you know, maybe the jewish objection to ilhan omar's statements and how they make her an antisemitic person would be slightly more understandable understandable if she didn't have literally...
you know, maybe the jewish objection to ilhan omar's statements and how they make her an antisemitic person would be slightly more understandable understandable if she didn't have literally hundreds of prominent jewish voices agreeing with her points both on the AIPAC thing and on this issue of "allegiances".
her wording is terrible sometimes, sure, but at least in my view, it really is not that much of a stretch to say that you are basically forced to take allegiance to supporting israel in some capacity as a politician in many american states considering that the introduction anti-BDS legislation is almost ubiquitous in american state legislatures and something like half of them have officially passed such legislation.
equally i would say it is not a stretch to say that american politicians are disproportionately favorable to israel over all other countries in the world, to the point of doing things like tacitly ignoring israel's nuclear weapons program when that should make them ineligible for much of the funding we give them. nor do i think it is a stretch to say that AIPAC is prominent donor to american politicans and probable factor in why american politicians are so favorable to israel and no other country, especially when they are capable of giving millions on their own to politicians.
that pointing those things out now seems to constitute antisemitism in the eyes of a decent portion of jewish punditry really seems to only validate the idea that some jews have (intentionally or otherwise) muddied the waters of what antisemitism means and are now trying to use that to essentially silence dissenting voices on israeli issues, which really can only devalue how much calling people antisemitic means in the long run and is probably going to come back to bite the greater jewish diaspora in the ass given the rise in genuine antisemitism throughout the world recently.
This is so disingenuous. Not all Jews are Zionists. And historically speaking not even all Semites are Jews. I am pretty sure the bulk of anti-Semites talk about an international Jewish cabal and...
stances against Jews, except replacing the words "Jew" with "Zionist"
This is so disingenuous. Not all Jews are Zionists. And historically speaking not even all Semites are Jews.
antisemitic person to claim they are merely anti-Israel
I am pretty sure the bulk of anti-Semites talk about an international Jewish cabal and the Rothschilds more than the water shutoffs in the West Bank or the suppression of Palestinian political self-determination. In this social climate I can't seen any reason someone with anti-Semitic leanings should need to mask their hatred with an internationally prevalent critique of Israeli State brutality. They would just use a bunch of dog whistle words and make shekel jokes.
My point is that the words you use for it (Zionist, Semite, Jew) are not so helpful in discerning intent. You have to deal with the substance of people's criticism. As an opponent of Zionism I...
So what's your point?
My point is that the words you use for it (Zionist, Semite, Jew) are not so helpful in discerning intent. You have to deal with the substance of people's criticism. As an opponent of Zionism I think the state of Israel is oppressing Palestinians and we should sanction them for their abuse. This is different from a more anti-semitic critique which would be idk that there is a vast jewish conspiracy based in isreal to conquer the planet.
And I take issue with the ADL's definition. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Israel without being a closet anti-semite and without thinking Israel should not exist.
I am not sure what exactly this refers to since Israel has lots of Arabs and Africans. But I will say that I have some criticisms with the precise choice of the west bank for the state of israel....
oppose Jewish self determination
I am not sure what exactly this refers to since Israel has lots of Arabs and Africans. But I will say that I have some criticisms with the precise choice of the west bank for the state of israel. I think the Galveston plan was probably a better bet. I also have some hang-ups about the Jewish right of return which is ironically not being granted to Palestinians who have been expelled or displaced from their homeland.
Or does this mean like the ability of Jewish individuals to self determine? I'm fine with that.
I'd as a general concept it's something I can support fully. But the specific ways in which this is being executed? I absolutely think it's unjust the way the Palestinians have been colonized and exterminated.
unless you are an anarchist who doesn't believe in statehood
I am indeed!
Anti semitism is much more than the old European trope
Granted. I merely meant to highlight the fact that one takes issue with the justification for the actions of nation and the other is a racialized slur.
I'm glad you responded! I was thinking you wouldn't and that woulda been too bad. Again, I think this point is disingenuous. When you look at the material conditions created by Zionists in the...
I'm glad you responded! I was thinking you wouldn't and that woulda been too bad.
Saying you oppose Zionism means you are against the right of Jewish people to have .... self-determination
Again, I think this point is disingenuous. When you look at the material conditions created by Zionists in the name of Zionism there are plenty of things to take objection with. Illegal settlements, war crimes, crimes against humanity, proxy wars, false flags, civilian casualties, racialized political disenfranchisement - all in the name of Zionism.
