Humanities desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 6

Full style of Norwegian monarchs

Does anyone know the full monarchical style of Norwegian Kings: Christian Frederick, Charles XIII of Sweden, Charles XIV John of Sweden, Oscar I of Sweden, Charles XV of Sweden, Oscar I of Sweden.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikisource, the 17 May 1814 constitution says (§3) that the monarch's title is Vi — — af Guds Naade, og efter Rigets Constitution Norges Konge. (We --, by the Grace of God, and under the Constitution of the Realm, King of Norway"). The version as amended following the union with Sweden, on 4 November 1814, omits this part of the paragraph, but it is signed by Carl den Trettende, Sveriges, Norges, Gothers og Venders Konge &c. &c. &c (Charles XIII, King of Sweden, Norway, Goths and Wends, etc. etc. etc.) Gabbe (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Norges Konge translate as King of Norway or Norway's King?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literally it's Norway's King; noun+s is the Norwegian possessive form. But remember that in English, 'the dog's toy' = 'the toy of the dog' = 'the toy belonging to the dog'. In Norwegian there's only one way to express this - you can only say 'Norway's King' and not 'the King of Norway'. You can say 'the King from Norway', but that's different. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli presidents and Israeli prime ministers by Jewish sect

Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Reform Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Conservative Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Modern Orthodox Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Hasidic Orthodox Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Haredi Orthodox Judaism? Which Prime Minister was a Reform Jew? Which Prime Minister was a Conservative? Which Prime Minister was a Modern Orthodox? Which Prime Minister was a Hasidic Orthodox? Which Prime Minister was a Haredi Orthodox?--70.29.35.29 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

You asked a similar question earlier. There have been 9 Presidents and 12 Prime Ministers of Israel (one person has served both roles). To answer any of these questions, you just select the name of each of those 20 people and read the article about each person. It will tell you the answer to every one of your questions. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been explained at least once (by me) that "Reform" and "Conservative" are branches of synagogue-based Judaism (not sects) outside of Israel. Whatever correspondence they may have with Israeli congregations and religious movements, these are not mainstream affiliations in Israel. Besides reading the Wikipedia pages on these topics, you'll find a lot of relevant information with broader coverage and more in-depth information by following the External links with which most WP pages are provided, besides searching the Web on your own. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your focus on "nine presidents" leads me to believe that somebody should point out that the president of Israel is pretty much a figurehead position with no real power, similar to the Governor-General of Canada, or even the Queen of England, minus the hereditary part and the castles and other wealth. Gzuckier (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-ashkenazi prime ministers of Israel

Were there any Prime Minister of Israel who weren't Ashkenazi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.29 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like when you asked earlier about the Presidents of Israel, Wikipedia likewise has an article titled List of Prime Ministers of Israel, of which there have been 12, which is not too many to check individually. If you checked each yourself you'd likely get an answer faster than waiting for someone else to check all twelve for you and report back what they found out. --Jayron32 03:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, every prime minister of Israel has been an Ashkenazi Jew with recent origins in the Russian Empire, Poland, or Lithuania. Six were born in those countries, and six were born to immigrants from those countries. LANTZY ^TALK 07:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that in the upcoming Israeli election, somebody hires a US consultant and ends up running a campaign accusing their opponent of being a secret Muslim. Gzuckier (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese royal family

