Debate Now Is Israel our ally or not?

[Dogmaphobe]

Let's keep in mind that this was done by the Republicans, NOT by Netanyahu. This is not about Israel being Jewish. Its about the Repub party's inability and/or refusal to legislate as well as their sworn plan to screw over the country because they don't like the president.

So, if the speaker of the house cannot invite a foreign leader to speak, who should?

Obama has certainly acted extremely disrespectfully towards Netanyaho, but why should congress follow suit with such boorish behavior just because Obama hates the Jewish state?

 

[Coyote]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

That makes no sense. We have many allies whom we support. Some of them hate each other. One example - Saudi Arabia and Israel. Treaties are negotiated in our best interest first and formost. Any country is that way. Including Israel.

 

[skye]

GOD bless Israel!~

Israel is the ONLY ally apart from Jordan and Egypt

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

 

[dilloduck]

We make treaties with anyone for the right price.

 

[skye]

Are we talking about the whole world or only about the Middle East?

 

[Coyote]

Are we talking about the whole world or only about the Middle East?

If we're talking about allies and treaties - whole world. We make treaties for our own strategic reasons.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We make treaties with anyone for the right price.

We make treaties with anyone (and about anything), as long as it's in our best interest at the time.

About the only thing that Rational Choice Theory gets entirely correct is the actions of world political actors.

 

[skye]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

Thank you.

In the ME Israel is ...or was before Obama the number One ally of the USA.

carrry on please

 

[TemplarKormac]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

That is also incorrect. The conflicts between India and Pakistan have been taking place since 1947 with only four wars between the two. That front has been relatively quiet since 1999 with a few skirmishes in the following decade. There have been more wars and conflicts between Israel and Arab countries between 1947 to present, than during any point between Pakistan and India in that time frame. I note, as far as your example is concerned, that we are engaging in conflicts of interest with India and Pakistan. Pakistan harbored a terrorist mastermind who slaughtered thousands of people on American soil. I can't find a comprehensive list on who all of our exact allies are, and the ones I do find state India as a neutral one. Pakistan instigated the Kargil War and was pressured by the US to get out of Indian Territory and back on their side of the LoC (Line of Control, a neutral zone, so to speak). That doesn't sound like the behavior of an ally.

The question here is: How can you support two allies who are enemies of each other? Is this an attempt to appear neutral? Would it not make you appear as a sympathizer to one or the other? Would it also not promote peace between the two?

One other thing, Iran is not (I repeat: IS NOT) our ally, but Israel is. India and Pakistan have little to do in comparison with this, their last major war with one another being 16 years ago. In Israel's case, you are dealing with an ally being directly threatened by an enemy in Iran, who has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

I am sitting here watching the US negotiate a flimsy nuclear deal with (from what I have read and heard) no substance whatsoever, which represents an existential threat to the Jewish State. It basically says "Don't build any more centrifuges for a decade, we won't watch you, and when your 10 years are up, you're free to do whatever you want with your nuclear ambitions" that basically means, "we won't look while you secretly develop a nuclear weapon in your quest to destroy Israel."

We are dealing with a singular ally here, not two.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That makes no sense. We have many allies whom we support. Some of them hate each other. One example - Saudi Arabia and Israel. Treaties are negotiated in our best interest first and formost. Any country is that way. Including Israel.

Then it is useless to call any ally an ally if we support one ally and their enemies, and the other ally and their enemies. Basically we are playing sovereign nations against one another. Tell me how we can call ourselves an ally to them, or them ours.

The whole point of an alliance in my opinion is that you have multiple allies allied against one common enemy, without in turn engaging in relations with enemies who are in conflict with members in the alliance. That's the whole idea of being in an alliance right? IF the threat is big enough, you'll see current enemies becoming allies, but such alliances are temporary.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well, where to begin...

You can hear the echoes of a blunt object hitting hitting a dead horse somewhere, no doubt, but given how much Israel is in the news lately I hit upon a few observations:

1) The Obama Administration is solely responsible for souring relations between our two countries, specifically by the way they have treated Benjamin Netanyahu. Reference his visit to Congress in a couple of days as an example, and past comments to French President Nicholas Sarkozy.

2) As a result of such treatment, some misconstrue this as souring relations between American and Israeli peoples as a whole. That is not correct.

3) Even as John Kerry says Israel has been safer than it's ever been, Israel sits staring down the barrel of gun being loaded to bear in an already nuclear capable Iran, threats from Palestinian jihadists and ISIS.

4) Even as Israel pleads with the US not to engage in talks with Iran, they are being flatly ignored. It is my belief that if a deal is ever completed, Israel will have no choice but to act on their own by launching preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

5) The biggest danger to Israel I see now is not from terrorists or a budding nuclear power, but from our own government.

The main question here is:

Is Israel our ally or not?

