Who does or does not support Israel?

[GHook93]

There are no true allies between every country, because no 2 countries have all the same views, goals, wants, needs and objectives. US and Israel aren't different. But to say we AMERICA has no allies in the Muslim world is absurd! I would say we have allies in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq (because they are stabilized!), Pakistan (look what they are doing to woop Al Qaeda), Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia (we have had good relations for a while), UAE, Kuwait and Qatar.

Second, we DON'T own Iraq. Never have and never will!

I disagree.

The ONLY ally in the mid-east is not Israel

We own Iraq.

the only way to really know if iraq is a US ally, is its behvior after american troops leave the country.

besides, i didn't mean to say that Israel is the only regional partner in the mid-east (egypt, for example is also one), but that Israel is the main US ally in the area, and the only one where the US realtions are seen in a positive light.

There are few "allies" of the USA where the alliance is completely seen in a completely "positive light," including Israel.

However, I'd agree that the US could be viewed in a "more positive light" in the Mid-East.

The first step towards this would be making Israel's military defense and economic aid less of a US priority.

Much has been invested in Iraq.

I favor shifting US resources going to Israel to go to Iraq to maintain that investment.

 

[Winston Smith]

I disagree.

The ONLY ally in the mid-east is not Israel

We own Iraq.

the only way to really know if iraq is a US ally, is its behvior after american troops leave the country.

besides, i didn't mean to say that Israel is the only regional partner in the mid-east (egypt, for example is also one), but that Israel is the main US ally in the area, and the only one where the US realtions are seen in a positive light.

There are few "allies" of the USA where the alliance is completely seen in a completely "positive light," including Israel.

However, I'd agree that the US could be viewed in a "more positive light" in the Mid-East.

The first step towards this would be making Israel's military defense and economic aid less of a US priority.

Much has been invested in Iraq.

I favor shifting US resources going to Israel to go to Iraq to maintain that investment.

Do you really think investing more money in iraq will make iraqis see the US in a poitive light?

 

[Samson]

There are no true allies between every country, because no 2 countries have all the same views, goals, wants, needs and objectives. US and Israel aren't different. But to say we AMERICA has no allies in the Muslim world is absurd! I would say we have allies in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq (because they are stabilized!), Pakistan (look what they are doing to woop Al Qaeda), Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia (we have had good relations for a while), UAE, Kuwait and Qatar.

Second, we DON'T own Iraq. Never have and never will!

I agree, and would add Turkey to the list.

Would you rather I said we have a "Long-term Lease" on Iraq?

The USA has never invaded another country without staying....INDEFINATELY, with the possible exception of Canada in the War of 1812.

 

[Samson]

the only way to really know if iraq is a US ally, is its behvior after american troops leave the country.

besides, i didn't mean to say that Israel is the only regional partner in the mid-east (egypt, for example is also one), but that Israel is the main US ally in the area, and the only one where the US realtions are seen in a positive light.

There are few "allies" of the USA where the alliance is completely seen in a completely "positive light," including Israel.

However, I'd agree that the US could be viewed in a "more positive light" in the Mid-East.

The first step towards this would be making Israel's military defense and economic aid less of a US priority.

Much has been invested in Iraq.

I favor shifting US resources going to Israel to go to Iraq to maintain that investment.

Do you really think investing more money in iraq will make iraqis see the US in a poitive light?

I think investing less money in Israel will make all countries see the US in a more positive light. Even France.

Frankly, I'd rather not invest anything in either nation, but I suppose we need to appease those who feel the USA "needs a ME presence" to maintain a "super-power status."

 

[Winston Smith]

There are no true allies between every country, because no 2 countries have all the same views, goals, wants, needs and objectives. US and Israel aren't different. But to say we AMERICA has no allies in the Muslim world is absurd! I would say we have allies in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq (because they are stabilized!), Pakistan (look what they are doing to woop Al Qaeda), Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia (we have had good relations for a while), UAE, Kuwait and Qatar.

I don't think complete agreement in the fields you mentioned is a barometer for "true allies". a common basis of principle and moral, even if not completely overlapping, can also create true allies, even when the goals of both countries are not completely similar. i think the US-Israel or the US-UK relations are a good example of that, don't you? another barometer (in my opinion) is popular support, meaning how the ally countries are percieved by the populations of the respective countries, beyond the cost-gain consideration of the moment. in that respect, the US has no better friend ad ally than israel in the middle east.