Granted, that is in the context of Hamas, the Intifadas, etc. But all that is in the context of Palestine having been conquered and colonized. If there were a Zionism that acknowledged the right of return of all people displaced from the Levant I would say fine. But as an anarchist I have to be SUPER against ethno-nationalism.
No doubt. That's why I said I would support a more inclusive Zionism. Jews have been the targets of brutal repression ever since the beginning of the diaspora. What I most take issue to which...
anti-semitic aggression they were facing for a many generations. If you take issue with that, you're racist
No doubt. That's why I said I would support a more inclusive Zionism. Jews have been the targets of brutal repression ever since the beginning of the diaspora. What I most take issue to which makes me say I oppose "Zionism" is that is has come to mean material support for a Jewish ethno-state which brutally represses Arab civilians. Not to mention that the historical precedent for Jewish settlement in the area is dubious at best.
But, the history should take a back seat to the conditions of the present. In the abstract Zionism is a great idea. In the concrete Zionism is apartheid and needs massive reform. The actions of the Israeli state and most of all the IDF in the name of Zionism are absolutely deserving of international sanction.
Can someone explain to me why what she said was antisemetic? Lobbyists pay off members of Congress. It's illegal but it still happens all the time. Why does the accusation become antisemetic...
Can someone explain to me why what she said was antisemetic?
Lobbyists pay off members of Congress. It's illegal but it still happens all the time.
Why does the accusation become antisemetic simply because it is leveled at lobbyists for Israel?
It's explicitly not antisemitic. America's geopolitical interest in the state of Israel supercedes its human rights interest in the Palestinian people. Part of the reason for this is AIPAC. It's...
It's explicitly not antisemitic. America's geopolitical interest in the state of Israel supercedes its human rights interest in the Palestinian people. Part of the reason for this is AIPAC. It's very simple. It also has nothing to do at all with a stance on Jewish faith, the Jewish people nor the diaspora.
Equally simple is deflect criticism of the Israeli Apartheid regime by crying wolf. Criticism of lobbying become "anti-semitic" because it is politically expedient. Building a border separation wall and talking potshots at demonstrators and the press has nothing to do with being a Semite or a Jew. As such, neither does having a problem with lobbying on such a state's behalf.
well, at this point you've unintentionally or otherwise shifted the goalposts from actual antisemitism (which is what omar has been getting charged with by some jewish pundits) to what is...
Is it a direct and obvious case of an antisemitic remark? No. But it is getting uncomfortably close. Which is why I believe in correcting the offensive remark, rather then punishing the person who said it potentially unknowingly.
well, at this point you've unintentionally or otherwise shifted the goalposts from actual antisemitism (which is what omar has been getting charged with by some jewish pundits) to what is basically just racial insensitivity. there's a big difference between how those two play in public perception, so much so that you could probably argue she's being (in the non-legal sense) effectively slandered by people in being called a genuinely antisemitic person for her comments and not just racially insensitive in her wording.
If you can show me the line between allegiance to a country and swearing allegiance to uphold its interest unconditionally, I am interested to hear it. They are as follows: *All Jews are held...
some members of congress do have allegiance to Israel.
If you can show me the line between allegiance to a country and swearing allegiance to uphold its interest unconditionally, I am interested to hear it.
the reasons outlined in the article
They are as follows:
*All Jews are held responsible for the actions of Israel.
*Israel is denied the right to exist as a Jewish state and equal member of the global community.
*Traditional anti-Semitic symbols, images or theories are used
This discernibly meets none of the above criteria, unless I am reading this wrong?
Why would they bail out the banks? Why would they invade Iraq? Why would they bail out the car companies? Why is Obamacare the way that it is? Why are payday loans legal and barely regulated?...
So why would the GOP, and the vast majority of dems, support Israel? Maybe because the majority of Americans do?
Why would they bail out the banks? Why would they invade Iraq? Why would they bail out the car companies? Why is Obamacare the way that it is? Why are payday loans legal and barely regulated? Because politicians' chances of paying for re-election in a post Citizens United world depends on their ability to solicit bribes from the wealthy and powerful in exchange for serving their needs.
