[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So the West bank would be the cradle to both tribes Samaritans ? [/quote]
The cradle of Arab civilisation is the Arabian peninsular.[/quote]
I know I could be wrong but I thought Israel and Palestine were both from Samaritan tribe??
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So the West bank would be the cradle to both tribes Samaritans ? [/quote]
The cradle of Arab civilisation is the Arabian peninsular.[/quote]
I know I could be wrong but I thought Israel and Palestine were both from Samaritan tribe??[/quote]
Nope. The origins of the Samaritans are disputed but no one believes that Arabs are descended from the Samaritans. The Samaritans may have descended from Jews but not the other way around.
The origins of the Jews are not known for certain but the bible says Abraham was from the Mesopotamian city of Ur. There is no reason to doubt that.
It goes both ways.
Israel of course has undue influence on US policy, but only insofar as the US wants to/has to be entangled in the Middle East and the oil economy. Just as Saudi Arabia has undue influence on US foreign policy, because the US has to deal with them for oil etc.
But if, hypothetically speaking, enough accessible oil was discovered off the coast of Alaska to keep America’s Hummers running for the next century, Americans probably wouldn’t hear the words ‘Muslim’, ‘Israel’ or ‘global role’ ever again.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So the West bank would be the cradle to both tribes Samaritans ? [/quote]
The cradle of Arab civilisation is the Arabian peninsular.[/quote]
That’s my understanding as well.
This is off-topic but you seem knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know how closely related Arabs from the peninsula are to Arabs in the Levant? I think that most of the Arabs in the Levant were other Semitic people who were Arabized by the people from the peninsula.
So would current Arabs in the Levant be more closely related to Jews than Arabs from the peninsula? Is it possible that Levant Arabs are more closely related to Jews than the Arabs living in the peninsula? Just by using looks, which I know isn’t the best way to discern genetic lines, it seems like people in the Levant look more like Jews than Saudis or Yemenis.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
That’s my understanding as well.
This is off-topic but you seem knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know how closely related Arabs from the peninsula are to Arabs in the Levant? I think that most of the Arabs in the Levant were other Semitic people who were Arabized by the people from the peninsula.
[/quote]
I’m certainly not an expert on the subject by any means. There are other posters here who know more than I do about it. But my understanding is that all Arabs are pretty closely related to Jews. Many of the Arabs in Lebanon very likely have Phoenician ancestors. The Arabs in the Palestinian Territories are mostly relatively new arrivals from surrounding regions. Some of them are of Syrian descent and the Syrians are descended from ancient Semitic peoples - mostly the Assyrians of the ancient world. The rest of the Palestinians are Egyptians - who are Arabs with some ancient Egyptian ancestry and probably a small amount of Ancient Greek ancestry. As well as Jordanian Arabs and Bedouin Arabs. The Saudis consider themselves more “pure” Arab than the rest of the Arab world.
I think it would be difficult to tell for sure. But as I said the majority of Palestinians are new arrivals to the area having come from the surrounding regions from the 19th century onwards.
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
It goes both ways.
Israel of course has undue influence on US policy, but only insofar as the US wants to/has to be entangled in the Middle East and the oil economy. Just as Saudi Arabia has undue influence on US foreign policy, because the US has to deal with them for oil etc.
But if, hypothetically speaking, enough accessible oil was discovered off the coast of Alaska to keep America’s Hummers running for the next century, Americans probably wouldn’t hear the words ‘Muslim’, ‘Israel’ or ‘global role’ ever again.
[/quote]
I don’t agree with this widely held misconception and other similar misconceptions concerning our role in the Middle East in relation to our energy consumption.
First, America now produces more oil domestically than it imports and this trend will continue into the foreseeable future. America is already the 3rd largest oil producer in the world and I think we’re 5th in proven oil reserves.
Second, we import a lot more oil from Canada and Mexico than we do from the Middle East. This will increase if we begin to accept Canadian bitumen via the Keystone pipeline.
Third, America has the largest concentration of refinery capacity in the world. We can’t completely fill up our refineries with our own crude b/c of both the high amount of capacity we have, and also having refineries that are better equipped to deal with the characteristics of imported crude versus domestic crude. Expanding refinery infrastructure is extremely expensive and we haven’t built a major refinery since the 70s. So even if we produced enough domestic oil to satisfy consumption, we’d still be importing crude oil. One important distinction to note is that crude and refined petroleum products are separate entities. We can import crude oil, refine it, and then export the products. We can technically be importing crude oil while not consuming any of the refined products.
Fourth, the energy market, particularly crude oil, is based on global market dynamics. Hypothetically if we were able to produce all the oil and refined products we needed domestically, America would still have a major interest in preserving an efficient global market place for crude oil. We are not an isolated economy and even if we stopped importing all Saudi crude, Saudi still remains an important country to us because the global economy will still depend on their crude output.
Fifth, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries boost the American economy in several ways. These countries are incapable of self-reliance and don’t have the ability to support modern infrastructure and a modern economy without heavy influence from Western companies and workers. In addition, America sells these Arab countries incredible amounts of weapons. Even without importing their crude, our economy benefits immensely from these countries.
One other thing is that the overwhelming majority of crude oil is traded in US dollars, which is another benefit to our economy.
