US Foreign Policy

Answer 1

This policy of support for the State of Israel goes back to the Truman Adminstration. Iran lost U.S. support in the Carter Adminstration. The Obama Adminsitration has been rethinking these relationships and is working to reverse both of these decisions of previous adminstrations.

Answer 2

The question assumes that it is an either/or situation. In many political conflicts in the world, the US maintains supportive and positive relations with both parties. Some examples include: Pakistan/India, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Taiwan, Russia/Georgia, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Turkey/Cyprus, etc. The US relationship with Israel and the US relationship with Iran are based on fundamentally different factors.

Israel and the United States started on friendly terms with the United States approving the 1947 Partition Plan. However, until the Six-Day War of 1967, the United States did not see Israel as a country that would exist in the long-term because of Arab belligerence against the State. After Israel's stunning victory in that war, the United States became Israel's primary Western Ally and began to trade technologies, both civilian and military, with Israel. Israel has cooperated with the United States on diplomatic issues, military and intelligence exchanges, large amounts of trade, and significant technological investment. In addition there a numerous Americans who support the State of Israel because of religious convictions on top of the already-listed reasons. The United States government, therefore takes a pro-Israel stance in international politics and is often seen as Israel's backer. As a result, the United States opinion on the conflict is often harsher on Palestinian Terrorism than the Israeli Occupation.

Iran and the United States were close allies through much of the Cold War and the Shah of Iran took a decidedly pro-Western political view. In 1951, the Shah of Iran was ousted, leading to the United States CIA collaborating with the British to reinstall the Shah in 1953 called Operation Ajax. From 1953-1979, the Shah of Iran maintained strong military alliances with pro-Western countries, including Israel. In 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran was declared and the Shah fled once more. He eventually ended up in New York in November of 1979 for medical surgery. The Islamic Republic demanded that the US render the Shah to them for a trial (and likely torture). The US refusal to do so met with Iranian anger that manifested in the attack on the US Embassy in Tehran. This invasion of the US diplomatic rights in Tehran led to the US ending relations with Iran, under President Carter.

Additionally, Answer 1 is incorrect concerning US Support for Israel. It only goes back to the Johnson Administration (1967). Prior to that US-Israel relations were cordial, but not openly supportive.

Answer 1

Israel is an independent country and there is no country called/named Palestine. Palestine is a British invention. With that said, Pres. Obama is not allowing Israel to steal Palestinian land anymore than he is allowing Palestinians to shoot their rockets/ missiles into Israel.

Rather than stealing land, Israel has been giving land to a people who did not exist as a people only 100 years ago.

There are lots of Arab and Muslims nations in the Middle East, but only one democracy, that being Israel. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that guarantees the rule of law to all population - the chances of a poor Muslim becoming rich in Israel are far greater than in the Gaza Strip, in Tunisia (a very good country), in Morocco (another good country), in Egypt, certainly better than in Iran (a racist country - the name alone says it all: "Home of the Aryans"), and anywhere else in the Middle East.

Back to the point though, Pres. Obama is not allowing Israel to steal land from the Palestinians because: 1) it's not happening; and 2) Israel is an independent country with a responsibility to protect her inhabitants, something very few Middle Eastern countries do, and Israel protects both Israeli Jews and Muslims (can you imagine Iran providing gas masks to Jews if attacked with chemical weapons? Israel did provide gas masks to all her citizens, Jews, Muslims, Christian and so forth when Saddam Hussein bombed Israel during the first Gulf War - bombings which in the end harmed more Muslims than Jews).

Is Israel a perfect State? No. No country is. Israel is the most tolerant and moderate country in the Middle East though.

Answer 2

Israel is an independent country and although there is - and was - no sovereign country per se called/named Palestine, the land now known as Israel had previously been known as Palestine for centuries, and its inhabitants known as Palestinians. Prior to the self-establishment of Israel in 1948, the vast majority of people living in Palestine were not Jewish, but this majority was mostly ethnically-cleansed by Israel following the Arab/Israel war. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, in 1946 the total population of Israel was 1,810,037 with 30% being Jewish (up from 1882's total population of about 300,000, 8% of whom were Jewish), yet in 1948 the total population had gone down to 872,700, 82% of whom were Jewish. This ethnic cleansing was accomplished by a combination of the denial of the right to return home following the end of the war, forced evictions and massacres such as that which took place at Deir Yassin. It is not for no reason that nearly every single Israeli prime minister has previously been an officer in the Israeli army.