My larger point is that American legislators do not act according to the will of the people (except those people who are dragons with a cave full of gold coins). It is meaningless to assert a...
A majority of Americans did not support those policies.
My larger point is that American legislators do not act according to the will of the people (except those people who are dragons with a cave full of gold coins). It is meaningless to assert a causal relationship between federal policy and public opinion. It simply does not matter what the people want. If you haven't read the studies on this matter I suggest googling it on scholar.
Most Americans also don't know the first fucking thing about Israel/Palestine. Sorry, but its true. There are a million things out there and this just isn't one of the ones that Americans want to spend much time with. What they receive is the "fair and balanced" commentary of CNN and Fox News and then that's it. So when you tell me 25% of Americans support Israel, I say, "So what. I will bet you 98% of Americans have spent zero minutes in their whole lives learning about what the Israeli people have done to disabuse the Palestinians of even basic human dignity."
Or if they are being deliberately mislead by AIPAC, the corporate media, and politicians with a vested interest in ensuring criticism of Israel is outside the space of acceptable discussion in the...
is that it is easy to support an issue if your most of your constituents either don't care, or support it...
Or if they are being deliberately mislead by AIPAC, the corporate media, and politicians with a vested interest in ensuring criticism of Israel is outside the space of acceptable discussion in the name of American hegemony in the Middle East.
Or if it is standard operating procedure is to vote how the moneyed interests funding your reelection tell you to vote irrespective of whether it countermands popular sentiments.
You're not making a coherent argument here. You're citing lobbyists as proof that politicians support Israel because it lines their pockets, but the point you're arguing against is that those...
You're not making a coherent argument here. You're citing lobbyists as proof that politicians support Israel because it lines their pockets, but the point you're arguing against is that those politicians' constituents want them to support Israel.
You're essentially calling for politicians to do the opposite of what lobbyists ask for regardless of the will of the people. You're bringing in your distaste for the oligarchy and presumably your anti-Israel slant into a conversation where the original comment claims that the majority of Americans support Israel. You haven't addressed that core point.
I think it's fair to say that the welfare of any foreign nation shouldn't be as high a priority as it is to many American politicians, especially those who are otherwise not even exposed to foreign policy. Maybe for that doctrine, you could make a case for taking less action supporting Israel, despite popular support for such action.
Then my point was poorly made. Apologies. What I mean to say is, simply that the simple fact of Americans support a policy doesn't make it just. The existence of the oligarchy and the system of...
original comment claims that the majority of Americans support Israel. You haven't addressed that core point.
Then my point was poorly made. Apologies. What I mean to say is, simply that the simple fact of Americans support a policy doesn't make it just. The existence of the oligarchy and the system of pay-to-play politician influence peddling further taints the public approval argument since it is so often the politicians which are the loudest advocates for Israel.
Yeah, but most Americans believe what their media tells them. And their media tells them that we are, and need to be, allies with Israel, and that any commentary on their human rights abuses is...
Yeah, but most Americans believe what their media tells them. And their media tells them that we are, and need to be, allies with Israel, and that any commentary on their human rights abuses is automatically antisemetic.
evangelicals are, however, the largest religious denomination in the US and still a quarter of the population in addition to being one of the most active voting blocs in America, so...
evangelicals are, however, the largest religious denomination in the US and still a quarter of the population in addition to being one of the most active voting blocs in America, so...
maybe this is just me not being charitable, but i get the sense that if you were genuinely interested in the answer to that question, you wouldn't be asking me since the obvious answer is that...
maybe this is just me not being charitable, but i get the sense that if you were genuinely interested in the answer to that question, you wouldn't be asking me since the obvious answer is that such a large population holding such beliefs begets certain media coverage and results in significant influences on the rest of the population that isn't inherently tied to such beliefs on some level.
My takeaway is that the winning move was to convince others that the winning move is not to play the game at all. Also, to convince any US resident that they are outsiders in a relationship...
My takeaway is that the winning move was to convince others that the winning move is not to play the game at all. Also, to convince any US resident that they are outsiders in a relationship between their government and Israel.
There are legitimate criticisms of Israel's current and purportedly future treatment of the Palestinians. We have the opportunity to provide non-negligible leverage against that treatment. Instead, we continue to not just enable it but encourage it.
