Is Israel Controlled By US or Controlling the US

I've heard conspiracy theories that have said that Israel is controlling the US. At first I thought this was stupid because of the relative size and power of the US versus Israel.

However...while I don't believe they are being controlled, I have, when thinking about it, come across some strange questions that I hope some people may help answer, or at least provide thoughtful opinions on.

1. The US and Israel seem to be close knit, but there has also been evident frictions between the two. For instance, Israel had stolen nuclear secrets from the US in order to create nuclear weapons in violation of the Security Council and international law, as well as outright refusing to allow international inspectors into nation.

But...the US is still supporting Israel militarily and diplomatically almost 100%. They may have these chaffing disagreements in policy, but they present a unified front to the world community they often claim is in support of policies they clearly are not in support of. This struck me as very strange.

It also made me think back to Israel's foundation, when they were under Brtiain's wardship, and sent them packing in probably the first major modern terrorist attack at Hotel David- this after a long and gritty uprising against the British who tried to cool the tensions in the region.

I cannot say for certain, but it seems like Israel is somehow not a truly subordinate satellite of the US, but might actually have a little leverage over us. They have nuclear missiles that no one is allowed to inspect...which makes them an enormously powerful peace, no matter what their size as few rival the nuclear armament of Israel and since it could possibly threaten to swing it's support either way, it might have some leverage over the US.

Also...the US needs (or needed) Israel to be friendly because it is the only stable, assured foothold in the region that the US has.

I don't think one is in control of the other, but I do think there is some unsettling leveraging going on between the two. It's as if they don't want to be together, possibly hate each other, but somehow need to be together to some end.

Large parts of this are totally unsubstantiated, and I do not project this as fact, but I was wondering if anyone had anything that would expand or refute these ideas? I believe the ME is going to be a very important region, and I believe Israel is not altogether what we think of it- whether left, right, conspiratorial, or otherwise. By that, I mean that Israel may be like an England. Remember how small England was compared to all the other European powers. It was small, disheaveled, and in debt. And yet, by playing the other world powers against each other, and resting it's power on finance and trade, Britain became a world power unprecedented. It was an island nation at the edge of the known world.

I see Israel and I kind of see that same tenacity and that same kind of state-craft. They been getting increasingly powerful overtime, and the developing situation is nothing if not favorable to Israel.

I'm extremely interested in any converation on this. Theories, doubts...?

 

.

UDC --

You ask a thoughtful question. And you are correct in considering the genesis of Israel for proper perspective to the relationship between the U.S. and the State of Israel.

The best advice I can offer is for you to obtain Alison Weir's book, "Against Our Better Judgement: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel". This is
a superb work of research and is fastidious in it's references from original documents. I believe it will clear the smoke from the room for you.

all the best, Ramm

.

 

Israel is defenitely in control over the government of the united states.congress get all their money from israel which is why so many of them are supporters of israel.

 

more zog nonsense.

A tiresome and stupid conspiracy orginating from jew haters, neo-nazis and white nationalists forty years ago.

 

.

accidental reply

.

 

Interestingly enough, thats true. White nationalists have been pushing ZOG theories for decades yet the socialist left in the western world seems to champion their cause and indulge in their conspiracy theories about 'zionists' (the majority of jews are zionist). Bit of a contradiction from the progressive left since they claim to be against xenophobia and intolerance. Zionist this, zionist that. Its how white nationalists talk, and their talking points have been adopted by far left movements in america, canada, and in europe.

Same with the long debunked khazar 'theory'. Science has proven the mediterranean/middle eastern origin of the majority of jews. Progressives claim to be supporters of science yet many of them mock these scientific results and cling to age old myths about the turkic-mongol origins of israelis and jews in general.

 

Zionist-owned is a bit strong a term, but many governments are indeed heavily influenced by the various, very visible zionists watchdogs and lobbies. It's no "conspiracy" - it's in the open. Ask Walt and Mersheimer, or just use common sense. If you deny this, I guess there's no point having this conversation.

