The Israeli Palestinian conflict

[Occhidiangela]

Not only no proof, but no clue.

The three most influencial lobby's in the US are the weapons industry, the oil industry and the jews (american israelis). (because of the huge wealth these three groups posses)
1st weapons industry: not only the weapons they can sell to the israelis (I know israel has a very large weapons industry itsself) but also the ones that via via arrive to the arab countrys and the palestinians.
I think most conflicts escalate under influence of the weapons industry, (but I have no proof of this of course)

You give your myopia away. Keep your conspiracy theories, let's talk a bit about the global arms industry.

The arms industry exists because there is a global market for arms. Someone is going to make a buck, be it Eurocopter or Boeing, be it Lockheed Martin's JSF, Mikoyan's MiG, or the Eurofighter.

Why?

Not everyone is singing kumbaya yet, sad but true. The other sad but true is that, to ensure that one's own needs are meetable, should war become a fact, a minimum warm base has to exist in case one needs to surge. To keep that minimum base viable, in a place where government subsidies are attacked with regularity, customers are found the world over. While it is probably not too far of a reach to suspect that war can yield profits to arms companies, that does not de facto prove that arms companies advocate war in order to earn a profit. They just want to make a buck.

I'd suggest that most arms companies the world over a are a lot like software companies: always out to sell the latest upgrade. War be damned, their sales pitch is: deterrence by being better equipped than you neighbor, and exploiting the fear of being on the end of a tech mismatch. I won't argue that such a mind set does not create the potential arms race in a lot of places. It is, however, the politician who chooses war, not the armament company. Check history on that score.

There is a certain irony involved in the relationship between arms, peace, deterence security, and political aims. Most arms companies are "dual use" companies: they manufacture both arms and other products these days. In theory, if a great deal of peace breaks out and people stop buying so many arms, some of those companies may be able to reasonably quickly set up new product lines in other market areas. Some won't.

Most of these companies sell to governments. The governments want the most potential bang for their dollar. They also, most often, would rather not have to pay for a war, but rather threaten with force. War itself is bloody expensive and costs a lot in lives and money. It generally disrupts trade, which cuts off revenue to governments. From a purely economic perspective, war is not a cost effective short term choice.

The more peace we have, the fewer arms companies can stay viable. However, there is always the threat of someone being violent, so one must be prepared. To be "better prepared" than the other guy is where most armaments companies make their upgrade/profit margin these days. The really big ticket items, like aircraft carriers and tanks, rarely get used, while the secondary markets for the cheaper stuff, small arms, RPG's, jeeps, trucks, is more like food: high usage rate, high turnover.

See Liberia. No big ticket items there, just low end, and effective, arms. I don't think anyone is supporting that war in the interest of making a buck.