Also, this ongoing collaboration is not some miniscule curiosity in the tapestry of human affairs. It has global implications, the effects of which will become more and more apparent as our societies continue to embrace totalitarianism and militarization of police.
If you look at the way that the UN votes, the group of people who oppose BDS and support what Israel does is quite small. Yeah. That's not an accident. Part of why the "criticism of Israeli...
If you look at the way that the UN votes, the group of people who oppose BDS and support what Israel does is quite small.
as an outsider is that the only winning move is not to play the game at all.
Yeah. That's not an accident. Part of why the "criticism of Israeli apartheid is antisemitism" arguement is so effective is threatening to call someone an antisemite for speaking up means most people won't speak up
I was using General Assembly votes as barometer for the international opinion of Israeli apartheid. I also find it canny that you should mention human rights, since it is the grave abuses of...
The UN is not represented by population
I was using General Assembly votes as barometer for the international opinion of Israeli apartheid. I also find it canny that you should mention human rights, since it is the grave abuses of Palestinian human right by Israelis which is at the center of this issue.
Again, I take major issue with a point you're making. Israel/Palestine is an enormous geopolitical issue. You look at the big geopolitical hotbed issues today and you're talking: south china sea,...
I mean, we are talking about a relatively microscopic issue when it comes to world affairs.
Again, I take major issue with a point you're making. Israel/Palestine is an enormous geopolitical issue. You look at the big geopolitical hotbed issues today and you're talking: south china sea, russia's increasing assertiveness, syria, yemen, ukraine, venezuela, the kashmir, and isreal/palestine.
The regional outcome of a one state solution vs a two state solution in this region is crucial. Tack on top of that the significance of Israel as a toehold for American military interests in the Middle East, it is inconceivable to that you would say politicians should not have a stance on this issue.
I would say that inasmuch as Israel is a used a forward operating base by the American armed forces and inasmuch as regional powers like Egypt, Iran, Saudi, and Turkey have a stake in the issue...
I would say that inasmuch as Israel is a used a forward operating base by the American armed forces and inasmuch as regional powers like Egypt, Iran, Saudi, and Turkey have a stake in the issue that the extents of the Israel/Palestine dispute exceed the physical space of the conflict.
you know, maybe the jewish objection to ilhan omar's statements and how they make her an antisemitic person would be slightly more understandable understandable if she didn't have literally hundreds of prominent jewish voices agreeing with her points both on the AIPAC thing and on this issue of "allegiances".
her wording is terrible sometimes, sure, but at least in my view, it really is not that much of a stretch to say that you are basically forced to take allegiance to supporting israel in some capacity as a politician in many american states considering that the introduction anti-BDS legislation is almost ubiquitous in american state legislatures and something like half of them have officially passed such legislation.
equally i would say it is not a stretch to say that american politicians are disproportionately favorable to israel over all other countries in the world, to the point of doing things like tacitly ignoring israel's nuclear weapons program when that should make them ineligible for much of the funding we give them. nor do i think it is a stretch to say that AIPAC is prominent donor to american politicans and probable factor in why american politicians are so favorable to israel and no other country, especially when they are capable of giving millions on their own to politicians.
that pointing those things out now seems to constitute antisemitism in the eyes of a decent portion of jewish punditry really seems to only validate the idea that some jews have (intentionally or otherwise) muddied the waters of what antisemitism means and are now trying to use that to essentially silence dissenting voices on israeli issues, which really can only devalue how much calling people antisemitic means in the long run and is probably going to come back to bite the greater jewish diaspora in the ass given the rise in genuine antisemitism throughout the world recently.
This is so disingenuous. Not all Jews are Zionists. And historically speaking not even all Semites are Jews.
I am pretty sure the bulk of anti-Semites talk about an international Jewish cabal and the Rothschilds more than the water shutoffs in the West Bank or the suppression of Palestinian political self-determination. In this social climate I can't seen any reason someone with anti-Semitic leanings should need to mask their hatred with an internationally prevalent critique of Israeli State brutality. They would just use a bunch of dog whistle words and make shekel jokes.
My point is that the words you use for it (Zionist, Semite, Jew) are not so helpful in discerning intent. You have to deal with the substance of people's criticism. As an opponent of Zionism I think the state of Israel is oppressing Palestinians and we should sanction them for their abuse. This is different from a more anti-semitic critique which would be idk that there is a vast jewish conspiracy based in isreal to conquer the planet.
