Why The Hell Do Americans Care So Much About Israel?

[Coloradomtnman]

I can't figure this out. Someone told me it was because of religion. The predominant religion of the US, Christianity, believes that before the rapture the anti-Christ will come to power. But then...crap, I can't remember now, anyway, it had something to do with the Jews and Christians get together and triumph over the anti-Christ? Is that right?

So why is it so important that the POTUS kowtows to Israel? I say, screw Israel! Let'em take care of themselves. I don't like what they've been doing to Palestinians and I don't like how Arabs in Israel are officially 2nd class citizens. Anti-Arab sentiment (aka racism) is rampant among Israelis, I read somewhere that is was more than 70% of Israelis feel that Arabs are treated fairly in Israel although they have no vote and no right to hold office.

Half our problems in the Middle East would disappear if we stopped supporting Israel. So why don't we? It would be a lot better for National Security.

What do you think?

 

[American Horse]

I can't figure this out. Someone told me it was because of religion. The predominant religion of the US, Christianity, believes that before the rapture the anti-Christ will come to power. But then...crap, I can't remember now, anyway, it had something to do with the Jews and Christians get together and triumph over the anti-Christ? Is that right?

So why is it so important that the POTUS kowtows to Israel? I say, screw Israel! Let'em take care of themselves. I don't like what they've been doing to Palestinians and I don't like how Arabs in Israel are officially 2nd class citizens. Anti-Arab sentiment (aka racism) is rampant among Israelis, I read somewhere that is was more than 70% of Israelis feel that Arabs are treated fairly in Israel although they have no vote and no right to hold office.

Half our problems in the Middle East would disappear if we stopped supporting Israel. So why don't we? It would be a lot better for National Security.

What do you think?

Why didn't you mention that they are the first "democracy" in the Middle East, and proving that is the fact that Arab-Israeli's living in Israel are fully suffraged and that there are Arab-Israelis who also serve in the Knesset? It appears that the options you gave the members on which to vote are not complete.

edit" consequently I can't vote in your poll, and I hope others take the "new" information into account before voting also.

 

[strollingbones]

Cursed be those who curse you, and blessed be those who bless you(Genesis 27:29)

christians believe that they must aline with the jews to be blessed....gotta love it...i wished i could write a book that make me the good guy and made everyone else the bad guy....support jews or die..blah blah blah

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why didn't you mention that they are the first "democracy" in the Middle East, and proving that is the fact that Arab-Israeli's living in Israel are fully suffraged and that there are Arab-Israelis who also serve in the Knesset? It appears that the options you gave the members on which to vote are not complete.

I fully admit that I don't know much about this issue.

I read that Arabs don't have suffrage. I don't remember where I read it, so I can't verify the validity of the article, so I can't claim that its a fact. What's the Knesset? Is that like the Israeli parliament or congress?

Why does the US insist on supporting Israel because its a democracy? Aren't there other democracies in the Middle East? Still, doesn't supporting Israel reduce our national security and isn't it a major reason why Islamic fundamentalist extremist terrorist groups target the US?

 

[Yurt]

for all you guys that bitch about israel....why do you almost always fail to mention egypt

 

[Coloradomtnman]

for all you guys that bitch about israel....why do you almost always fail to mention egypt

What about Egypt?

 

[Tech_Esq]

As I sit here I see the scroll on Fox. There are two Dem Representatives saying they are hearing from their constituents that Obama is pressuring the wrong side. They say Obama is pressuring Israel not the Palestinians. That's it in microcosm isn't it?

I think there are several things at play.

1) The holocaust. Would you really want to be the president that turned his back on Israel and watched the Arabs rip it apart after the US turning its back on refugee Jews the 1930s?

2) They are a strategic bulwark in the Middle East. (Read nuclear power. It doesn't make strategic sense to make another nuclear power an enemy. Especially one as powerful as Israel.)

 

[Oddball]

I have NFI.

From where I sit, if they were paying 100% of the bill for the military weapons and technology they get from America, they'd look a lot less like the bastard stepchild who won't get a job.

 

[strollingbones]

Why didn't you mention that they are the first "democracy" in the Middle East, and proving that is the fact that Arab-Israeli's living in Israel are fully suffraged and that there are Arab-Israelis who also serve in the Knesset? It appears that the options you gave the members on which to vote are not complete.

I fully admit that I don't know much about this issue.

