anti-Apartheid Jews are acquitting themselves well of
> late, and are stepping up to the task of proving that some Jews
> are more loyal to American values than to Israel's existence in
> its current form. They have been amongst the loudest of the
> critics of Israel, even those who I criticize as Left
> Apartheidists are strongly critical of Israel, and this all will
> help to temper the American people's hostility towards Jews.

> But I do think that when things reach a crisis point, Israel in
> its present incarnation will be tossed overboard.

> But that is not to say that after much carnage, a reincarnated,
> repentant Israel would not then be welcomed back strongly into
> American hearts as a mechanism for securing their way of life
> while being the glue that binds the Arab world to America.

I believe that this response is a wild misunderstanding of the views
of the American people, not to mention offensive. I wrote back a
response several paragraphs long, containing the word "bullshit" in a
couple of places. He then added:

> While I don't for a minute there will be widespread anti-semitic
> movements among whites or blacks in america, and concede that
> there will be same such sentiment among native americans and
> latinos, thus I agree with you about American support for
> religious freedom, support for Israel is a very different thing.
> You conflate support for Jewish personal freedoms with Zionism.

> It is much easier to support a remote people when there is little
> at stake, but in the context of a world war and global depression,
> I think large percentages of the population will at later stages
> of the crisis feel that it is not worth their sacrifice of basic
> quality of life for Israel. Yes, if there is worldwide disruption
> or high pricing of oil, the poor everywhere feel it the worst.
> So, yes many middle and upper class Americans might be less
> aggravated about Israel's existence and defense of same, being at
> the basis for them not getting to work, but the poor will not feel
> that degree of magnanimity.

> This blurring of Jewishness and Zionism will soon come to an end.

So I'd like to put it to the people in this forum: Do you think that
Americans would abandon Israel under attack to if defending Israel
meant long gas lines for American cars?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

I don't know. But personally, I tend to think the American people are often more principled than their leaders.

Americans would abandon their SUVs before they abandoned Israel.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Americans would abandon their SUVs before they abandoned Israel.

Perhaps, but to me there is *nothing* special about Isreal. It's just another nation state. What we should not abandon or compromise is what is in the US's best interest. Of course I find it annoying that AIPAC has bought off quite a few politicians. AIPAC is essentially a parasite which compromises US interests. The fix is to ban all lobbying by "foriegn" entities. I'd also include the multinats in that category as well, since in actuallity they are not "American". I'd even go further, I'd limit campaign contributions from "American" sources to just $100.00 per legal entitiy. That could be a person, small corporation with no foriegn affilications, and of course all these "special interest" groups. In short, it's high time to drive the money changers out of Washington. This AIPAC thing has me so irate that I told my millie nephews to stay the hell away from any involvement with the military. I told them that their lives are not worth sacrificing for Isreal, multinats, and other fucking parasites. In short, I'm not willing to sacrifice *anything* for parasites. Case closed.

The creation of the state of Israel was a mistake in the first place. The West only permitted it out of a sense of guilt for the Holocaust (a blemish on the civilization that Zionists have been milking for decades). Demographically, the country is doomed anyway, so I say let it fall sooner rather than later and save the world a lot of trouble. In the process, maybe Jerusalem will vanish in a radioactive cloud -- while the rest of the world keeps going -- and finally silence the apocalyptic mania of the Abrahamic religions.

I think the buildup into the conflict would matter. Neither the Israelites nor the Palestinians have been exactly selling themselves as outstanding exemplars of humankind lately. At the moment, the Palestinians aren't united enough to be an organized threat, while Israel is content on the defensive. The situation would have to become much more critical before the American public would seriously reevaluate the situation.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I think the buildup into the conflict would matter. Neither the Israelites nor the Palestinians have been exactly selling themselves as outstanding exemplars of humankind lately. At the moment, the Palestinians aren't united enough to be an organized threat, while Israel is content on the defensive. The situation would have to become much more critical before the American public would seriously reevaluate the situation.

What do you think the American public thinks about the latest Palestinian demand for sharing governance of Jerusalem? Do you think it will be thought of as a reasonable demand by most Americans? Are most Americans with Jimmy Carter or George Bush or somewhere between the two?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Americans would abandon their SUVs before they abandoned Israel.

ROFLMAO

You got a good sense of humor

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Americans would abandon their SUVs before they abandoned Israel.

Even the ones with those silly Ribbons with "proud to be American" or "Support our Troops", etc. on their asses ?

We will put Israel to rest when the Red Cows come home and the Calvinists in America are transported to their reward.