And I take issue with the ADL's definition. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Israel without being a closet anti-semite and without thinking Israel should not exist.
I am not sure what exactly this refers to since Israel has lots of Arabs and Africans. But I will say that I have some criticisms with the precise choice of the west bank for the state of israel. I think the Galveston plan was probably a better bet. I also have some hang-ups about the Jewish right of return which is ironically not being granted to Palestinians who have been expelled or displaced from their homeland.
Or does this mean like the ability of Jewish individuals to self determine? I'm fine with that.
I'd as a general concept it's something I can support fully. But the specific ways in which this is being executed? I absolutely think it's unjust the way the Palestinians have been colonized and exterminated.
I am indeed!
Granted. I merely meant to highlight the fact that one takes issue with the justification for the actions of nation and the other is a racialized slur.
I'm glad you responded! I was thinking you wouldn't and that woulda been too bad.
Again, I think this point is disingenuous. When you look at the material conditions created by Zionists in the name of Zionism there are plenty of things to take objection with. Illegal settlements, war crimes, crimes against humanity, proxy wars, false flags, civilian casualties, racialized political disenfranchisement - all in the name of Zionism.
Granted, that is in the context of Hamas, the Intifadas, etc. But all that is in the context of Palestine having been conquered and colonized. If there were a Zionism that acknowledged the right of return of all people displaced from the Levant I would say fine. But as an anarchist I have to be SUPER against ethno-nationalism.
No doubt. That's why I said I would support a more inclusive Zionism. Jews have been the targets of brutal repression ever since the beginning of the diaspora. What I most take issue to which makes me say I oppose "Zionism" is that is has come to mean material support for a Jewish ethno-state which brutally represses Arab civilians. Not to mention that the historical precedent for Jewish settlement in the area is dubious at best.
But, the history should take a back seat to the conditions of the present. In the abstract Zionism is a great idea. In the concrete Zionism is apartheid and needs massive reform. The actions of the Israeli state and most of all the IDF in the name of Zionism are absolutely deserving of international sanction.
Can someone explain to me why what she said was antisemetic?
Lobbyists pay off members of Congress. It's illegal but it still happens all the time.
Why does the accusation become antisemetic simply because it is leveled at lobbyists for Israel?
It's explicitly not antisemitic. America's geopolitical interest in the state of Israel supercedes its human rights interest in the Palestinian people. Part of the reason for this is AIPAC. It's very simple. It also has nothing to do at all with a stance on Jewish faith, the Jewish people nor the diaspora.
Equally simple is deflect criticism of the Israeli Apartheid regime by crying wolf. Criticism of lobbying become "anti-semitic" because it is politically expedient. Building a border separation wall and talking potshots at demonstrators and the press has nothing to do with being a Semite or a Jew. As such, neither does having a problem with lobbying on such a state's behalf.
Which ones? I will admit I have not read most of them.
well, at this point you've unintentionally or otherwise shifted the goalposts from actual antisemitism (which is what omar has been getting charged with by some jewish pundits) to what is basically just racial insensitivity. there's a big difference between how those two play in public perception, so much so that you could probably argue she's being (in the non-legal sense) effectively slandered by people in being called a genuinely antisemitic person for her comments and not just racially insensitive in her wording.
If you can show me the line between allegiance to a country and swearing allegiance to uphold its interest unconditionally, I am interested to hear it.
They are as follows:
*All Jews are held responsible for the actions of Israel.
*Israel is denied the right to exist as a Jewish state and equal member of the global community.
*Traditional anti-Semitic symbols, images or theories are used
This discernibly meets none of the above criteria, unless I am reading this wrong?
Why would they bail out the banks? Why would they invade Iraq? Why would they bail out the car companies? Why is Obamacare the way that it is? Why are payday loans legal and barely regulated? Because politicians' chances of paying for re-election in a post Citizens United world depends on their ability to solicit bribes from the wealthy and powerful in exchange for serving their needs.
My larger point is that American legislators do not act according to the will of the people (except those people who are dragons with a cave full of gold coins). It is meaningless to assert a causal relationship between federal policy and public opinion. It simply does not matter what the people want. If you haven't read the studies on this matter I suggest googling it on scholar.
