[erulabs]

To be an Empire, wouldn't Israel need to defacto control _some territory_ and then be trying to expand their empire into Palestine? Or is the idea that the US is the Empire?

There is another `anti-` that I would use here instead.

[dragonwriter]

> To be an Empire, wouldn't Israel need to defacto control _some territory_ and then be trying to expand their empire into Palestine?

To be an Empire in the narrow sense they would have to have a polity that is the metropolitan power and then exert control over some external territory that is distinct from the metropole, and has different rules applied to it, either through direct administration or control of the local administration. Ignoring the disputes over what exactly the meaningful status of Gaza is, the open occupation of the West Bank would seem to qualify.

Though, yes, it is definitely true that lots of people who see Israel as a facet of imperialism hold to a view where there is a single globe-spanning Empire of which the US is the metropole and Israel is simply one of the tentacles. (These people also have elaborate arguments as to why entities that might seem to meet every aspect of the definition of Empire even more than Israel-as-metropole does, particularly modern Russia, are not imperialist powers that amount to “it's only Imperialism if it comes from the US region of North America, otherwise its just sparkling international influence.”)

[the_af]

> These people also have elaborate arguments as to why entities that might seem to meet every aspect of the definition of Empire even more than Israel-as-metropole does, particularly modern Russia, are not imperialist powers that amount to “it's only Imperialism if it comes from the US region of North America, otherwise its just sparkling international influence.

I think this last part does disservice to the rest of your argument. It's not "the same people", it's a subset. There are people capable of holding the view that all of those are examples of modern imperialism.

Also, some of us in Latin America have a reasonable justification for animosity against the US rather than against other (also imperialist) actors: we are "America's back yard" and they have been involved in toppling, undermining, threatening or supporting our governments as they see fit. The US' relative influence far outstrips all others. Russia, China, etc, while nonzero are comparatively far lesser influence factors and therefore are downplayed in our perception of the world.

[dragonwriter]

> > These people also have elaborate arguments as to why entities that might seem to meet every aspect of the definition of Empire even more than Israel-as-metropole does, particularly modern Russia, are not imperialist powers that amount to “it's only Imperialism if it comes from the US region of North America, otherwise its just sparkling international influence.

> I think this last part does disservice to the rest of your argument. It's not "the same people", it's a subset. There are people capable of holding the view that all of those are examples of modern imperialism.

I think you need to go back and reread the sentence immediately preceding the one you excerpted which provides the reference for these people, because no, the group referenced there absolutely does not include people who hold “the view that all of those are examples of modern imperialism”. For reference, that sentence is: “Though, yes, it is definitely true that lots of people who see Israel as a facet of imperialism hold to a view where there is a single globe-spanning Empire of which the US is the metropole and Israel is simply one of the tentacles.”

People who view that there are multiple imperial powers are not part of the group I am referring to in that sentence and the one you excerpted which follows it.

> Also, some of us in Latin America have a reasonable justification for animosity against the US rather than against other (also imperialist) actors

Lots of people lots of places have a reasonable justification for greater animosity toward the US, yes, but that has nothing one way or the other to do with anything I said.

[xg15]

> To be an Empire, wouldn't Israel need to defacto control _some territory_ and then be trying to expand their empire into Palestine?

They very openly do both those things in the West Bank.

Then you have the more extreme settler types talking about the biblical "Land of Israel" that would extend into modern Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

But as far as I understand it, Israel is usually not the empire itself, but a bridgehead or particularly glaring example of imperialism from the West, starting with the British Empire.

> Or is the idea that the US is the Empire?

So, yes.

It were those countries that conquered those regions from the Ottoman empire and then decided among themselves to support the project of a Jewish state, against the wishes of the existing population of the region.

[culi]

The whole reason Gaza (was) the most densely populated place on Earth was because its full of refugees that got pushed out by israel's violent expansion. Sometimes Palestinian's homes weren't even destroyed but simply kept by Israeli settlers. There's a common picture of a middle aged Palestinian in front of a house that just 30-50 years ago was there's but is now occupied by an israeli

[pcthrowaway]

anti-imperialist here refers to the American empire, which Israel is a tool of (and the U.S. serves Israel also, there is a symbiotic relationship).

> and then be trying to expand their empire into Palestine?

Not related to the above point, but this is happening in the West Bank anyway.

> There is another `anti-` that I would use here instead.

I doubt North Korea is doing this from a principled position of anti-Zionism