With that said, Pres. Obama is not 'allowing' Israel to steal Palestinian land any more than he is allowing Palestinians to shoot their rockets/ missiles into Israel. Despite Israel being by far the largest recipient of US military aid, the US does not have a direct influence on Israeli military policy. However it is true that the US could, if it chose, express its disapproval of the illegal expropriation of Palestinian-inhabited land for the construction of racially-segregated Jewish-only settlements with the withdrawal of some or all of its military aid, and an examination of the available information about why that doesn't happen is a worthy journey all of its own.

Israel's position on its actions is that rather than stealing land, Israel has been giving land to a people who did not exist as a people only 100 years ago. However it must be borne in mind at all times when thinking of the conflict that Israel was established in 1948 as a Jewish state against the express wishes of that non-Jewish majority population who inhabited the land it claimed, and that the borders initially claimed by Israel were drawn up without the agreement of the majority of the people who lived there, and were manifestly unfair in that the majority of the land - and the majority of the best land - was given to the population with the smallest numbers, namely the Jewish population. The non-Jewish majority inhabitants of Palestine were not responsible for the horrors visited on Jews over the centuries leading up to WW2, but it is they who have borne the cost of the establishment a Jewish sovereign state and who continue to bear that cost as their lands are taken, their homes destroyed and 'security walls' built which separate them from the lands their families have worked for centuries in the name of protecting Jews from the repercussions of Israels long-running colonial project - the longest-running in the world today, and illegal under international law.

Israelis are very fond of saying that although there are lots of Arab and Muslims nations in the Middle East, but only one democracy, that being Israel, however this is incorrect, as Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey and Morocco are also democratic states. Whilst Israel claims that is the only country in the Middle East that guarantees the rule of law to all population, this claim must be contrasted with the reality of life for Palestinians living in the West Bank: they live under Israeli military law that is not applied to Jews who live amongst them in the ethnically-segregated settlements built on land illegally expropriated from non-Jewish Palestinian communities. It is also uncertain which law allows, for example, the collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population during Israel's ground and air attacks on Gaza in response to Gazan rocket fire. Some Israelis give the fact that the chances of a poor Muslim becoming rich in Israel are far greater than in the Gaza Strip as an example of the superiority of Israeli tolerance but it is clear that this difference is due more to the decades-long siege which Israel continues to inflict on the Gaza Strip following the withdrawal of its illegal Jewish-only settlements there. Whilst this withdrawal is proudly touted as evidence that the territory is no longer 'occupied', the degree of control Israel exerts on Gaza's borders, fishing fleet, airspace, imports, exports, power, water and even the calorie intake of its residents has not changed its status as an occupied territory in the eyes of the world.

Answer 1

Many non-Muslim westerners respect Islam religion (and even believe Islam religion as true God religion) and respect Muslims although their faith is not Islam.

However, some others hate Muslims and try to fabricate issues and lies against Islam for two main reasons: first trying to deter the Islam growth rate and reduce this rate. Second to convince themselves that they are right in not adopting Islam. Those people:

• claim that Islam is the religion of terrorism and violence.
• claim that Quran is not God revelation but something written by prophet Muhammad or copied from other holy books.
• claim that Islam was spread by war.