Far from being "debunked", the Khazarian hypothesis is alive and well, supported by the Khazars' history, science, Eran El'aik and, last but not least, common sense.

Only zionists cling to the old "Rhineland hypothesis", which still fails to explain how come such a smallish tribe grew up to astounding numbers despite the purges, progoms and migrations, among other problems. But hey, it offers "legitimity" to Israel, so....

 

Elhaik's study actually confirmed the middle eastern origin of the jewish communities of eastern and central europe. He tested armenians and georgians which is for one south of where the khazar empire existed, but more importantly, these populations of armenia and georgia are heavily mixed with middle eastern peoples from neighboring countries. All that he showed was a confirmation that ashkenazi jews cluster closely with armenians and georgians.

Yiddish is an entirely separate matter, all linguists (except wexler) agree with the rhineland hypothesis (well, its more fact really). Yiddish is written in hebrew/aramaic characters, has about 10-15% hebrew and aramaic borrowings into its lexicon, and of course is not turkic influenced, but rather its a middle high german dialect.

Ashkenazi jews don't look like kazakhs either, modern kazakhs and other central asian groups claim descent from the khazars. Ashkenazi jews typically look middle eastern or in some cases northern european due to some families mixing with northern european populations later on, possibly because of rapes and/or late conversions in the 19th and 20th century.

Look at this genetic plot. AJ mostly cluster closest with SJ and other jewish groups, along with armenians and northern mesopotamian populations.

View attachment 28648

Ashkenazi Jewish Israelis also wouldn't end up look like this if they were turkic (khazar) or slavic.

This AJ is clearly middle eastern.

 

From the horse's mouth:

Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Near Eastern-Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. We further describe a major difference among Caucasus populations explained by the early presence of Judeans in the Southern and Central Caucasus. Our results have important implications for the demographic forces that shaped the genetic diversity in the Caucasus and for medical studies.

Yiddish as we know it was created aound the XII century: The Khazars' conversion is by the VIII's. It is therefore largely irrelevant in this debate.

I think Elhaik considered much more scientific clues than mere looks... He's got scary credentials, too.

 

Elhaik's study has been contradicted by dozens of previous studies as well as later studies. Again he sort of proved his own thesis wrong by sampling south caucasian populations who are themselves mixed with middle eastern dna. Armenians?

Looks do matter when they are taken in conjunction with countless genetic studies, linguistics, genealogies, and history. The main non-israelite component in sefaradi and ashkenazi jews is mediterranean european, greek, french, italian, etc. Really, the khazar idea is very old and has long been discredited, even many anti-zionists don't believe in it. Kazakh muslims actually get offended because they are the descendants of the khazars, not the modern day jews, who look nothing like them. Khazars were a turkic-mongol people from central asia who settled in the crimea. Their descendants are central asian in phenotype and genotype.

The closest genetic relatives of jews of the ashkenazi rite are sefaradi jews. Ashkenazi jews and Sefaradi Jews evolved from the same place in europe at the same time and are virtually identical in genotype and in many cases phenotype as well. They always cluster the closest, including the sefaradim from morocco and other north african countries. Syrian Jews also cluster closest with ashkenazi and sefaradi jews in autosomal dna studies.

 

I think you overestimate researches in favour of the RH while seriously downplaying those who favour the KH, both in quality and numbers. I have read Elhaik's critiques, and the least I can tell is that they're not very convincing: It's pretty standard Hasbara stuff (accusation of "shody research", "marked bias" etc). In the end it appears that the guy is intensely respected in his chosen field.

No, it always been there. Schlomo Sand wrote about it in the seventies, and a lot of other researches in this way have been made, many of them were actually aimed at protecting the Jews by distancing them with their semitic heritage (those were the pre-zionism days). Like I wrote, the Rhineland hypothesis' biggest problems are the sudden population boom (in spite of the Jews' troubled tribulations) and the fact that Khazars noblety had converted to Judaism (nobody disputes this).

Politics are irrelevant in genetics. I don't really care whether the thruth offends - furthermore when it's about events so old nobody lived through it.