I read that Arabs don't have suffrage. I don't remember where I read it, so I can't verify the validity of the article, so I can't claim that its a fact. What's the Knesset? Is that like the Israeli parliament or congress?

Why does the US insist on supporting Israel because its a democracy? Aren't there other democracies in the Middle East? Still, doesn't supporting Israel reduce our national security and isn't it a major reason why Islamic fundamentalist extremist terrorist groups target the US?

the us and israel have a sweet deal going on...we loan them money they buy our weapons and test them on arabs.....understand now?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As I sit here I see the scroll on Fox. There are two Dem Representatives saying they are hearing from their constituents that Obama is pressuring the wrong side. They say Obama is pressuring Israel not the Palestinians. That's it in microcosm isn't it?

I think there are several things at play.

1) The holocaust. Would you really want to be the president that turned his back on Israel and watched the Arabs rip it apart after the US turning its back on refugee Jews the 1930s?

2) They are a strategic bulwark in the Middle East. (Read nuclear power. It doesn't make strategic sense to make another nuclear power an enemy. Especially one as powerful as Israel.)

1. Hasn't Israel fought its own wars and defended itself now for over 40 years? Is it really important that we continue to support them? Was it right that the Western powers after WWII displaced the Palestinians by creating Israel? Are we surprised that this pissed off a lot of Muslims?

2. Good point. But can't we remain friends without showing such open support of Israel? Do you really think its okay what Israel has done to the Palestinians?

 

[Kalam]

Because their American supporters lobby aggressively and have way too much influence over our politics as a consequence. Any politician who openly questions our relationship with Israel probably won't be successful on a large scale. Someone accurately described it as the "Möbius strip of issues"... if you dare oppose Israel, you'll be marginalized by both parties.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I have NFI.

From where I sit, if they were paying 100% of the bill for the military weapons and technology they get from America, they'd look a lot less like the bastard stepchild who won't get a job.

That's how it appears to me. There doesn't seem to be any practical or overwhelming reason to continue our relationship with Israel in its current form.

 

[Annie]

As I sit here I see the scroll on Fox. There are two Dem Representatives saying they are hearing from their constituents that Obama is pressuring the wrong side. They say Obama is pressuring Israel not the Palestinians. That's it in microcosm isn't it?

I think there are several things at play.

1) The holocaust. Would you really want to be the president that turned his back on Israel and watched the Arabs rip it apart after the US turning its back on refugee Jews the 1930s?

2) They are a strategic bulwark in the Middle East. (Read nuclear power. It doesn't make strategic sense to make another nuclear power an enemy. Especially one as powerful as Israel.)

There's more to this than just the Holocaust, democracy, and even being in the Middle East. It's the cascade, not just one thing. Obama & the rest of the inexperienced are making grave mistakes:

Commentary » Blog Archive » Thoughts on the Obama Peace Process

Thoughts on the Obama Peace Process
NOAH POLLAK - 06.02.2009 - 8:09 AM
1. It’s pretty amazing — actually, it’s perverse — that Mahmoud Abbas seems to be getting away with his profession of passivity to the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl: “I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements.” Now imagine if the Israeli prime minister had preempted his meeting with Obama by saying flippantly that Israel will not lift a finger on behalf of the peace process until the PA vanquishes Hamas and ends its delegitimization of the Jewish state. This would have made headlines around the world and it would have provoked a stern rebuke from Obama. Abbas’s declaration did neither.

2. Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze is unreasonable for two major reasons: A) No reciprocal demand was made of the Palestinians, and no Israeli leader can make unilateral concessions — especially given Israel’s recent experience of the consequences of such concessions. B) The freeze requires a prohibition on construction inside the footprint of communities that today are de facto Israeli territory. These are the city-settlements that have long been slated for inclusion into Israel in any final-status agreement, with equivalent Israeli territory awarded to the future Palestinian state through land swaps. Ma’ale Adumim, a suburb of Jerusalem with 35,000 residents, is not going to be bulldozed into the Judean Desert as part of the creation of a Palestinian state. So why does it matter — other than as a cheap symbol of Obama’s willingness to push Israel around — that the residents of this city be prohibited from construction? It would have been perfectly reasonable if Obama had said to the Israelis: as part of the peace process, we expect you to dismantle outposts and not expand the footprint of West Bank settlements, some of which will have to be dismantled as part of a final deal. That would have been met with grudging acceptance. But I get the sense that Obama wants to avoid such an Israeli response.

