> The reason there aren't more terrorist attacks isn't because various security agencies around the world protect us from them. It's because there are extremely few terrorists.
There's plenty of terrorists, but destabilisation of Middle East diverted them away from continental US. Wasn't that the whole point of Afghanistan and Iraq wars?
>destabilisation of Middle East diverted them away from continental US
I put on my critical thinking hat and look at the timeline of "US meddling in the Middle East" and "first terror attack in the US by a middle eastern".
I then notice that the years are 1948 and 1993 respectively and that wet roads actually do not cause rain after all.
I assume by 1948 you mean Israel’s declaration and subsequent war of independence. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote - Britain was the architect of this part of the Middle East and is responsible for every border drawn by all nations there. This was fallout of the Ottoman Empire choosing to go to war against Western Europe and being defeated (after hundreds of years of incompetent leadership). [0]
The US did not supply Israel in any way until 2 decades later, and it was Eastern European arms dealers first, France second. The first weapons sold to Israel by the US were in 1962 (anti air missiles), followed by some tanks and aircraft later in the decade. Things ramped up considerably after 1967 due to Arab states aligning with the USSR. [1]
RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian terrorist in 1968. [2]
> The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote
I put on my history hat and check the books
> Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.
> After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.
> After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
> [......]
Mind you that I am not calling foul play here, this is par for the course for politics. This is just to refute the quoted point above, unless you consider bribery and threats of sanctions a "nothing".
Overt U.S. meddling began (and in a very significant way) in 1956 with the Suez Crisis.
The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote
True for the U.S. at the government -- but not for the U.S. as a country. One of the earliest major Zionist associations (the Federation of Zionist Societies - a forerunner of the modern ZOA) was formed in New York in 1897. The movement would continue to receive key funding from American backers, and held one of its key meetings in New York in 1942:
The movement's ideological (some would even say "spiritual") underpinnings can be traced to the mid-19th century writings of this American playwright and utopian activist - said to be the originator of the idea of resettling Jews in Palestine, predating the efforts Herzl himself by half a century:
The US intervened AGAINST Israel, Britain, and France during the Suez crisis, in favor of the Arabs.
Not against Israel (and certainly not in favor of the Arabs) - but rather against Dayan and Ben-Gurion's strategy of calculated provocations against Syria and Egypt. Dulles had actually decided in favor of providing arms to Israel by the end of late 1955. But his hand was tipped by Israel's severely destabilizing actions (most notably Operation Olive Leaves), and most decisively by Ben-Gurion's calculated decision to also conceal these plans from Washington.
The other narratives that you're presenting above are similarly problematic. You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly. It isn't about the geographic origins of the Jewish people; but rather specifically about the idea of setting up a 19th century-style nation-state in their interest (and of resettling large numbers of people to a place where their ancestors had not set foot in for well over a millenium) -- by definition (and in every dictionary and encyclopedia definition you will find) an intrinsically modern concept. Nor is it "core" to Jewish people in general, only to some.
I wish we could explore these topics further. Unfortunately, you are attributing statements to me that I simply didn't make (I never said that the American Zionists were "the center of the movement", or even remotely implied as much), which, on top of the multiplicity of broken narratives you are presenting here, suggests that continued discussion is unlikely to be productive.
> You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly.
Many active zionists use the term this way, and not in the way you do. Secular Zionism of Hertzl was indeed more prominent, but already in 1902, Mizrahi organisation already saw a completely different concept of zionism, which didn't identify itself with European nation-state nationalism of 19th century. Ironically, both of these views are still Ashkenazi inventions. But most of israelis are not Ashkenazi, but Mizrahim. Role of Jerusalem in these communities, desire to live in historical Israel and restoration of Jewish state of Palestine is something which is completely forgotten.
And while zionism as state-building was not the focus of the jews, zionism as resettling to Israel was always a thing. My own family has been dispersed after expultion from Spain, and while most moved to Italy, some people (I forget the name) decided to move to Jerusalem instead. There always were sizable Jewish communities in the area, and immigrating there was a decision that people did take sometimes.