 

Shlomo Sand's works have been discredited in recent years by genetic studies, including Elhaik's ironically, because that was not his intention. I actually welcome Elhaik's study because it further points to middle eastern origins of ashkenazi jews by comparing them to armenians and georgians. The genetics he got right, only his thesis was wrong.

Throwing out years of genetic research is bad science though. Again, the largest and most recent autosomal dna tests confirm previous studies, that the closest relatives of the ashkenazi jews are the sefaradi jews. This isn't surprising, it lines right up with history and the evolution of these two religious denominations of judaism. There are also extensive genealogies kept by some jewish families that trace far back to the time of the founding of these two distinct diaspora communities and religious rites. These records were kept long before the rise of modern political zionism. To say that the majority of genetic, linguistic, historical, and genealogical data is simply 'hasbara' is the complete opposite of science.

The khazar book the thirteenth tribe by koestler is indeed interesting, but is extremely outdated, nearly all scientists and historical scholars know this. One thing that many people always forget is that it was only the khazar ruling class that converted to judaism. Crimean karaites may indeed have khazar ancestry, that is where people should be looking. It is impossible for the ashkenaz (medieval hebrew word for the area of northern france/germany), at least the majority of jews that follow the german rite to be khazar because their closest dna relatives are sefaradi european jews, roman jews, north african jews, and syrian jews.

The hypothesis of Khazarian ancestry in Ashkenazi has also been a subject of discussion in the new field of population genetics, wherein claims have been made concerning evidence both for and against it. The general conclusion is that, if traces of descent from Khazars exist in the Ashkenazi gene pool, the contribution would be quite minor,[279][280][281][282][283] or insignificant.[284]

Eran Elhaik argued in 2012 for a significant Khazar component in the paternal line based on the study of Y-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews, using Caucasian populations, Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijani Jews as proxies.[263]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Genetic_studies

Azerbaijani Jews are descended from persian jews, they even speak judeo-tat, a jewish-persian dialect. Elhaik just confirmed that paternally, ashkenazi jews are related to the persian jews. The azerbaijani jews are mizrahim in israel and cluster closest with iranian and iraqi jews which further shows the mesopotamian origin of ashkenazi jews, at least paternally.

I am thankful that Elhaik did this study because it confirms what I have been saying for years, that paternally, many ashkenazi jews have babylonian jewish origins. Around the time of Rashi, during the middle ages, babylonian jews mixed with the jewish exiles from jerusalem who settled in northern italy, france, and germany, founding the ashkenazi jewish community. The link between azerbaijani jews and ashkenazi is very fascinating. In Israel and the states, both groups even look alike, which isn't surprising since they are indeed closely related according to Elhaik's study.

 

Here is a pic of azeri jews.



They look identical to iraqi and many ashkenazi jews, and Elhaik just confirmed that they are closely related to ashkenazi jews.

Ashkenazi jews











Iraqi Jews:

 

Sand's work is not even genetic in nature. It would be like me blaming Manchester United for their poor hockey. I will welcome any study made by an actual genetician, one who actually made researches in the said area, that would contradict Elhaik's conclusions, even thought I appreciate your own conclusions.

You know what? I wouldn't cite this page if I were you: it is a hardly fought Hasbara battlefield, where the body of the text is subject to intense debate and changes - I ought to know, I fought in it (I believe you can still find my username in the discussion archives). The problem with the zio-warriors here, is that they give undue coverage to people who, althought respected in their own fields, often just don't have made the necessary researches to so boldly make their assertions, such as Bernard Lewis. My advice would be to directly go to the source and then judge its relevance by yourself, directly.

 

I know that Sand is not a geneticist, he is a socialist anti-zionist that wrote a book, but the history in it was proven wrong by countless genetic studies including Elhaik's.