 

[JWBooth]

There are no true allies between every country, because no 2 countries have all the same views, goals, wants, needs and objectives. US and Israel aren't different. But to say we AMERICA has no allies in the Muslim world is absurd! I would say we have allies in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq (because they are stabilized!), Pakistan (look what they are doing to woop Al Qaeda), Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia (we have had good relations for a while), UAE, Kuwait and Qatar.

Second, we DON'T own Iraq. Never have and never will!

I agree, and would add Turkey to the list.

Would you rather I said we have a "Long-term Lease" on Iraq?

The USA has never invaded another country without staying....INDEFINATELY, with the possible exception of Canada in the War of 1812.

Well....there was that little incursion in Murmansk/Arkhangelsk in 1918...that said, I agree with your overall p.o.v.

 

[Samson]

There are no true allies between every country, because no 2 countries have all the same views, goals, wants, needs and objectives. US and Israel aren't different. But to say we AMERICA has no allies in the Muslim world is absurd! I would say we have allies in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq (because they are stabilized!), Pakistan (look what they are doing to woop Al Qaeda), Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia (we have had good relations for a while), UAE, Kuwait and Qatar.

Second, we DON'T own Iraq. Never have and never will!

I agree, and would add Turkey to the list.

Would you rather I said we have a "Long-term Lease" on Iraq?

The USA has never invaded another country without staying....INDEFINATELY, with the possible exception of Canada in the War of 1812.

Well....there was that little incursion in Murmansk/Arkhangelsk in 1918...that said, I agree with your overall p.o.v.

Murmansk/Arkhangelsk didn't have any oil or hawt wimmin.

Canada really isn't outside the USA.

 

[maineman]

I disagree.

The ONLY ally in the mid-east is not Israel

We own Iraq.

as long as we have an occupying army within their borders, I suppose you can call Iraq an "ally"...but as soon as our combat troops depart, Iraq will be a MUCH closer ally to Iran than to us. without a doubt

Opinion, based on..........?

History Disagrees: The USA has never invaded and occupied another nation without them becomming our ally.

Key phrase here is "as soon as our combat troop depart."

based upon? my experience in the region and my years of study of the people who live there.

And as long as our combat troops occupy their nation against the wishes of the people there, the term "ally" will be disingenuous.

The shi'ite leadership of Iraq has much closer ties to Iran than it does to America. The shi'ite majority population of Iraq has a MUCH stronger affinity to their shi'ite brethren in Iran than it does to the infidel invader/occupiers from America.

Clearly, until our troops actually leave, any suggestion as to how Iraq will align itself in the world will only be conjecture, but I happen to believe my opinion is closer to reality than yours in this case.

 

[maineman]

The USA has never invaded another country without staying....INDEFINATELY, with the possible exception of Canada in the War of 1812.

I disagree.

France... invaded in June 1944.

 

[Samson]

The USA has never invaded another country without staying....INDEFINATELY, with the possible exception of Canada in the War of 1812.

I disagree.

France... invaded in June 1944.

Debateable, but I'll give it to you it light of the overwhelming number of examples to the contrary.

 

[Samson]

as long as we have an occupying army within their borders, I suppose you can call Iraq an "ally"...but as soon as our combat troops depart, Iraq will be a MUCH closer ally to Iran than to us. without a doubt

Opinion, based on..........?

History Disagrees: The USA has never invaded and occupied another nation without them becomming our ally.

Key phrase here is "as soon as our combat troop depart."

based upon? my experience in the region and my years of study of the people who live there.

And as long as our combat troops occupy their nation against the wishes of the people there, the term "ally" will be disingenuous.

The shi'ite leadership of Iraq has much closer ties to Iran than it does to America. The shi'ite majority population of Iraq has a MUCH stronger affinity to their shi'ite brethren in Iran than it does to the infidel invader/occupiers from America.

Clearly, until our troops actually leave, any suggestion as to how Iraq will align itself in the world will only be conjecture, but I happen to believe my opinion is closer to reality than yours in this case.

"Against the wishes of the people there?"

I wasn't aware the Iraqis had held a referendum about US occupation.

If not, you could just as easily say US combat troops occupy Guam (Japan), Germany, Italy, and Korea, all of which would be "disingenuous" allies of the USA. I suppose S. Vietnam was a disingenuos ally? I guess Great Britian was a disingenuous ally?

Or, Do ALL Japanese, Germans, Italians, Koreans welcome US military presence?

It is beyond imagination to conceive that the US has occupied Iraq for almost a decade, and that afterward it will be the exception to the rule.

 

[maineman]

"Against the wishes of the people there?"

I wasn't aware the Iraqis had held a referendum about US occupation.