Conclusion: Even if we hypothetically had no need for Saudi Arabian crude oil, that would not diminish our role in the Middle East in the way you projected.
I agree that America’s relationship with Israel is partly driven by our desire to have a strong ally in a volatile region where a stable energy industry is paramount for the global economy. But this doesn’t mean that America’s support for Israel would diminish if America no longer needed to import Middle Eastern oil. We would still have incentive in preserving a stable Middle East.
My last post was longer than anticipated; I get carried away with energy/power topics… Here are my thoughts specific to the Israeli lobby:
It is not as powerful as many people believe it to be and there are several recent examples of the Israeli lobby not getting its way. Israeli influence on American foreign policy is driven more by our need to have a strong ally in a volatile region. A volatile region with an energy industry that the world’s economy depends on and where terrorist organizations plan attacks on American interests. Even without an Israeli lobby, America’s foreign policy would still be concerned with the happenings in the Middle East. Israel is that ally because their government and culture are more aligned with America’s compared to other countries in the Middle East.
What also cannot be overlooked is the need for many American politicians to be seen as a stalwart ally of Israel to win elections. Many voting Americans have a strong affinity toward Israel and a strong antipathy toward all other Middle Eastern countries. So those Americans will vote for politicians that they believe hold similar convictions.
This does not mean I endorse or reject current American foreign policy. It just means I don’t think the Israeli lobby is driving American foreign policy to the extent many believe. America’s policy toward Israel has a lot to do with widely held convictions from American voters and the desire for a more stable Middle East.
Where the Israeli lobby has a lot of power is influencing voter opinion on who is pro-Israel and who is an anti-semite. If a politician pisses off the Israeli lobby, they can be negatively affected by bad press or advertisements originating from that lobby.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
you seem knowledgeable on the subject. [/quote]
I would agree , did you notice the patients he showed in explaining his points , nothing like other threads 
Prepare to be surprised:
http://foreign.influenceexplorer.com/lobby-location2013
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Prepare to be surprised:
http://foreign.influenceexplorer.com/lobby-location2013[/quote]
I knew it! New Zealand has way too much influence on US foreign policy.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Prepare to be surprised:
http://foreign.influenceexplorer.com/lobby-location2013[/quote]
I knew it! New Zealand has way too much influence on US foreign policy.[/quote]
Goddamn sheep lobby.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
My last post was longer than anticipated; I get carried away with energy/power topics… Here are my thoughts specific to the Israeli lobby:
It is not as powerful as many people believe it to be and there are several recent examples of the Israeli lobby not getting its way. Israeli influence on American foreign policy is driven more by our need to have a strong ally in a volatile region. A volatile region with an energy industry that the world’s economy depends on and where terrorist organizations plan attacks on American interests. Even without an Israeli lobby, America’s foreign policy would still be concerned with the happenings in the Middle East. Israel is that ally because their government and culture are more aligned with America’s compared to other countries in the Middle East.
What also cannot be overlooked is the need for many American politicians to be seen as a stalwart ally of Israel to win elections. Many voting Americans have a strong affinity toward Israel and a strong antipathy toward all other Middle Eastern countries. So those Americans will vote for politicians that they believe hold similar convictions.
This does not mean I endorse or reject current American foreign policy. It just means I don’t think the Israeli lobby is driving American foreign policy to the extent many believe. America’s policy toward Israel has a lot to do with widely held convictions from American voters and the desire for a more stable Middle East.
Where the Israeli lobby has a lot of power is influencing voter opinion on who is pro-Israel and who is an anti-semite. If a politician pisses off the Israeli lobby, they can be negatively affected by bad press or advertisements originating from that lobby.[/quote]
Israeli interests have at times taken precedent over oil ones.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
My last post was longer than anticipated; I get carried away with energy/power topics… Here are my thoughts specific to the Israeli lobby:
It is not as powerful as many people believe it to be and there are several recent examples of the Israeli lobby not getting its way. Israeli influence on American foreign policy is driven more by our need to have a strong ally in a volatile region. A volatile region with an energy industry that the world’s economy depends on and where terrorist organizations plan attacks on American interests. Even without an Israeli lobby, America’s foreign policy would still be concerned with the happenings in the Middle East. Israel is that ally because their government and culture are more aligned with America’s compared to other countries in the Middle East.
What also cannot be overlooked is the need for many American politicians to be seen as a stalwart ally of Israel to win elections. Many voting Americans have a strong affinity toward Israel and a strong antipathy toward all other Middle Eastern countries. So those Americans will vote for politicians that they believe hold similar convictions.
This does not mean I endorse or reject current American foreign policy. It just means I don’t think the Israeli lobby is driving American foreign policy to the extent many believe. America’s policy toward Israel has a lot to do with widely held convictions from American voters and the desire for a more stable Middle East.
Where the Israeli lobby has a lot of power is influencing voter opinion on who is pro-Israel and who is an anti-semite. If a politician pisses off the Israeli lobby, they can be negatively affected by bad press or advertisements originating from that lobby.[/quote]
I think you’re pretty much right on the $$. The Israel lobby is nowhere as strong as it was, but it still has pull and lots of monetary backing.
We do an amazing amount of shared military work with them here in the US. On certain contracts, they have to give us so much of the pie for it to happen.
Rob
Vice claimed the biggest Israeli lobby were American Christians