I used the wiki page for convenience. I have read the original Elhaik Study and it isn't misrepresented on wikipedia, the brief outline summarizes his genetic study which showed a close genetic relationship between ashkenazi jews and azerbaijani jews (mizrahim), as well as armenians and georgians. Again, I welcome the study. I have read it many times, studied it, and find the relationship between the jews of azerbaijan (persian speaking jews) and ashkenazi jews fascinating. I only disagree with his thesis which I find to be self contradictory.

I just read again Elhaik's study and he even shows links between ashkenazi jews and iranian jews (which again, doesn't surprise me at all). What I don't understand is how on earth he thinks iranian jews and armenians are good proxy populations for the khazars. Again his findings are for lack of a better word, awesome, but his thesis is very self contradictory and confusing. Iranian Jews are related to Ashkenazi Jews, and this makes Ashkenazi Jews Khazars how exactly? Since when are Iranian Jews khazars? Since when are Armenians Khazars? Khazars were a turkic-mongol central asian people who settled in the crimea. As a geneticist he should be looking for more links between the Khazars and the Crimean Karaites.

All that is to be gathered from this study is that Iranian Jews, Azeri Jews (both mizrahi) are closely related to the Jews of Ashkenaz (due to their common origin). The similarity to Armenians and Georgians also further points to a near easter origin for iranian and ashkenazi jews, not a slavic or turkic-mongol one. His findings are incredibly fascinating but his conclusions are simply mind boggling and convoluted.

 

According to Elhaik (directly from his study):

The results of all PC analyses (fig. 3, supplementary figs. S2 and S3, Supplementary Material online) show that over 70% of European Jews and almost all Eastern European Jews cluster with Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani Jews within the Caucasus rim

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61.full

Thats amazing and I am very happy that he did this study. It shows a high genetic linkage between persian speaking mizrahi jews and ashkenazi jews. So essentially they are the same racially, they only differ in local languages, culture, and religious denomination. Again, not surprising. This finding aligns itself with historical data, and both mizrahi jews from azerbaijan and ashkenazi jews from eastern europe look racially identical in many cases as seen in the pictures I posted above. It also shows a strong genetic link to iraqi jews because iraqi jews cluster with armenians, georgians, azeris, iranian jews, etc. All of the azeri mountain jews (mizrahim) in Israel look like my family (which is largely baghdadi in origin), and my ashkenazi in-laws also look indistinguishable from us.

 

No, it wasn't - never was the Khazarian hypothesis ever proven wrong, and never was the Rhineland hypothesis ever proven right, genetically, historically or otherwise. I just want to be sure that its real clear.

And yet, I still trust in his conclusions, as he is the genetician that conducted them, over yours. I've got nothing against you or your knowledge, I just trust Elhaik more.

 

White nationalists are right wingers, much like the members of Shas, which accounts for your complete mischaracterization. And of course jew hating is not the exclusive domain of political ideology. I seem to remember some RELIGIOUS motivations for same as well.

Who cares? the whole issue has been raised in an obvious and rather lame effort to discredit the argument wrt jewish presence and "right" to the land of Israel. None of it matters as Israel not only exists but has every right to exist and ancient arguments are irrelevant to the realities of today.

 

I think the only mischaracterization here is comparing SHAS to white nationalists. Calm down and take it easy. My argument isn't ancient, its based on modern science. It has nothing to do with land claims. It rather has to do with the fact that the progressive left who claims to be pro science rejects decades of scientific data concerning 'jewish' or hebraic or semitic people or whatever name you choose. It has reached levels of absurdity. Even Elhaik's valuable study isn't taken seriously. Most progressives aren't even aware of it.

 

You have a right to your opinion, I just don't see how Azerbaijani Jews (judeo-persian speaking tats) could in any way be related to the khazars. But hey, to each to his own.

 

I don't compare them, I merely stated that both their political ideologies can be characterized as far right.

Again, you insist for some reason that liberal progressives have adopted this stupid, inaccurate and totally irrelevant "genetic origins" rebuttal to the zionists "3000 year old god given right" argument.