If not, you could just as easily say US combat troops occupy Guam (Japan), Germany, Italy, and Korea, all of which would be "disingenuous" allies of the USA. I suppose S. Vietnam was a disingenuos ally? I guess Great Britian was a disingenuous ally?

Or, Do ALL Japanese, Germans, Italians, Koreans welcome US military presence?

It is beyond imagination to conceive that the US has occupied Iraq for almost a decade, and that afterward it will be the exception to the rule.

then you have no imagination. If you think that Iraq will remain closer to US diplomatically than it will become with Iran upon the departure of our conquering/occupying army, you not only have no imagination, you have no common sense.

 

[ekrem]

then you have no imagination. If you think that Iraq will remain closer to US diplomatically than it will become with Iran upon the departure of our conquering/occupying army, you not only have no imagination, you have no common sense.

In Iraq, just like in almost every countries around, there is no middle-class that serves as an ensureing factor for sustainable democracy.
The type of democracy Iraq will be is just a show democracy on election days.
There does not exist a civil society that influences the course of the country.

The USA redeploys, somehow Iraq will get emancipated, so the leadership of Iraq will try to find its place within the regional net of diplomacy.
Thereby it will align with a neighbouring country because the conflicting interests in the area are too heavy for Iraq to juggle on its own.

 

[ekrem]

The US has never become involved in a conflict because of its alliance with Israel and there is no likelihood it will in the future. The US did become involved in two horrendous wars because of its alliances with the UK, France, etc. that cost us huge amounts of money and over 400,000 American lives and the US did become involved in a bloody conflict in Iraq because of its alliances with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars so far with no end in sight and has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers. The US alliance with South Korea has cost tens of thousands of American lives and along with our alliance with Japan may yet involve us in a nuclear exchange with North Korea and perhaps a conflict with China. While the Soviet Union has collapsed, our commitment to defend our western European allies and our allies in eastern Europe may yet involve us in a conflict with a resurgent and increasingly aggressive Russia with potentially horrendous consequences.

By contrast, the US alliance with Israel is low maintenance. The US has never had to fight in any of Israel's conflicts; in fact, by twice defeating Soviet client states in Egypt and Syria, Israel relieved the US of the necessity of having to insert troops in the ME to prevent a Soviet advance towards the Gulf, and these Israeli victories set the stage for the US to lock Soviet influence out of the ME from North Africa to the Gulf with the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. No other US ally made as great a contribution to the US winning the Cold War as Israel did. In fact, by stopping the Soviet advance towards the Gulf, Israel arguably made a greater contribution to the sovereignty, safety and independence of Jordan and the Gulf nations than any other country in the world other than the US.

But you're saying, even if Israel was an enormously important ally before the collapse of the USSR, is there any reason why we shouldn't dump them now that the Cold War seems to be over? Indeed, we could ask the same question about nearly all of our allies. Why should we risk even a non military conflict with China over Taiwan? Why should we risk the lives of American soldiers, and perhaps American civilians and cities, to protect South Korea? And why take this risk to protect Japan? Surely, Japan is rich enough and technologically advanced enough to protect themselves against North Korea and maybe even China without putting US lives at risk. And the same is true of our commitment to defend westarn and eastern European allies; surely the western Europeans are rich enough and technologically advanced enough to be able to provide for their own defense without enormous US expenditures for deployments of men and material and the risk to American lives it entails. And the list goes on and on.

I won't try to justify all of these alliances that not only cost us lots of money but put American lives at risk also, but in the case of our alliance with Israel, we get a clear and important benefit, and we get it at a bargain price - no US lives put at risk and mo massive deployments of men or material. What we get in return for our annual military aid to Israel - which costs us much less than our deployments in South Korea or elsewhere in the Pacific and much, much less than our deployments in Europe in support of those allies - is stability in the ME where the US has vital interests, the Suez Canal in the west and the Gulf oil fields in the east.

While it may sound strange, our alliance with Israel and the alliance with Egypt it led to are the principal stabilizing forces in the ME. The ME strategy Jimmy Carter committed us to in the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is that the US will provide sufficient military aid to each country so that beyond their needs to defend themselves against other potential adversaries, each would be so powerful when compared to the other that neither would have to fear attack from the other, and in a part of the world where so many radical destabilizing forces are barely held in check, this strategy has worked almost perfectly in keeping the peace and relieved the US from the necessity of having to deploy troops to protect its vital interests in the area.