Most Americans also don't know the first fucking thing about Israel/Palestine. Sorry, but its true. There are a million things out there and this just isn't one of the ones that Americans want to spend much time with. What they receive is the "fair and balanced" commentary of CNN and Fox News and then that's it. So when you tell me 25% of Americans support Israel, I say, "So what. I will bet you 98% of Americans have spent zero minutes in their whole lives learning about what the Israeli people have done to disabuse the Palestinians of even basic human dignity."
Or if they are being deliberately mislead by AIPAC, the corporate media, and politicians with a vested interest in ensuring criticism of Israel is outside the space of acceptable discussion in the name of American hegemony in the Middle East.
Or if it is standard operating procedure is to vote how the moneyed interests funding your reelection tell you to vote irrespective of whether it countermands popular sentiments.
You're not making a coherent argument here. You're citing lobbyists as proof that politicians support Israel because it lines their pockets, but the point you're arguing against is that those politicians' constituents want them to support Israel.
You're essentially calling for politicians to do the opposite of what lobbyists ask for regardless of the will of the people. You're bringing in your distaste for the oligarchy and presumably your anti-Israel slant into a conversation where the original comment claims that the majority of Americans support Israel. You haven't addressed that core point.
I think it's fair to say that the welfare of any foreign nation shouldn't be as high a priority as it is to many American politicians, especially those who are otherwise not even exposed to foreign policy. Maybe for that doctrine, you could make a case for taking less action supporting Israel, despite popular support for such action.
Then my point was poorly made. Apologies. What I mean to say is, simply that the simple fact of Americans support a policy doesn't make it just. The existence of the oligarchy and the system of pay-to-play politician influence peddling further taints the public approval argument since it is so often the politicians which are the loudest advocates for Israel.
Because evangelicals believe that Israel is supposed to be destroyed in the biblical apocalypse that ushers in Jesus' return.
Do you actually think that anyone who supports Israel's continued existence is necessarily brainwashed by the media or by their religious beliefs?
Yeah, but most Americans believe what their media tells them. And their media tells them that we are, and need to be, allies with Israel, and that any commentary on their human rights abuses is automatically antisemetic.
evangelicals are, however, the largest religious denomination in the US and still a quarter of the population in addition to being one of the most active voting blocs in America, so...
maybe this is just me not being charitable, but i get the sense that if you were genuinely interested in the answer to that question, you wouldn't be asking me since the obvious answer is that such a large population holding such beliefs begets certain media coverage and results in significant influences on the rest of the population that isn't inherently tied to such beliefs on some level.
My takeaway is that the winning move was to convince others that the winning move is not to play the game at all. Also, to convince any US resident that they are outsiders in a relationship between their government and Israel.
There are legitimate criticisms of Israel's current and purportedly future treatment of the Palestinians. We have the opportunity to provide non-negligible leverage against that treatment. Instead, we continue to not just enable it but encourage it.
Also, this ongoing collaboration is not some miniscule curiosity in the tapestry of human affairs. It has global implications, the effects of which will become more and more apparent as our societies continue to embrace totalitarianism and militarization of police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOSsXhmXCz0
If you look at the way that the UN votes, the group of people who oppose BDS and support what Israel does is quite small.
Yeah. That's not an accident. Part of why the "criticism of Israeli apartheid is antisemitism" arguement is so effective is threatening to call someone an antisemite for speaking up means most people won't speak up
I was using General Assembly votes as barometer for the international opinion of Israeli apartheid. I also find it canny that you should mention human rights, since it is the grave abuses of Palestinian human right by Israelis which is at the center of this issue.
I think the UNs strong recognition of Palestine is on topic. But if you insist.
nope, not really. such is politics, pretty much.
Again, I take major issue with a point you're making. Israel/Palestine is an enormous geopolitical issue. You look at the big geopolitical hotbed issues today and you're talking: south china sea, russia's increasing assertiveness, syria, yemen, ukraine, venezuela, the kashmir, and isreal/palestine.
The regional outcome of a one state solution vs a two state solution in this region is crucial. Tack on top of that the significance of Israel as a toehold for American military interests in the Middle East, it is inconceivable to that you would say politicians should not have a stance on this issue.
I would say that inasmuch as Israel is a used a forward operating base by the American armed forces and inasmuch as regional powers like Egypt, Iran, Saudi, and Turkey have a stake in the issue that the extents of the Israel/Palestine dispute exceed the physical space of the conflict.