It is an argument made by jew haters and virulent anti-zionists and cannot realistically and honestly be attributed the "progressive left", particularly since the majority non muslim jew haters and virulent anti-zionists appear to be from the far right of the political spectrum. And calling muslims who also make the genetic origins argument (among many many others) the "progessive left" is hilarious.

 

Its not only the progressive left, I was pointing out that indeed the progressive left does adopt a position that is opposed to science. The progressive left attempts to force 'science' down the throats of everyone else that they view as culturally primitive and backwards but selectively chooses what science to believe in. Jewish/Hebraic/Semitic genetic tests are not zionist, they are scientific. Again, it has nothing to do with land claims but with reality. The jewish/hebrew diaspora is no different than the assyrian or armenian or african diaspora. Seeing some progressives fight these scientific tests is absolutely stupifying since they claim to be the party that endorses science.

There is no 'god given right' argument here. Many progressives simply are willfully ignorant when it comes to genetics. They flat out reject science, even the findings in Elhaik's study. Absolutely ridiculous. If the findings threaten their worldview on anything they throw out the scientific data by choosing to ignore it. For (hopefully) the last time, this has nothing to do with zionism, right of return, or anything of the sort. Its about science vs. myth. And in this case, science is on my side, not on the side of many progressives on this forum or in the real world.

 

As for I know, from my Italian viewpoint I can only say that Israel control the Mediterranean market of grapefruits [we in Italy eat only Israeli grapefruits, they are superb!].

A part a bit of humor, Israel was an asset not only for US, remember that also USSR recognized it immediately [followed by Turkey] ... did Zionists control also Russia and Turkey???

No, there was a common interest in kicking UK out of Middle East and a Western democracy like the coming Israel was a great occasion [well, Western democracy, in its early history Israel was more near to the Socialist ideals than to our beloved Capitalism ... this for historical accuracy].

So, no, it's not about "controlling", it's about sharing common interests.

Note that Israel Army has trained for decades with the Turkish one, today IDF trains with the Italian Army as well ...

I find it difficult to discuss in a comprehensive way such a undetermined matter.

 

I see no signs of the "progressive left" entertaining such thoughts. I do see the fringe right embracing them however.

Your insistence on labeling those that do no agree with your neo-zionist and racist views (assuming you adhere to the teachings of Ovadia) as progressive is nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense. I suppose it stems from christian evangelicals (conservatives) unquestioning support of Israel. You do recall it was Palin who suggested that the conflict was nothing more than a "zoning" issue.

Nonsensical generalized argument. Again, your avatar and username denote a political/religious perspective that insists that judea and sumaria are part of modern Israel and consistently use the "3000 year old god given right" justification for it.

 

Ovadia is part of my family name as I have stated in the past, my avatar I chose long ago for artistic reasons. Its a damn good portrait, and he also belongs to the same branch of jews that I belong to (I am mostly baghdadi). His robes are typical of the reshon letzion and are ottoman in style, not arab. Sefaradim are ottoman jews, that is we were subjects of the ottoman empire. I don't agree with all of the maran's views (im not even a follower of judaism, I am agnostic), but I understand his statements made against the arabs which were in reference to those which are part of Hamas, PLO, Fatah (al-aqsa martyrs brigade). I would send missiles down upon them with relish too. I don't hate all arabs, and neither does he.

Having national pride is common to all ethnic groups, its not 'neo-zionist' which has just become a buzz word amongst those who are opposed to the idea of Israelis existing. National pride only becomes racist when you believe that your own ethnic or racial group is superior to others. I don't hold the notion that jews are superior to any other group.

Posting Elhaik's study that 70% of Ashkenazi Jews are closely related to Azerbaijani (mizrahi) jews is not racist. Its science. And it has nothing to do with land claims, regardless of how I feel about Israel's right to exist. Its not even zionist or 'neo-zionist' (zionism is not even racist, although some zionists like extremist settlers can indeed be racist just like any other group).

As I said, the progressive left's rabid reaction to science even when it comes to a study put out by an anti-zionist socialist (like Ehaik) is ironic, quite puzzling, and even comical.