How has Japan managed to keep the same ruling family for over 2600 years when no other country has even come close to that? --168.7.232.50 (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it comes down to what counts as "same ruling family", or other factors. After all, Queen Elizabeth II counts William the Conqueror as one of her direct ancestors, as well as most of the Anglo-Saxon kings of England. Many of the early Emperors of Japan are likely purely legendary, the first seriously considered (though not universally) to have been real was Emperor Sujin who ruled about 2000 years ago, while other sources consider Emperor Ōjin to be the earliest historical emperor at 1800 years ago, and Emperor Keitai in the 500s AD is believed to be the earliest emperor back to which we have a reliable genealogy. In reality, Japan didn't become an actual unified state with a confirmed Emperor to reign over all of it until 700 AD or so; even if earlier people listed at List of Emperors of Japan were historical figures it would be like claiming an early King of Wessex as King of England, something that they certainly weren't. The Yamato, originally one of a number of "petty" or "tribal" kingdoms in Japan eventually grew into the "Imperial Family", but prior to 700 or so didn't rule anything resembling all of the Japanese people. Also, the Imperial succession hasn't always been patrilineal nor has it always involved primogeniture; certainly all of the historical emperors have had some familial connection to a prior emperor, but there have been Empresses, and some of the Emperors have traced their decent through female lines, which in many European traditions would have marked the start of a "new dynasty". So, yes, broadly speaking the same "ruling family" has sat on the Chrysanthemum Throne for a long time, though probably not 2600 years, and definitely not much more than 1500 years or so, or 1300 years, depending on how you count it, and using a broader definition of "ruling family" or "dynastic house" than European tradition does. --Jayron32 06:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And during a Shogunate the Imperial family wasn't ruling. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was reigning. The Emperor was never actually deposed. Merely ignored. Something similar happened in the Frankish empire during the Merovingian dynasty, when the real power rested with the Mayor of the Palace. The Shoguns always paid lip service to being servants of the Emperor, even if they really did control Japanese politics during their periods of rule. --Jayron32 07:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this recent discussion. Apparently I found an instance of a medieval emperor being forced to abdicate in favour of a distant cousin, which would have been called a new dynasty in Europe. Also, the practice of adopting children into the royal line, which wouldn't have been countenanced in Europe. I'll look for references when I have more time. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 15th century Emperor Go-Kameyama was succeeded by his "his fourth cousin twice removed", Emperor Go-Komatsu. The Emperor Shōkō was suceeded by his third cousin, Emperor Go-Hanazono. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would not have been considered a new dynasty because the new emperor and the previous emperor were agnates (sharing the same patrilineal descent). When a European king was deposed by his brother, uncle or other patrilineal relative, as has happened several times, this wasn't seen as a start of a new dynasty because both men belonged to the same royal house. Emperors only adopted children of their male patrilineal relatives (i.e. children who were themselves biologically descended from previous emperors in male line). The purpose of the adoption was to settle the succession on a certain prince. This too has happened in Europe as well; Maria Christina, Duchess of Teschen, adopted a fraternal nephew who succeeded her as Duke of Teschen, which wasn't seen as a change of dynasties becuase Maria Christina and her nephew shared patrilineal descent. I'm sure there were examples of adoptions of much more distant patrilineal relatives but I can't think of any right now. Anyway, the male line has not been broken so far (i.e. the same royal houses has been ruling for centuries), which is why there's all the fuss about future succession. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. In many European countries, a new "house" is often started whenever there is a disputed succession or distant succession, even if the new claimant descends purely patrilinieally. Consider that, in common usage the House of Valois and House of Bourbon are considered distinct French dynasties, though all French Kings descend patrilineally from Hugh Capet, and are thus Capetians. However, Hugh Capet is himself descended patrilineally from Odo of France, who is usually considered to be from a different dynasty, the Robertians. So was, say, Louis XIV a Bourbon, a Capetian, or a Robertian? And what to make of modern Bourbons? Is it correct to say that Juan Carlos I of Spain is a Capetian? Is he a Robertian? Eh... maybe. A similar situation existed in England between the houses of Plantagenet, York, and Lancaster: all patrilineally descended from Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. --Jayron32 14:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such new house is always regarded as part of the "old" house; a branch. The Houses of Valois and Bourbon are considered distinct yet parts of the same royal house (House of Capet). A member of the former could not be a member of the latter and vice versa, but members of both houses were also members of the House of Capet. However, all Capetians (including the Valois and the Bourbons) were also Robertians. Louis XIV was all of those things - a Bourbon, a Capetian and a Robertian. Louis XVI was famously referred to as a Capet during the revolution. Yes, it would be correct to say that Juan Carlos I and Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg are Capetians... and Robertians. The English example is also good; Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, was a member of the House of York and, obviously, a member of the House of Plantagenet. Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is 100% totally and completely my entire point. The distinctions and differences are arbitrary and not based on any "rules", neither in Europe nor in Japan. We're all part of the "dynasty" of some 200,000 year old clan chieftain from East Africa, and everything else is an ad-hoc justification for why some people had rights to power and others did not. --Jayron32 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as odd that the Spanish Capetians are "Bourbon" rather than "Anjou" (being founded by a duke of Anjou, the younger grandson of Louis XIV, the third Bourbon king of France), while the descendants of Louis XIV's brother are "Orléans". —Tamfang (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably because Philip disclaimed the title and because that there have been several royal houses known as House of Anjou. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No more odd than the polite fiction that the ruling houses of England, Russia, Belgium, Portugal, and I don't know where else aren't/weren't all German. Gzuckier (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