Or we will come to ignore Israel as the rest of the Americas mainly do as we become another Latino Nation in the Western Hemisphere.

That Israel will become as important as Carelia is today will take a great many more American lives.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Americans would abandon their SUVs before they abandoned Israel.

Originally Posted by antichrist

ROFLMAO

You got a good sense of humor

Heh. I suppose. I'm not sure I set out to be deliberately funny with that comment. I just didn't agree with either option in the poll.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Even the ones with those silly Ribbons with "proud to be American" or "Support our Troops", etc. on their asses ?

Well, at least around here I don't see as many of those as I used to. Can't speak for Texas....

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Well, at least around here I don't see as many of those as I used to. Can't speak for Texas....

Unfortunately, I spot this species of "Red Bull" everyday on my commute to work. Sometimes said species occurs in herds which occur on I-10. Of course my irony meter gets pegged when I see a "huge Red Bull" tagged with one of those, aka "Hummers".

It is not forseeable that the US will not be alligned with Israel. Both parties are tied into the AIPAC lobby. In addition to this, the GOP has the neocon element and the conservative christianists to keep it pro Isreal. The Democrats usually get about 80% of the jewish vote and a lot of that is concerntated in electorial vote rich states like Cailfornia, New York and Florida.. Right now, it's just not possible to see a change in the current American policy because of these factors.

Originally Posted by onthecusp61

What do you think the American public thinks about the latest Palestinian demand for sharing governance of Jerusalem? Do you think it will be thought of as a reasonable demand by most Americans? Are most Americans with Jimmy Carter or George Bush or somewhere between the two?

I am reluctant to speak with confidence about what the American Public thinks. I've exchanged opinions here in Massachusetts, but we aren't exactly a middle of the road region. I figure Clinton's roadmap two state solution was considered a fair offer, in the ballpark of what eventually has to happen. The Palestinians rejected it. They aren't going to get a better offer. No, Israel is not giving up political control of Jerusalem, nor will they contest Muslim religious control of the Temple Mount. At this point, Israel will put up their walls, and let the Palestinians stew. When the stew has slow cooked long enough, maybe a peace party will get elected in Gaza and the West Bank. One is allowed to hope, but I wouldn't recommend holding one's breath.

I don't see much changing short of the Palestinians using WMDs. At a guess, if they do, they will be Very Sorry. Short of that, not much is going to change for quite a while. I haven't run into anyone lately who expects much in the way of change. A Jimmy Carter type might talk and talk and talk, but get nowhere. A George W Bush type might not bother with diplomacy, and get no further while expending less effort. If we have a Jimmy Carter type or two to spare, sure, send them over. Jimmy Carter types might be harmless.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I am reluctant to speak with confidence about what the American Public thinks. I've exchanged opinions here in Massachusetts, but we aren't exactly a middle of the road region. I figure Clinton's roadmap two state solution was considered a fair offer, in the ballpark of what eventually has to happen. The Palestinians rejected it. They aren't going to get a better offer. No, Israel is not giving up political control of Jerusalem, nor will they contest Muslim religious control of the Temple Mount. At this point, Israel will put up their walls, and let the Palestinians stew. When the stew has slow cooked long enough, maybe a peace party will get elected in Gaza and the West Bank. One is allowed to hope, but I wouldn't recommend holding one's breath.

I don't see much changing short of the Palestinians using WMDs. At a guess, if they do, they will be Very Sorry. Short of that, not much is going to change for quite a while. I haven't run into anyone lately who expects much in the way of change. A Jimmy Carter type might talk and talk and talk, but get nowhere. A George W Bush type might not bother with diplomacy, and get no further while expending less effort. If we have a Jimmy Carter type or two to spare, sure, send them over. Jimmy Carter types might be harmless.

I guess my Carter/Bush comparison was more about whether Americans generally feel that Israel is mostly a victim and must be defended at all costs (Bush) or whether they feel Israel is treating Palestinians like second-class citizens and needs to change (Carter), rather than talker vs sideliner. But maybe that answer is unknowable. I would tend to go with the former at this point I think.

To all:

I guess what I can infer from the discussion so far (and the poll
results, 4 for option 1 and 6 for option 2) is that people are
generally split down the middle.

Quite honestly, I just don't believe it.