3. Obama’s flippant dismissal of previous agreements between Israel and the United States is going to make his efforts harder, not easier. Why should Israel make new agreements with Obama immediately after he established the precedent that they might be unilaterally discarded at a moment’s notice? And having set this example, what can Obama say in reply if the Israelis decide to begin discarding agreements with the U.S. that they find inconvenient? Obama talks a lot about the imperatives of dialogue, diplomacy, and humility. His behavior, especially in this case, couldn’t be more at odds with his rhetoric.

4. Ever since Yasser Arafat died, observers of this conflict have said that the weakness of the Palestinian Authority, and especially of Mahmoud Abbas, would pose an insurmountable obstacle to the creation of a new peace process. But we were wrong: Abbas’s weakness is turning into his greatest strength. It is the perfect rationale for passivity, for throwing the entire burden of the process onto the Israelis, for avoiding anything that would reveal his fecklessness. I didn’t think this would be possible because I didn’t think it plausible that a U.S. administration would endorse a peace process that consists so far of the United States pressuring Israel to make unilateral concessions.

5. It should be clear that the point of all this isn’t necessarily to advance the peace process. The point is to put Israel on the defensive, to weaken Bibi, and to frighten Israelis into thinking that relations between the two countries could go catastrophically awry if Obama doesn’t get what he wants. It often makes sense to try to soften up your adversary before negotiations. But the problem for Obama is that the peace process — and security matters generally — are things on which there is a newfound consensus in Israel. The politics of the 1990’s don’t apply today. Israelis have seen how territorial withdrawals and fraudulent peace processes get repaid in blood. I could be wrong, but I doubt that Obama, after manufacturing strife between the two countries, will find either Israeli voters or members of the governing coalition turning on Bibi. In fact, probably the opposite will happen.

6. Which leads to the major problem that Obama’s hostile posture toward Israel will create. One of the longstanding principles of the peace process has been that Israel, given the genocidal hostility of many of its neighbors, must be made to feel secure if it is to make concessions. Obama is discarding that formula and attempting to make Israel feel insecure, not just by making unreasonable demands and discarding previous agreements, but by speculating about throwing Israel to the wolves at the UN and restricting arms sales. If Israelis feel that the United States is turning against them they will be less inclined, not more, to trust the U.S. as the steward of the peace process.

7. Which leads, as all things do today, to Iran. President Obama has stated his belief that progress on the peace process will help build momentum in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. If Obama convinces Israelis that they do not have a genuine ally in Washington, the Israeli strategic calculation will necessarily change. And it will be a change that pushes Washington further to the periphery of Israeli decision-making than Obama probably wants. Alienating allies and pressuring them to adopt untenable policies has a price, and the price is reduced influence. I’m not sure our president understands that.

Lots of links at site.

 

[strollingbones]

yea grave mistakes....like starting two wars with the people who didnt attack us....while kissing and holding hands with the saudis who funded 9/11 and what 18 of the terrorists were saudis....

 

[Tech_Esq]

As I sit here I see the scroll on Fox. There are two Dem Representatives saying they are hearing from their constituents that Obama is pressuring the wrong side. They say Obama is pressuring Israel not the Palestinians. That's it in microcosm isn't it?

I think there are several things at play.

1) The holocaust. Would you really want to be the president that turned his back on Israel and watched the Arabs rip it apart after the US turning its back on refugee Jews the 1930s?

2) They are a strategic bulwark in the Middle East. (Read nuclear power. It doesn't make strategic sense to make another nuclear power an enemy. Especially one as powerful as Israel.)

1. Hasn't Israel fought its own wars and defended itself now for over 40 years? Is it really important that we continue to support them? Was it right that the Western powers after WWII displaced the Palestinians by creating Israel? Are we surprised that this pissed off a lot of Muslims?

2. Good point. But can't we remain friends without showing such open support of Israel? Do you really think its okay what Israel has done to the Palestinians?

Fuck the Palis, I don't like what Israel has done to the US. See the Liberty incident and Walker and other spies.

Israel has, kinda, fought its own wars. A brief story to illustrate.

A friend of mine was in Vietnam as a Special Forces Captain. His story is related in the book The Green Berets. The Viet Cong had placed a $50,000 price on his head. He took R&R to the Philippines. Nobody knew where he was staying. He filled the bath tub and got in. Ready for a serious relaxing bath. A knock came on the door. He answered it. The man at the door represented the Israeli government. He was there to offer my friend a job. He would have been paid $100,000 (in 1969) with "options" to earn more money by doing unspecified things. When he protested that he had a job already with the US Government. The man from Israel said this would not be a problem if he decided to take the job.