The rules are as follows:

1. No anti-Semitic remarks.
2. No anti-Palestinian remarks.
3. No mention of specific parties (Republicans, Democrats).
4. No ad hominem (insulting the person instead of their position)
5. The political philosophies of the five people named in this thread (as they relate to Israel only) are open for discussion.
6. The issue is specifically our relationship with Israel currently, or whether they are our ally or not.
7. Arguments should be structured in a way as to agree or disagree, with an explanation as to why.
8. Attempts to derail the thread topic will be actively reported to forum staff.

obama thinks playing nice with Iran is like helping the kid that gets picked on.

The mere idea of this is so absurd it baffles the mind, since it is well known that they export terror and even other muslim countries don't want them to have nukes

Israel is our ally, but they should not get any money or free supplies from us, neither should any other country

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

That is also incorrect. The conflicts between India and Pakistan have been taking place since 1947 with only four wars between the two. That front has been relatively quiet since 1999 with a few skirmishes in the following decade. There have been more wars and conflicts between Israel and Arab countries between 1947 to present, than during any point between Pakistan and India in that time frame. I note, as far as your example is concerned, that we are engaging in conflicts of interest with India and Pakistan. Pakistan harbored a terrorist mastermind who slaughtered thousands of people on American soil. I can't find a comprehensive list on who all of our exact allies are, and the ones I do find state India as a neutral one. Pakistan instigated the Kargil War and was pressured by the US to get out of Indian Territory and back on their side of the LoC (Line of Control, a neutral zone, so to speak). That doesn't sound like the behavior of an ally.

The question here is: How can you support two allies who are enemies of each other? Is this an attempt to appear neutral? Would it not make you appear as a sympathizer to one or the other? Would it also not promote peace between the two?

One other thing, Iran is not (I repeat: IS NOT) our ally, but Israel is. India and Pakistan have little to do in comparison with this, their last major war with one another being 16 years ago. In Israel's case, you are dealing with an ally being directly threatened by an enemy in Iran, who has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

I am sitting here watching the US negotiate a flimsy nuclear deal with (from what I have read and heard) no substance whatsoever, which represents an existential threat to the Jewish State. It basically says "Don't build any more centrifuges for a decade, we won't watch you, and when your 10 years are up, you're free to do whatever you want with your nuclear ambitions" that basically means, "we won't look while you secretly develop a nuclear weapon in your quest to destroy Israel."

We are dealing with a singular ally here, not two.

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Israel has second-strike capability, and Iran knows it. Even if they didn't, Iran using a nuke would guarantee a US nuclear response.

The leaders of Iran aren't cartoon villains. They are the politically intelligent elite of a world power that's got a pretty good understanding of the dynamics necessary to remain in power. Nuking Israel would guarantee that they wouldn't remain alive, let alone in power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

That is also incorrect. The conflicts between India and Pakistan have been taking place since 1947 with only four wars between the two. That front has been relatively quiet since 1999 with a few skirmishes in the following decade. There have been more wars and conflicts between Israel and Arab countries between 1947 to present, than during any point between Pakistan and India in that time frame. I note, as far as your example is concerned, that we are engaging in conflicts of interest with India and Pakistan. Pakistan harbored a terrorist mastermind who slaughtered thousands of people on American soil. I can't find a comprehensive list on who all of our exact allies are, and the ones I do find state India as a neutral one. Pakistan instigated the Kargil War and was pressured by the US to get out of Indian Territory and back on their side of the LoC (Line of Control, a neutral zone, so to speak). That doesn't sound like the behavior of an ally.

The question here is: How can you support two allies who are enemies of each other? Is this an attempt to appear neutral? Would it not make you appear as a sympathizer to one or the other? Would it also not promote peace between the two?

One other thing, Iran is not (I repeat: IS NOT) our ally, but Israel is. India and Pakistan have little to do in comparison with this, their last major war with one another being 16 years ago. In Israel's case, you are dealing with an ally being directly threatened by an enemy in Iran, who has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

I am sitting here watching the US negotiate a flimsy nuclear deal with (from what I have read and heard) no substance whatsoever, which represents an existential threat to the Jewish State. It basically says "Don't build any more centrifuges for a decade, we won't watch you, and when your 10 years are up, you're free to do whatever you want with your nuclear ambitions" that basically means, "we won't look while you secretly develop a nuclear weapon in your quest to destroy Israel."

We are dealing with a singular ally here, not two.

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Israel has second-strike capability, and Iran knows it. Even if they didn't, Iran using a nuke would guarantee a US nuclear response.

The leaders of Iran aren't cartoon villains. They are the politically intelligent elite of a world power that's got a pretty good understanding of the dynamics necessary to remain in power. Nuking Israel would guarantee that they wouldn't remain alive, let alone in power.