Incidentally, Israel is more than just another country to us. We
have a very significant relationship to Israel, thanks to changes in
attitude particularly during the 1960s Awakening.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...wakening060919

So let me put the question in terms of an explicit scenario: Suppose
al-Qaeda launches several simultaneous terrorist attacks on 5
different American cities. After that, Osama bin Laden issues a
statement saying that the terrorist attacks occurred because
Americans are infidels, and because they continue to support Israel.

Under what circumstances, if any, would we dump Israel?

Is there anyone who cares to defend the proposition that we would
ditch Israel under almost any economic circumstances?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

To all:

...

So let me put the question in terms of an explicit scenario: Suppose
al-Qaeda launches several simultaneous terrorist attacks on 5
different American cities. After that, Osama bin Laden issues a
statement saying that the terrorist attacks occurred because
Americans are infidels, and because they continue to support Israel.

Under what circumstances, if any, would we dump Israel?

Is there anyone who cares to defend the proposition that we would
ditch Israel under almost any economic circumstances?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis

I suggest that we would only ditch Israel under a change of religious circumstance: those Left Behind after the red heifers arrive in the Holy Land and the Calvinist-Americans are depleted by their flying the coop might change the power of AIPAC; the Latino-izing or Celestializing of American on RC Xian or Confucian lines would also lower the enthusiasm for the Final Days.

Like many another Eurasian nation, the one in question has killed our serviceman, taken our treasure, committed espionage upon us, re-sold our technologies to other Eurasians. We ought throw Eurasia over the side but not for economic reasons but for the sanity and safety of Our Commercial Republic. It isn't going to happen and Eurasians will get to kill our men at arms, loot our treasury, steal our secrets, and earn monies by selling our best technologies to the next Eurasian for quite some time.

I'd toss Iceland to Indonesia and all that's in between over the side and then Africa, the Antipodes, and the other Americas in turn. But Commercial Republicans have become a most masochist race and Americans have come to become enamored of Eurasians in their wife-beaters. It's a most Progressive fashion and we have learned to put a little "ice" on it when blows fall upon the Eurasian manufactured bruise.

Some one ought call the cops, but then we are the policeman of the world.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Americans would abandon their SUVs before they abandoned Israel.

Perhaps so, but I'm not so sure the Preus crowd would so readily embrace your abandon policy.

Originally Posted by onthecusp61

What do you think the American public thinks about the latest Palestinian demand for sharing governance of Jerusalem? Do you think it will be thought of as a reasonable demand by most Americans? Are most Americans with Jimmy Carter or George Bush or somewhere between the two?

The US public has no clue of this. Most Americans are generally pro-Izzy, but they have no clue as to the complexity and intractability of the issues.

I will say this again: Evacuate the Izzies who want to leave (preferably to the US), and let the nuts fight it out.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So let me put the question in terms of an explicit scenario: Suppose
al-Qaeda launches several simultaneous terrorist attacks on 5
different American cities. After that, Osama bin Laden issues a
statement saying that the terrorist attacks occurred because
Americans are infidels, and because they continue to support Israel.

In that case, it would show that Osama et. al. have learned nothing about the nature of Americans. Trying to force a people with as strong a history of individualism as we Americans with blackmail like that would make for a true regeneracy. As we are now six years closer to the core 4t then we were on the day of 911, generational allignment would cause something even less dramatic to have the same effect.

As I noted above, it is not forseable that America would, under either party, not supprt Israel. To get to such a point would require a series of events that somehow estranges America and Israel during our 4t. Such events would not likely become evident until after the 4t and with the following 1t being a time to play down troubles, the true nature of the split would not likely become evident until the 2t. IOW, we're looking at something that might happen circa 2050, hopefully dependence on middle eastern energy scorces will be a subject referred to in the past tense by then.

"Suppose al-Qaeda launches several simultaneous terrorist attacks on 5 different American cities. After that, Osama bin Laden issues a statement saying..."

I know it's obnoxiously presumptuous on my part to consider this question, but what possible positive effect on his cause and upon his terrorist troops has been achieved, by the very long void of any statement or appearance of the feared leader of al Qaeda at this point in time? Where is the guy? Why isn't he saying anything now? Is his cause simply running on auto-pilot? Are his followers so committed that they need no encouraging word from their great leader?

Personally I think the guy's dead, or so embarrassingly incapacitated that any statement could easily be diciphered as a fraud or an appearance would have the opposite inspirational effect.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

To all:

I guess what I can infer from the discussion so far (and the poll
results, 4 for option 1 and 6 for option 2) is that people are
generally split down the middle.

Quite honestly, I just don't believe it.

