By "oppose" I mean "think the US needs to bomb them or something to remain neutral due to an incident 50 years ago". I missed who you think the US is not being neutral towards, since you seemed to rule out the Palestinians.
>without lobbying practically no one in America would care about Israel either
That doesn't seem plausible to me. Maybe you link government aid to Israel to lobbying, but how does it help public opinion? When do people ever hear about "the Israel lobby" except as part of anti-Israel rhetoric?
>I wouldn't say Israel started because of WW2
I believe I once had a book that described immigration in the 30s to Palestine, and ensuing riots, because the immigrants were buying land and not recognizing tenants' right to continue living there. I take for granted nothing comes out of nowhere, but WW2 + the lead-up + the British Empire crumbling seems to have been what made it a reality. Millions of Jews had to be convinced there was no alternative, as well as others.
I thought we agreed that in principle the correct response to a deliberate attack would have been to bomb them in 1967? I don't understand why you keep intentionally misinterpreting this.
>who you think the US is not being neutral towards
I find the less you know about someone the easier it is to be neutral.
>the Palestinians
As I said before the Israeli/Palestinian intra semitic conflict is one America should stay a country mile away from.
>That doesn't seem plausible to me.
I've yet to hear of the Lesotho lobby and practically zero people in America care about Lesotho. How about Belarus or New Guinea? The link between lobbying and public opinion seems quite strong to me.
> anti-Israel rhetoric?
Please stop with the unfounded assumptions.
All I'm advocating for is for America to not get bogged down in foreign quagmires and for other countries to stop trying to drag us into their conflicts. It is beyond me how anyone can find this such a difficult concept. Mandatory disclosure of foreign interests would go a long way here.
If you are interested the Great War channel has a series that covers Mandatory Palestine. This is however entirely irrelevant to US foreign policy.
I always enjoy expounding upon my ideas in public discussion but when the conversation retreads over already trod points and the counterparty is disingenuous and intentionally mischaracterizes what I have plainly stated then I am forced to question whether their motive is discussion or to score cheap points in a discussion that no one will likely read.
By "oppose" I mean "think the US needs to bomb them or something to remain neutral due to an incident 50 years ago". I missed who you think the US is not being neutral towards, since you seemed to rule out the Palestinians.
>without lobbying practically no one in America would care about Israel either
That doesn't seem plausible to me. Maybe you link government aid to Israel to lobbying, but how does it help public opinion? When do people ever hear about "the Israel lobby" except as part of anti-Israel rhetoric?
>I wouldn't say Israel started because of WW2
I believe I once had a book that described immigration in the 30s to Palestine, and ensuing riots, because the immigrants were buying land and not recognizing tenants' right to continue living there. I take for granted nothing comes out of nowhere, but WW2 + the lead-up + the British Empire crumbling seems to have been what made it a reality. Millions of Jews had to be convinced there was no alternative, as well as others.