Interesting context for sure, but I was referring to mainstream usage of the term, of course. In any case, the main point here is that US meddling in the region certainly didn't start with the first arms transfers in the 1960s.
> Not against Israel (and certainly not in favor of the Arabs) - but rather against Dayan and Ben-Gurion's strategy of calculated provocations against Syria and Egypt. Dulles had actually decided in favor of providing arms to Israel by the end of late 1955. But his hand was tipped by Israel's severely destabilizing actions (most notably Operation Olive Leaves), and most decisively by Ben-Gurion's calculated decision to also conceal these plans from Washington.
I don't think this is an accurate assessment. The state department publicly condemned Britain, France, and Israel and convinced them to withdraw: "In response, the Eisenhower administration, concerned about dissociating the United States from European colonialism—especially in light of its strident condemnation of the Soviet intervention in Hungary the same week—as well as the possibility that the Soviets would intervene to assist Nasser, pressured Britain and France to accept a United Nations ceasefire on November 6. Moreover, the United States voted for U.N. resolutions publicly condemning the invasion and approving the creation of a U.N. peacekeeping force." [0]
> The other narratives that you're presenting above are similarly problematic. You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly. It isn't about the geographic origins of the Jewish people; but rather specifically about the idea of setting up a 19th century-style nation-state in their interest (and of resettling large numbers of people to a place where their ancestors had not set foot in for well over a millenium) -- by definition (and in every dictionary and encyclopedia definition you will find) an intrinsically modern concept. Nor is it "core" to Jewish people in general, only to some.
Firstly, there are many variants of Zionism. It existed since Jews lived there in antiquity, though it did not have the name. The most important modern version is the Basel Program [1]. "Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law" was the official purpose. Note that Jews first sought to obtain this secured homeland by appealing to the Sultan of Ottoman Empire (which was rejected several times). As the Sultan said, "My people have won this Empire by fighting for it with their blood and have fertilised it with their blood. We will again cover it with our blood before we allow it to be wrested away from us." Additionally, many Jews lived in Israel since antiquity (Old Yishuv), many more throughout the middle east (Mizrahim, Sephardim), and many more visited Israel. But yes, Jews had been forcibly removed from the area for ages, and went about their lives as best they could elsewhere. That no more breaks their connection to the land than Native Americans being put on reservations breaks their connection to lands in America.
> It isn't about the geographic origins of the Jewish people
It explicitly is. The general need for a state was acknowledged, but the reason it was in Israel is because of the geographic origin there. Again, Jews repeatedly moved back to Israel, prior to the ideation of a modern Jewish nation-state. This is a fact, and labeling as problematic is itself problematic and anti-historical.
> Nor is it "core" to Jewish people in general, only to some.
All of our stories take place in Israel or near it. Zion, Israel, Jerusalem, are mentioned thousands of times in the Torah and Tanakh [2]. Every Jewish person (or guest) who has participated in a Passover Seder has heard the words "Next year in Jerusalem" [3] for at least the last 600 years. The origin of the Jewish people in this place is explicitly the core of the religion and core to the history of the people, including the nonreligious ones.
I appreciate the clarification, and this history is always endlessly fascinating to me.
To keep things simple, I was referring to the definition of the Basel Program. My only strong beliefs about the situation otherwise are that everyone should feel safe and at home in the place of their birth, no one should be pushed out of anywhere (except under very narrow circumstances) -- and there is never a justification for acts of terrorism (or state terrorism), or the deliberate (or negligent) targeting of civilians in any context.
From there, the rest is a matter of detail and interpretation.
Not that it changes your point much, but you could probably look back to 1990. One of the WTC conspirators had assassinated a rabbi (an American who, to put it very lightly, had personally meddled in the middle east). Coincidentally since so many folks upthread are talking about jury nullification, the resulting trial is sometimes considered an example.
There's plenty of terrorists, but destabilisation of Middle East diverted them away from continental US. Wasn't that the whole point of Afghanistan and Iraq wars?