168.7.232.50 -- The Chinese have historically had a much more pragmatic attitude. The Japanese theoretical dynastic reverence has been facilitated by Japan's semi-isolation (its main islands were never successfully invaded from outside in historic times), but has meant that there have been many centuries of powerless Japanese emperors manipulated by warlords or shoguns... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Succession has always been patrilineal. Empresses regnant were always succeeded by their fraternal nephews, patrilineal relatives, etc. That's what the OP meant by referring to the succession within the same family. My answer would be a) the enormous number of children (sons) most emperors had (thanks to a large number of concubines), b) various factors which prevented outsiders from invading Japan and deposing the monarch. Surtsicna (talk)

Also the spiritual or ceremonial role the emperor played and the lack of a concept of similar to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven that prevented powers from within like the shoguns to depose them.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, it was not unknown for Japanese emperors to be persuaded / coerced / forced to abdicate by those who held temporal power; an example is Emperor Chōkei who gave up his throne in an effort by his courtiers to unify the Northen and Southern Courts. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of the world

Hey geniuses, when is the exact day of ~~Armageddon~~ the end of the world? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, rephrase. See above. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Sun#Life cycle. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and theories about the end of the universe. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, various nutcases throughout history have been predicting "The End is Nigh". The relevant articles might be Eschatology and Apocalypticism. Astronaut (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. - Lindert (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News says it was Nov. 6, 2012. Gzuckier (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric question

If someone tells his psychiatrist that he plans to embark on a murderous rampage, will the psychiatrist warn the authorities?. It's not me nor anybody I know, just to let you know, it's just a question. Netwwork (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the articles Duty to warn and Duty to protect. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look also Professional_secrecy#Medical_confidentiality which allows the psychiatrist to cover his back. Comploose (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...with numerous exceptions, like those listed above. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election question

Where did Paul Ryan cast his vote? Netwwork (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He voted at the Hedberg Public Library in Janesville, Wisconsin. [1] Marco polo (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fittingly, he used the booth on the far right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forex trading

Where do serious professionals go for exchanging currency? Why something so essential as currency is not traded on a kind of official exchange? It looks like any online forex platform is a scam of some sort. I suppose there is a non-free gateway somewhere that won't try to scam you. Comploose (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always buy your currency at your bank. There area also multiple currencies account, which offer no leverage, but are as secure as a current account. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's decentralized. See Foreign exchange market. Tarcil (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have a cool-off period before elections?

Don't you have a cool-off period before elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.78.54.110 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After what, for what group of people, and in what country? (I have considerable professional experience in election preparations - but only from the UK perspective, so it would be good to clarify.) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean an Election silence, and that, given today's fun and games you're interested in the US. Our article says that polling can be limited in the vicinity of the polling stations, but any further restrictions would be a limit on free speech. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

opinions devoid of relevant facts

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The United States is a federation of sovereign states governed by a constitution which includes an explicit guarantee of free speech. Why is this so effing difficult? Why must Americans always be the victims of provincial foreignors who think their customs are universal precepts? This incessant xenocentrism could drive one to chew khat. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You rant is out of place. The OP just asked a question, he didn't say it should be like that. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a "rant". It was an imitation of a rant. It was funny. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was that just ironic? Medeis is kind of bitchy lately, I wouldn't be surprised if she meant it seriously. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way the question was asked suggests that the OP believes there is a mandated blackout, and is, not surprisingly, surprised it's not being observed. That's what's called a false premise. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling-off periods are normally after the transaction, not before. What fun we'd have with another fortnight of suspense if users had the opportunity to withdraw their votes... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries have a cessation of campaigning before an election, presumably to,allow voters to collect their thoughts calmly. Not the US (or the UK). Seems like a good idea to me. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're talking about the same election silence that was linked above, Judith. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry. At least I wasn't wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marotiri

Who owned the island of Marotiri prior to French annexation? Was it Kingdom of Tahiti or the neighboring Kingdom of Rapa?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems entirely plausible that "a group of four uninhabited volcanic rocks protruding from the sea" wouldn't've been claimed by either. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think every piece of rock in the Pacific was claimed by one nation or the other during the 1800s. Like the guano islands for the US. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tubuai and Raivavae

How did the islands of Tubuai and Raivavae became Tahitian territory in 1824 [2]?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This says Tahitian sovereignty was established when Pomare II visited the islands in 1819.--Cam (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many children of the American Civil War veterans are still alive?