Answer 2

One of the major problems with even putting forward a question like this today is the presence of the term "Islamophobia" which has really no definition and can be so easily applied. Any criticism of Islam or of Muslim practices just gets branded with this label, even if the words are spoken by Muslims. Therefore, I propose (in this answer) three separate words to discuss the varied feelings of Non-Muslims towards Islam:

• Anti-Mohammedan(ism) = The belief that Muslims as people are wicked or problematic. This is the Muslim rough equivalent to Anti-Semitism for Jews. The term actually existed historically, but has been "outmoded" because Muslims are no longer called Mohammedans in recognition of the fact that they do not follow Mohammed because he is their Lord and Savior, but only as a Prophet.
• Anti-Islamic(ism) = The belief that the ideology and beliefs of Islam as a religious construction and lifestyle manifesto promotes wrong-doing or are seriously problematic to a multicultural society.
• Anti-Islam(ism) = The belief that Islam as politically manifest and capable of determining actual laws promotes inequality, injustice, and moral incorrectness.

Put most simply: Muslim people are lovable, Islamic religion is salvageable, Islamic politics are insufferable.

Anti-Mohammedanism

Most Non-Muslims (contrary to Muslim assertions) are not actually Anti-Mohammedan. While there are certainly a minority of individuals who say that Muslims themselves are a cancer on society, this is a very limited opinion. Muslims of all backgrounds, like Arabs, Indians, Southeast Asians, etc. are typically warm, hospitable, and loving people. They work diligently at their jobs, aspire for their children to have better lives, and are every bit as caring and nurturing as any other citizen. The TV show "Muslims in America" was cancelled after one season because the participants in the show were "too normal". The only difference between them and non-Muslims were that some of the women wore hijabs and everyone prayed on Fridays instead of Sundays. Their ideologies and views were quintessentially American. Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan famously joined the celebrations when Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, because they opposed the terror and fear that he represented.

If there may be one thing worth noting here, it is that Non-Muslims hope that Muslims can take a critical look at their past in a way that, up to this point, few of them have dared to do.

Anti-Islamicism

Many more non-Muslims are Anti-Islamic and point to a number of issues with Islamic legal practice and belief. Some of these Islamic "ideas" are incredibly frightening to many non-Muslims. The discussions about declaring Holy Wars on Unbelievers, are very frightening and scary to many who treasure the idea of Freedom of Conscience. Furthermore, Islam as a religion may promote tolerance of other religions, but certainly does not promote equality between religions. Qur'an verse 9:29 which formed the backbone Islamic legal treatment of Non-Muslims historically, says:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah [tax] willingly while they are humbled.

This has led persistently negative treatment of Non-Muslims in Muslim countries. Admittedly, in the Middle Ages, it was superior to European treatment, but today the situation is reversed. Muslims in Europe live without fear that their Mosques could be destroyed or that violence will be used against them. However, Egyptian churches continue to be bombed and Egyptian Christians have no recourse. Lebanese Christians fled Lebanon in the 1920s and 1930s to escape Muslim pogroms. Jews departed from nearly every Muslim-majority country to go to Israeli internment camps because living there was better than their historical ties for centuries to the countries in which they lived. Islam has not learned from this and continues to tell Muslims that they did nothing wrong.

Additionally, Islamic Penal Law makes Non-Muslims very scared. Some particularly problematic issues include: claiming that the rape victim is criminally liable for "getting raped", chopping off a thief's hands as punishment for theft, the execution of homosexuals, blasphemy laws in general, permission given to enslave people, and execution of apostates.

If Islamic views modernizes and its more extreme adherents show that they are willing to compete in the marketplace of ideas instead of just yell, scream, and perform violent acts until everybody listens, Islam may get a fairer shake. Until then, many see Islam as undesirable and regressive. If voices like Tawfik Hamid ring louder than those of Ayatollah Khamanei, Islam may garner many more Non-Muslim advocates or at least alienate far fewer. A link to Tawfik Hamid's "Mr. Tolerance" PDF has also been provided to get a flavor of the type of Islam that he advocates.