The kind of stability you are talking of is stability for Israel to uphold status-quo.
Israel by itself is no stabilizing force in the Middle-East. The Opposite.
Israel is contained within a small strip of Levantine, if it breaks out, it exports instability as it breaks out militarily due to complete lack of soft-power to influence neighbouring socities.
Israeli actions like invading Lebanon or Gaza do not serve stability, but radicalize the region. No matter what you say, this is true and also has effect on US image.

 

[Winston Smith]

The kind of stability you are talking of is stability for Israel to uphold status-quo.
Israel by itself is no stabilizing force in the Middle-East. The Opposite.
Israel is contained within a small strip of Levantine, if it breaks out, it exports instability as it breaks out militarily due to complete lack of soft-power to influence neighbouring socities.
Israeli actions like invading Lebanon or Gaza do not serve stability, but radicalize the region. No matter what you say, this is true and also has effect on US image.

Israel's obligation is first and foremost to its own citizens, and both operation cast lead and the 2006 Lebanon war were attempts to achieve deterrence and retrieve kidanpped soldiers. while the latter failed objective did not succeed, the fact is the 3 years after the war the northern front is quiet (for now at least) and rocket fire from gaza has dropped about 70% after operation cast lead.

Another reason i believe israel is a stabiliyzing force in the region is its existence, which has given arab nations from all over the reason a "common enemy" and prevent them frow warring among themselves, like they have done for centuries beofre 1948 (i am, of course, speaking not only about modern nation-states, but about the the different faiths within islam as well). even the governments that have signed agreements with israel still encourage their population to see israel as an enemy. this allows the arab world to focus on israel and get past their internal divisions. i throughly believe that if israel was not established in 1948 the mid-east would have been a far more volatile region than it is today.

 

[Samson]

"Against the wishes of the people there?"

I wasn't aware the Iraqis had held a referendum about US occupation.

If not, you could just as easily say US combat troops occupy Guam (Japan), Germany, Italy, and Korea, all of which would be "disingenuous" allies of the USA. I suppose S. Vietnam was a disingenuos ally? I guess Great Britian was a disingenuous ally?

Or, Do ALL Japanese, Germans, Italians, Koreans welcome US military presence?

It is beyond imagination to conceive that the US has occupied Iraq for almost a decade, and that afterward it will be the exception to the rule.

then you have no imagination. If you think that Iraq will remain closer to US diplomatically than it will become with Iran upon the departure of our conquering/occupying army, you not only have no imagination, you have no common sense.

I'm certainly not surprised you'd think so, having nothing to support your fantastic prediction but the rather ludirous example of "Fance."

On the other hand, I've presented numerous examples of countries that the US has invaded and later became US allies to contradict you.

Why don't you start a thread about your theory? There you might be able to attract others that share your rather vivid imagination.

Title: Future of Iraq 3000 AD.

 

[Samson]

The kind of stability you are talking of is stability for Israel to uphold status-quo.
Israel by itself is no stabilizing force in the Middle-East. The Opposite.
Israel is contained within a small strip of Levantine, if it breaks out, it exports instability as it breaks out militarily due to complete lack of soft-power to influence neighbouring socities.
Israeli actions like invading Lebanon or Gaza do not serve stability, but radicalize the region. No matter what you say, this is true and also has effect on US image.

Israel's obligation is first and foremost to its own citizens, and both operation cast lead and the 2006 Lebanon war were attempts to achieve deterrence and retrieve kidanpped soldiers. while the latter failed objective did not succeed, the fact is the 3 years after the war the northern front is quiet (for now at least) and rocket fire from gaza has dropped about 70% after operation cast lead.

Another reason i believe israel is a stabiliyzing force in the region is its existence, which has given arab nations from all over the reason a "common enemy" and prevent them frow warring among themselves, like they have done for centuries beofre 1948 (i am, of course, speaking not only about modern nation-states, but about the the different faiths within islam as well). even the governments that have signed agreements with israel still encourage their population to see israel as an enemy. this allows the arab world to focus on israel and get past their internal divisions. i throughly believe that if israel was not established in 1948 the mid-east would have been a far more volatile region than it is today.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the US should ally itself with Israel because this would make the US as much a regional scape-goat in the region, and that the region benefits from having a scape goat.

And we wonder why there is in peace in the ME.

I wonder why the US doesn't export this diplomatic model worldwide: We could ally ourselves with the most despised of African Nations!! The USA could begin sending more economic aid the the most hated of South American Countries!!

 

[Winston Smith]

The kind of stability you are talking of is stability for Israel to uphold status-quo.
Israel by itself is no stabilizing force in the Middle-East. The Opposite.
Israel is contained within a small strip of Levantine, if it breaks out, it exports instability as it breaks out militarily due to complete lack of soft-power to influence neighbouring socities.
Israeli actions like invading Lebanon or Gaza do not serve stability, but radicalize the region. No matter what you say, this is true and also has effect on US image.