Thanks for your answer! Netwwork (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, we just answered this question about 4 weeks ago. Here is a link to the answer provided then. There appears to be a website which lists every known living child of Union veterans here, but there is not a similar source (as far as I could find when I answered it then) for Confederate veterans. --Jayron32 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source!. But it fails to answer my question on how many are still alive since there's no record for Confederate veterans' children. Netwwork (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing. I did a search when answering the previous question and couldn't find any definitive count or list of confederate veterans: even the union list is likely incomplete as it lists only known and confirmed children of Union veterans, without claiming to be the full list of every such child still alive. It may be impossible to get a completely accurate count; though one could do a very rough estimate, given that 2/3rds of all soldiers were Union soldiers, and about 1/3rd were confederate, you could take the total number from the list I gave you and multiply it by 1.5 to get a ballpark estimate for all such people likely to be alive today. --Jayron32 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Can someone summarize for me the gist of this article? I can't seem to find the purpose of creating a Jewish state anyway. Why does the United States want to support Israel anyway? What's so special about Israel? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is a democracy, to start, just like the United States. As that article says "Israeli attitudes toward the U.S. are largely positive. In several ways of measuring a country's view of America (American ideas about democracy; ways of doing business; music, movies and television; science and technology; spread of U.S. ideas), Israel came on top as the developed country who viewed it most positively." I'd say there is mutual respect between the countries. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) There's no really short answer to that question. Some key points, though: what is now Israel and Palestine was previously the British Mandate of Palestine, a post-Ottoman protectorate operated by America's ally the UK. The UK had promised to help the Jews set up a state, and had failed to follow through. At the end of WW2, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Jews were homeless in central and eastern Europe. Despite the defeat of the Nazis, it was still not safe for them to go home - there were anti-semitic murders in Poland after liberation, for example, and the shtetls had been more or less wiped out. Stalin wanted Jews to go and live in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, which is basically a small scrap of Siberia on the border with China. The displaced persons, as the refugees were known, were encouraged by activists to move to Palestine, to bolster the Jewish statehood movement (Zionism) there. Britain relinquished control of Palestine after incidents like the King David Hotel bombing, and America, as a British ally with a relatively high Jewish population, had an interest in stabilising it. There's also a bunch of Cold War era stuff, but I'm less clear on that. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, the idea of creating a state for people of a Jewish ethnicity came about because there were many people who didn't want them living anywhere else. One of the principles of the twentieth century was the concept of the nation-state as well as Self-determination. Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, as one example, is rife with the philosophy that a people of a shared cultural heritage (a nation) should have the right to a state of their own. Israel is but one example of a state created under that principle during the 20th century. There were many others. --Jayron32 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, wouldn't it be so much easier to establish a large Jewish community in the United States? The Jews would get their religious freedom, and the United States wouldn't have to pay so much money to stabilize a separate country. Religious persecution in the United States is after all a violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution. 140.254.226.201 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The country of Israel is not just a solution to a political problem. Israel was contemplated by Theodore Herzl, for instance, long before the inception of that political entity in 1949. Zionism preceded the creation of the Israeli state. The country that the US has present good relations with, Israel, has a genesis separate from the support that the US has lent to Israel since 1949. Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the state of Israel wasn't created to give a place for people to practice the Jewish faith, it was created to give a homeland for the Jewish people. Different concepts entirely. After all, the Russian people and the French people and the Swedish people all have their own homelands. Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. --Jayron32 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That last statement is only true if you define "Russian people" to mean "people currently living in Russia", and similarly for France, Sweden, and Israel. Otherwise, there is no definition you can create for an ethnicity, let's say the French, without excluding a substantial portion of the French population and including plenty of people who don't live in France. This is especially true for Russia, which was a small fraction of its current size only 200 years ago, and only expanded via military conquests. Even today, after centuries of religious persecutions, population transfers, and outright genocides, Russia is still a multicultural empire. Your own article on Who is a Jew? indicates that there's no widely agreed-upon definition, and the existing definitions seem made up to suit political or religious biases rather than reflecting objective reality. (Example: Jewishness passes through the mother only? Really? Since when has that been true either culturally or biologically?) --140.180.252.244 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I can only say what Golda Meir once said: "If the Arabs loved their sons more than they hate us, there would be no war" Israel has the right to exist. It would be nice to know your nationality. Netwwork (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions in order: 1) The purpose of creating a Jewish state is pretty well explained in our Zionism article. Jews faced serious oppression in many countries where they lived. Many sought a homeland where they would have self-determination and freedom from depression. This aim was even more urgent after the experience of the Holocaust. 2) Nations don't have desires, so the United States doesn't want to support Israel. The United States government supports Israel because interest groups within the United States that support Israel are stronger politically than interest groups that oppose Israel. As to why that is, please see Israel-United States relations and Israel lobby in the United States. 3) Every country is unique, so Israel is special, but no more so, objectively, than any other country. Marco polo (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably "freedom from depression" is meant to be "freedom from oppression", unless you're doing a Zoloft ad. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Israel is a center for production of generic drugs, including antidepressants.... Gzuckier (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is fairly unique in being recently founded by religious/ethnic pilgrims. This hasn't happened much in the last century. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for the sake of argument, bending over backwards to take the cynical real-politik slant on why the US supports Israel, a large screed: While the US originally 'supported' Israel in the sense of voting for the resolution which created it in the UN (which also created Palestine at the same time, mind you) it didn't support Israel in the sense people take for granted today until the Suez Crisis. Prior to that, Israel's military aid and hardware came from France and Britain (Mirage jet fighters, etc.). American Jews were of course interested in Israel thriving but they didn't have enough clout to be more than a fringe group, politically. The bulk of the US public was vaguely and passively in favor of Israel in that they were a Westernized European style country that vaguely resembled the US more so than the swarthy mysterious foreigners who inhabited the other Middle East countries governed by sheiks riding camels in movies, and besides that nice guy who ran the store had a cousin who lived in Israel, but Americans didn't know anybody related to any Arabs. US Middle East policy was totally determined by the oil companies. The US was at that point not resented by the Arabs as a colonial power the way the European states were, since it had not actually colonized the Middle East the way Europe had, so it could do the financial exploitation thing under the radar.