Anti-Islamism

The overwhelming majority of Non-Muslims oppose (either strongly or weakly) Muslim attempts to impose Islamic Laws on a country's citizens and people. Given that many Non-Muslims find the Islamic Penal Law outdated and horrendous and see that Islam seeks to repress religious minorities, they are not interested in a government that seeks to rule by exactly these mechanisms. This is not opposition to Muslim politicians like Keith Ellison, since he is not an Islamist, but merely a politician informed by values. An Islamist actively seeks the implementation of part or the whole of Shari'a Law, with the intent of creating an Islamic State. Many Non-Muslims in the West hold dearly to the idea that religion should stay out of politics in order to allow every religion the freedom to operate and discuss its views. An Islamist State would also be very restrictive to Muslims, forcing them to live in a Puritanical Way that would prevent differing local customs from informing the cultural richness that can be found in Islamic countries. Islamist regimes (like Iran) are notoriously violent to their own citizens and Non-Muslim compassion for Muslims (Anti-Anti-Mohammedanism) is greatly saddened when such regimes come to power.

Answer 3

Most westerners way of religion and life are far different from Muslims so i would guess they just wont accept change

NO. "Ally" is a strong term and usually refers to a country with which the US has a military exchange and/or a convergence on particular political goals that are distinct from the binary relationship between the two states. The United States and Vietnam are on good terms, but since they do not have military cooperation and have minimal political goals outside of their binary relationship, it would be improper to call Vietnam a US ally.

However, Vietnam-US relations are relatively recent. A rapprochement between the Vietnamese government and the US government began in the mid-1990s, two decades after Vietnam defeated the United States in the Second Indochinese War (called the Vietnam War in Western countries and the American War in Vietnam).

As this is a "should" question, you are likely to get several opinions.

Answer 1

The question as posed misses a very important point. In order to have a "should" question, both of the options have to be viable. For example, if someone asked "Should I read this list to you?" and that person was illiterate, then there is no viability for the "yes" option. The person is incapable of performing the task.

The same problem is present here as well. The United States does not represent the views of the Israelis or the Palestinians. Only those two parties can come to any viable agreement. Any agreement foisted upon them will be rejected outright by both parties. Therefore, it would be impossible for the United States to actually resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. However, I do support the United States helping facilitate negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians and any other parties that may be beneficial to negotiations. This is because I wish for a peace agreement and the United States seems to have the best track-record of bringing together Middle-Eastern rivals where Israel is concerned. (Egypt, Jordan, and the Oslo Accords)

Answer 1

You can't deny it. Because the main reason of wars against Iraq and also against Afghanistan is supporting israel and we all can judge that these wars hurts US interests.

Answer 2

There are two questions here.

First: Are American Jews using US assets for Israel? -- Yes. American Jews support numerous lobbying groups that impress upon Congress the value of supporting Israel. This is no different than other ethnic groups that support lobbying groups that try to direct US policy vis-à-vis other countries; it just happens that the pro-Israel lobby is much more effective and well-organized than other similar lobbies.

Second: Is using US assets for Israel hurting US interests? -- No. First, the US Aid to Israel makes up about 0.03% of the US GDP. To put that in perspective, it would pay for around a week in Iraq or half-a-day of Social Security. Additionally, 80% of the money earmarked for Israel can only be spent by Israel on US-produced weapons. This means that the money appropriated for Israel mostly goes to support US firms and US jobs, making it a win-win for both Israel and the US. This is aside from the fact that numerous recent technological innovations in both military and civilian technology have come to the US from Israel, providing economic gains that more than offset the remaining 20%.

There is an assumption here that disavowing Israel will make the Muslim States like the US; this is not the case. At best, the Muslim States would be neutral and wary towards the US. More likely, their attitude will not change or get worse. In addition to Israel, many Muslims have other grievances with the US such as US Economic Imperialism, Coups d'État in certain countries, the Cold War History, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Protection of East Timor, US Unilateralism, and general American Aloofness about the world. Disavowing Israel would do nothing to resolve any of these issues. In contrast, Israelis actually like the US for having supported their country.

Additionally, as concerns Answer 1, the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not done for Israel's benefit. Afghanistan was invaded to eliminate Al-Qaeda and the Taliban government that protected them. This was a direct result of the September 11th Attacks on the United States, the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the bombing of the USS Cole. As concerns Iraq, the purposes behind the war are murkier, but Israel did not want the Iraqi Regime to fall. The reason for this is that Iraq was the strongest bulwark against Iranian influence and Israel saw Iraq as the lesser of two evils.