But one nuke is all it takes. Martyrdom is deemed to be an great thing in Islam. It wouldn't matter to them what happened after that, they would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of all radical Islam.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

That is also incorrect. The conflicts between India and Pakistan have been taking place since 1947 with only four wars between the two. That front has been relatively quiet since 1999 with a few skirmishes in the following decade. There have been more wars and conflicts between Israel and Arab countries between 1947 to present, than during any point between Pakistan and India in that time frame. I note, as far as your example is concerned, that we are engaging in conflicts of interest with India and Pakistan. Pakistan harbored a terrorist mastermind who slaughtered thousands of people on American soil. I can't find a comprehensive list on who all of our exact allies are, and the ones I do find state India as a neutral one. Pakistan instigated the Kargil War and was pressured by the US to get out of Indian Territory and back on their side of the LoC (Line of Control, a neutral zone, so to speak). That doesn't sound like the behavior of an ally.

The question here is: How can you support two allies who are enemies of each other? Is this an attempt to appear neutral? Would it not make you appear as a sympathizer to one or the other? Would it also not promote peace between the two?

One other thing, Iran is not (I repeat: IS NOT) our ally, but Israel is. India and Pakistan have little to do in comparison with this, their last major war with one another being 16 years ago. In Israel's case, you are dealing with an ally being directly threatened by an enemy in Iran, who has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

I am sitting here watching the US negotiate a flimsy nuclear deal with (from what I have read and heard) no substance whatsoever, which represents an existential threat to the Jewish State. It basically says "Don't build any more centrifuges for a decade, we won't watch you, and when your 10 years are up, you're free to do whatever you want with your nuclear ambitions" that basically means, "we won't look while you secretly develop a nuclear weapon in your quest to destroy Israel."

We are dealing with a singular ally here, not two.

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Israel has second-strike capability, and Iran knows it. Even if they didn't, Iran using a nuke would guarantee a US nuclear response.

The leaders of Iran aren't cartoon villains. They are the politically intelligent elite of a world power that's got a pretty good understanding of the dynamics necessary to remain in power. Nuking Israel would guarantee that they wouldn't remain alive, let alone in power.

But one nuke is all it takes. Martyrdom is deemed to be an great thing in Islam. It wouldn't matter to them what happened after that, they would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of all radical Islam.

Who is this "they" that you're talking about?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Can you prove otherwise?

No, I can't "prove" a negative.

Can you explain what Iran would gain in this "quest" to destroy Israel?

I just told you. The destruction of Israel.

Iran s Khamenei Israel must be annihilated.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When you make a commitment to support an ally, it stands to reason that you don't negotiate treaties with their enemies, correct?

Incorrect.

We are allies with both India and Pakistan, for example. It's pretty hard to find any two countries that hate each other as much as they do.

That is also incorrect. The conflicts between India and Pakistan have been taking place since 1947 with only four wars between the two. That front has been relatively quiet since 1999 with a few skirmishes in the following decade. There have been more wars and conflicts between Israel and Arab countries between 1947 to present, than during any point between Pakistan and India in that time frame. I note, as far as your example is concerned, that we are engaging in conflicts of interest with India and Pakistan. Pakistan harbored a terrorist mastermind who slaughtered thousands of people on American soil. I can't find a comprehensive list on who all of our exact allies are, and the ones I do find state India as a neutral one. Pakistan instigated the Kargil War and was pressured by the US to get out of Indian Territory and back on their side of the LoC (Line of Control, a neutral zone, so to speak). That doesn't sound like the behavior of an ally.

The question here is: How can you support two allies who are enemies of each other? Is this an attempt to appear neutral? Would it not make you appear as a sympathizer to one or the other? Would it also not promote peace between the two?

One other thing, Iran is not (I repeat: IS NOT) our ally, but Israel is. India and Pakistan have little to do in comparison with this, their last major war with one another being 16 years ago. In Israel's case, you are dealing with an ally being directly threatened by an enemy in Iran, who has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

I am sitting here watching the US negotiate a flimsy nuclear deal with (from what I have read and heard) no substance whatsoever, which represents an existential threat to the Jewish State. It basically says "Don't build any more centrifuges for a decade, we won't watch you, and when your 10 years are up, you're free to do whatever you want with your nuclear ambitions" that basically means, "we won't look while you secretly develop a nuclear weapon in your quest to destroy Israel."

We are dealing with a singular ally here, not two.

The idea that Iran is in a "quest to destroy Israel" is ludicrous.

Israel has second-strike capability, and Iran knows it. Even if they didn't, Iran using a nuke would guarantee a US nuclear response.

The leaders of Iran aren't cartoon villains. They are the politically intelligent elite of a world power that's got a pretty good understanding of the dynamics necessary to remain in power. Nuking Israel would guarantee that they wouldn't remain alive, let alone in power.

But one nuke is all it takes. Martyrdom is deemed to be an great thing in Islam. It wouldn't matter to them what happened after that, they would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of all radical Islam.

Who is this "they" that you're talking about?

Radical Islam? Iran, et alia? You insofar have been the only one to refer to anyone as "they."

See bolded underlined.