The Suez Crisis was kind of a turning point; the US saw a rise of panArabism, Nasser making an effort to get the Middle East and its oil riches out from under the US and Europe's control, and the rise of quasi-socialist regimes under Nasser and others reaching out to the Soviet Union and China. Seeing Israel's military success against Egypt, which was considered the military powerhouse in the region, all this together ended up with the US basically hiring Israel away from Britain and France to be their front-line outpost in an increasingly unfriendly oil-producing area of the world for purposes of intelligence and speedy local force projection, representing the US team in the live-ammo war games the US and the Soviet Union were continually playing to establish military parity for purposes of MAD through the proxies of Israel and the Arab states so as to avoid the risk of accidentally stumbling into nuclear Armageddon as they would if they directly went mano a mano; and, last but definitely not least, serving as a conduit for even more US government funds to flow into the coffers of the infamous US military-industrial establishment under the heading of "Foreign Aid", rather than "Military Expenditures". At this point the media of course took up the case of our noble, brave, tiny, beleaguered yet mighty progressive friend holding off the savage heathen hordes of feudalism and socialism, David vs Goliath, etc. and by, say 1960, support for Israel was a common factor for almost every American as much as support for Europe would be. And of course, today few remember when it was otherwise, and in the absence of a current Soviet threat can't conceive and/or admit that the US would ever be so cold-blooded (that history certainly isn't going to sell newspapers and TV ads) so instead we suddenly awaken from this mysterious spell cast by the tiny but all-powerful Israel Lobby, which somehow overruled the progressive and cuddly oil and military industries who wished nothing but self-determination, peace, and democracy in the OPEC nations. And presumably the Israel Lobby is also responsible for the other unsavory foreign policies of the US, including but not limited to the Cold War, the blockade of Cuba, the Vietnam War, the Contras, Reagan supporting Saddam Hussein's rule of terror, the various Bushes destroying Saddam Hussein's reigh of terror and the rest of Iraq, and the near extinction of the Native American people and culture. Gzuckier (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affidavit without a lawyer

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

--Jayron32 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]