I think it comes down to a "would" and "should" proposition. Logic dictates that we *should* dump Isreal now, pronto for a whole host of reasons.Now whether we take this proper action is another thing. AIPAC is the funnel which keeps this parasitic relationship going. Do we have any real stategic reasons for being in bed with them? No. Would it save tax dollars to stop sending this truckstop crack whore of a nation money ?
Yes. Would we reduce our chances of getting (jihadists/terrorists) herpes ? Yes. So it's a no brainer. I think it's been mentioned about AIPAC. I guess said crack whore must give out some good nookie (campaign $$$) or something since so many of our politicans love her so much.
[/quote]

Incidentally, Israel is more than just another country to us. We
have a very significant relationship to Israel, thanks to changes in
attitude particularly during the 1960s Awakening.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...wakening060919

Nice. We have some of our own truckstop crack whores as well. Blech!!!!
I guess the priests/rabbis, and the like are the "madams" here.

So let me put the question in terms of an explicit scenario: Suppose
al-Qaeda launches several simultaneous terrorist attacks on 5
different American cities. After that, Osama bin Laden issues a
statement saying that the terrorist attacks occurred because
Americans are infidels, and because they continue to support Israel.

We'd have a mess. The "madams" and "whores" here in the states would get upset.

Under what circumstances, if any, would we dump Israel?

The US needs to ban all campaign funding from foreign sources. Perhaps if we can get enough nativism going, this can be enacted. Right now, we may as well do what assorted stadiums do. Let's put up neon signs on capitol hill with multinat commericals, flags of the purchases, and some "for saile" signs. That way, the reality of what's going on is made clear.

Is there anyone who cares to defend the proposition that we would
ditch Israel under almost any economic circumstances?

As a hypothetical, yes. We'd need the aforementioned campaign finance reform and if "foreigners" in general; countries and multinats can get tagged with the blame for a crash or something. Other than that, we're going to be stuck on stupid.

I voted number two.

As long as Israel is seen as a fellow First World fortress in the midst of a barbarian sea, I think the US public is very likely to continue to support them. But I am also not averse to thinking there is some theoretical breaking-point beyond which Americans would consider abandoning them. How intense that threshold would have to be, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I voted number two.

As long as Israel is seen as a fellow First World fortress in the midst of a barbarian sea, I think the US public is very likely to continue to support them. But I am also not averse to thinking there is some theoretical breaking-point beyond which Americans would consider abandoning them. How intense that threshold would have to be, I don't know.

What about a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iran's strategic nuke and military sites? What if they used a nuke themselves at some tense moment in the future?

Dear Mr. Saari,

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> I suggest that we would only ditch Israel under a change of
> religious circumstance: those Left Behind after the red heifers
> arrive in the Holy Land and the Calvinist-Americans are depleted
> by their flying the coop might change the power of AIPAC; the
> Latino-izing or Celestializing of American on RC Xian or Confucian
> lines would also lower the enthusiasm for the Final Days.

> Like many another Eurasian nation, the one in question has killed
> our serviceman, taken our treasure, committed espionage upon us,
> re-sold our technologies to other Eurasians. We ought throw
> Eurasia over the side but not for economic reasons but for the
> sanity and safety of Our Commercial Republic. It isn't going to
> happen and Eurasians will get to kill our men at arms, loot our
> treasury, steal our secrets, and earn monies by selling our best
> technologies to the next Eurasian for quite some time.

> I'd toss Iceland to Indonesia and all that's in between over the
> side and then Africa, the Antipodes, and the other Americas in
> turn. But Commercial Republicans have become a most masochist race
> and Americans have come to become enamored of Eurasians in their
> wife-beaters. It's a most Progressive fashion and we have learned
> to put a little "ice" on it when blows fall upon the Eurasian
> manufactured bruise.

> Some one ought call the cops, but then we are the policeman of the
> world.

I don't completely follow all of this, but I'll just comment on a
couple of things that I think I understand.

If it were possible for a wealthy country to hire a lobbying firm and
thereby make the American people love that country, then there
wouldn't be a couple of dozens bills pending in Congress threatening
trade sanctions against China.

Whatever attitudes Americans have toward Israel, they come from our
culture and our history, not from a lobbying group. The lobbying
group is merely taking advantage of what's already there.

I don't know what the reference to "wife-beaters" is, but I suspect
it's rooted in feminist man-bashing. Keep in mind that some 90%+ of
domestic violence allegations are phony, used to extort money from or
inflict revenge on a divorced father. Perhaps you could help me
understand which Eurasian nation is the divorced father in your
analogy.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com