The theory I've been operating under is that Israel was created as a pretty bad solution to displaced Jews post-WWII, and operates essentially as a vassal state of the US's commercial military interests as a totally intractable perma-war in the region to ensure that even in lieu of other conflict taxpayer money can continuously be laundered to them in the form of expended munitions.
There's obviously a lot more going on from a social/religious perspective, but I'm prone to thinking of large-scale shifts and trends in terms of economic incentives.
I believe it's the other way around: The western governments, media and legislative bodies are under Israeli control.
Have you seen how the US Congress, half of which boos the US presidents along party lines, suddenly all rise up and fall in line when Netanyahu visits the Congress?
It is humiliating, but that makes no sense at all from a power dynamics perspective. Israel is just not that powerful, economically, militarily, or socially. The US's military industrial complex is, and basically every politician is beholden to powerful capital interests, the MIC among them. Unconditional and enthusiastic support of Israel, then, is a proxy for support of those financial interests, hence the visits, deference, etc. This backed up by the very real threat of a handful of powerful lobbying groups that will and have coordinated to redirect funding to opponents of anyone they deem insufficiently deferential.
Recall please Grover Norquist. In the 90s and 2000s he leveraged proximity with the post-Reagan new conservative wave to grow a relatively modest org, Americans for Tax Reform, to a near universal policy chokehold on the Republican party.
Through a socially viral "no net new tax" promise, once Norquist secured pledges from party leaders, essentially all federal elected Republicans had to pledge as well. They were otherwise threatened with losing endorsement from Norquist and faced being ostracized and primaried. The leaders themselves were then caught in the net and none felt like they could break.
ATR influence has waned in the face of MAGA's more populist fiscal liberalism, but that was pretty much just one guy.
Extend that singular goal to a network with a narrow and aligned interest, and it can be very effectively maintained with intelligent and shifting messaging and reputation management. Consider how people like Loomer and Raichik that have emerged, not through established power brokers, but organically through social media platforms, and the significant influence they possess even in the White House.
How can you say it’s a conspiracy theory when you see tons of verified news articles with all of these Western politicians so supplicant to Israel and Israeli politicians?
What’s surprising is that this not a bigger part of the conversation.
Perhaps they have an understanding of the history of the region that goes further back than 2022, to truly understand this conflict you have to go back a couple hundred years.
If you read history and understand that Jews are persecuted and murdered in every country that is not Israel, what are they supposed to do?
Should we blame the Ottoman Empire for not industrializing earlier and losing the technology race to Europe and collapsing? After all, if the Ottoman Empire hadn’t collapsed at the end of WW I, Palestine would likely still be a Muslim territory.
That’s how far back you have to go to find a good starting point to explain how the conflict got to the point it’s at now.
> Israel is just not that powerful, economically, militarily, or socially.
Its not just funding and religious indoctrination. The very, very serious question that nobody seems to have the courage to ask, is this: where are Israels nukes?
The answer to that question might provide some insight into why things are so supplicant in certain halls of power ...
Israel wasn't created from nothing post-WW2. It was already 50 years into building a jewish state in first the Ottoman Empire and then British Palestine. Holocaust refugees, although symbolically important, were never a large portion of Israel's immigrant population.
The UN declaration was recognition of reality on the ground. And was, btw, rejected by the Arab parties and doesn't carry the force of international law. Israel declared its independence irregardless of the resolution the following year.
And Arabs owned about 8% of the land. Still more than the Jews, but nowhere near the 94% implied by omission.
In any case, go look at the malaria maps and desert areas. Notice how they match up with the areas allocated to Jews. The Jews may have gotten allocated slightly more land, but it was not fertile or desirable land.
> Israel was created as a pretty bad solution to displaced Jews post-WWII
Though housing displaced Jews is undoubtedly a part of it, presenting that as the main or only reason for the existence of the state of Israel is quite disingenuous. Jerusalem had been Jewish majority for a century before the state of Israel was founded, decades before the British ever stepped foot in the Holy Land. Generally, when a state represents its inhabitants that is considered a proper functioning state.
There's obviously a lot more going on from a social/religious perspective, but I'm prone to thinking of large-scale shifts and trends in terms of economic incentives.