Israel's obligation is first and foremost to its own citizens, and both operation cast lead and the 2006 Lebanon war were attempts to achieve deterrence and retrieve kidanpped soldiers. while the latter failed objective did not succeed, the fact is the 3 years after the war the northern front is quiet (for now at least) and rocket fire from gaza has dropped about 70% after operation cast lead.

Another reason i believe israel is a stabiliyzing force in the region is its existence, which has given arab nations from all over the reason a "common enemy" and prevent them frow warring among themselves, like they have done for centuries beofre 1948 (i am, of course, speaking not only about modern nation-states, but about the the different faiths within islam as well). even the governments that have signed agreements with israel still encourage their population to see israel as an enemy. this allows the arab world to focus on israel and get past their internal divisions. i throughly believe that if israel was not established in 1948 the mid-east would have been a far more volatile region than it is today.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the US should ally itself with Israel because this would make the US as much a regional scape-goat in the region, and that the region benefits from having a scape goat.

And we wonder why there is in peace in the ME.

I wonder why the US doesn't export this diplomatic model worldwide: We could ally ourselves with the most despised of African Nations!! The USA could begin sending more economic aid the the most hated of South American Countries!!

No that wasn't what is was saying that the US should support Israel because it would make the US a regional scape goat. . I was saying that regardless of of US backing, Israel is the scape goat of the region, and it's mere presence serves as a unifying influence to the arab world by giving them a "common enemy", and is therefore a stabilizing factor. For ME nations, the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a motto to live by, and Israel (unintentionally) is that unifying enemy.

The reason why the is hated by ME countries is not its support of Israel (or at least them as not the chief "accusation"). the main reasons are their support for repressive governments such as egypt (not to mention that these are seen as heretic governments by jihadist radicals) and the presence of US forces all over the region.

 

[Samson]

Israel's obligation is first and foremost to its own citizens, and both operation cast lead and the 2006 Lebanon war were attempts to achieve deterrence and retrieve kidanpped soldiers. while the latter failed objective did not succeed, the fact is the 3 years after the war the northern front is quiet (for now at least) and rocket fire from gaza has dropped about 70% after operation cast lead.

Another reason i believe israel is a stabiliyzing force in the region is its existence, which has given arab nations from all over the reason a "common enemy" and prevent them frow warring among themselves, like they have done for centuries beofre 1948 (i am, of course, speaking not only about modern nation-states, but about the the different faiths within islam as well). even the governments that have signed agreements with israel still encourage their population to see israel as an enemy. this allows the arab world to focus on israel and get past their internal divisions. i throughly believe that if israel was not established in 1948 the mid-east would have been a far more volatile region than it is today.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the US should ally itself with Israel because this would make the US as much a regional scape-goat in the region, and that the region benefits from having a scape goat.

And we wonder why there is in peace in the ME.

I wonder why the US doesn't export this diplomatic model worldwide: We could ally ourselves with the most despised of African Nations!! The USA could begin sending more economic aid the the most hated of South American Countries!!

No that wasn't what is was saying that the US should support Israel because it would make the US a regional scape goat. . .

So you're saying the US should support Israel ...........because the region needs a scapegoat.

You realise that the USA becomes a scapegoat too, right?

I'm still trying to grasp why the USA would want to become a scapegoat for the region? How does this benefit the USA?

 

[Winston Smith]

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the US should ally itself with Israel because this would make the US as much a regional scape-goat in the region, and that the region benefits from having a scape goat.

And we wonder why there is in peace in the ME.

I wonder why the US doesn't export this diplomatic model worldwide: We could ally ourselves with the most despised of African Nations!! The USA could begin sending more economic aid the the most hated of South American Countries!!

No that wasn't what is was saying that the US should support Israel because it would make the US a regional scape goat. . .

So you're saying the US should support Israel ...........because the region needs a scapegoat.

You realise that the USA becomes a scapegoat too, right?

I'm still trying to grasp why the USA would want to become a scapegoat for the region? How does this benefit the USA?

Also not what i was saying. If Israel is the regional scapegoat regardelss of US support, then this isn't a consideration in the relationship.

Nevertheless, if the US wants to keep its global leadership role, it needs to keep true allies in every region. in the ME, Israel is pretty much the only choice. Yes, Egypt and Jordan are also US allies, but alliances are based not only on a pure give and take calculationsm but also on on common values, cultural similarities etc. In that respect, for the US, Israel is the only viable option.