Ultimately, he did not take it. Many did. In the early 1970s many Israeli pilots were Americans. As we can see, it is likely, many of the special operators may have been American too. So, did Israel fight their own wars? Not in the 1967-1974 period.

In their recent conflicts, maybe so. But, you'll notice the difference in their success.

I'm not sure which side is worse to support. Do you support Saudi Arabia and the Wahabi fanatics that bred the 9/11 terrorists? Syria and the Ba'athist fascists there? Iran and the nihilistic theocrats there? Are any of those better than supporting Israel? Dunno.

 

[Annie]

yea grave mistakes....like starting two wars with the people who didnt attack us....while kissing and holding hands with the saudis who funded 9/11 and what 18 of the terrorists were saudis....

Which two wars are you referring to? In any case, we agree with the Saudis being the enemy.

 

[American Horse]

Why didn't you mention that they are the first "democracy" in the Middle East, and proving that is the fact that Arab-Israeli's living in Israel are fully suffraged and that there are Arab-Israelis who also serve in the Knesset? It appears that the options you gave the members on which to vote are not complete.

I fully admit that I don't know much about this issue.

I read that Arabs don't have suffrage. I don't remember where I read it, so I can't verify the validity of the article, so I can't claim that its a fact. What's the Knesset? Is that like the Israeli parliament or congress?

Why does the US insist on supporting Israel because its a democracy? Aren't there other democracies in the Middle East? Still, doesn't supporting Israel reduce our national security and isn't it a major reason why Islamic fundamentalist extremist terrorist groups target the US?

The Knesset is the legislative branch of the Israeli government. Since 1949 Arab citizens have had voting rights and the right to serve in the Knesset. Recently the Central Elections Committee (CEC) banned two Arab parties: the "United Arab List-Ta'al" and "Balad" from running in next month's parliamentary elections amid accusations of racism from Arab Members and calling for the desctuction of Israel. Both of those parties intend to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

The CEC voted overwhelmingly in favor of banning those two parties, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Arabs haven't had it better in self government anywhere else in the Middle East except for possibly Iraq. Turkey is in Asia Minor and not formally a part of the M.E.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

It has little to do with the fact that Israel is a democracy- even LESS to do with "Religious beliefs". Those are all excuses if anything. Look at all of Latin America- democracies and religious beliefs, yet the entire aid to the region combined pales to what Israel has received [excluding, MAYBE Colombia, and even then it pales]. As for the Jewish lobby, it has nothing to do with that either. The US sends tons of Aid to Egypt, and how big could anybody claim the Egyptian lobby to be? Insignificant. The answer is almost entirely geopolitical: Israel is basically a Western colonial offshoot right next of the largest strategic energy resources in the world. The place is virtually run by relatively recent Western colonists - much like America once was, and many are even American colonists now, but even from the beginning, it was perfectly known that whoever controlled that region had the advantage internationally, and that remains true today. Israel, as the strongest power, has gotten the biggest cut of the aid pie, but basically any regime that ensures safe access to the gluttonous world market gets a cut, whether they maintain their populations controlled through imperialist expansionism [Israel] or through brutal repression [Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq pre-1991 and post-2003] - so long as they play by the rules of the game set forth by The Godfather.

 

[Yukon]

Americans love the Jew, they worship him.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It has little to do with the fact that Israel is a democracy- even LESS to do with "Religious beliefs". Those are all excuses if anything. Look at all of Latin America- democracies and religious beliefs, yet the entire aid to the region combined pales to what Israel has received [excluding, MAYBE Colombia, and even then it pales]. As for the Jewish lobby, it has nothing to do with that either. The US sends tons of Aid to Egypt, and how big could anybody claim the Egyptian lobby to be? Insignificant. The answer is almost entirely geopolitical: Israel is basically a Western colonial offshoot right next of the largest strategic energy resources in the world. The place is virtually run by relatively recent Western colonists - much like America once was, and many are even American colonists now, but even from the beginning, it was perfectly known that whoever controlled that region had the advantage internationally, and that remains true today. Israel, as the strongest power, has gotten the biggest cut of the aid pie, but basically any regime that ensures safe access to the gluttonous world market gets a cut, whether they maintain their populations controlled through imperialist expansionism [Israel] or through brutal repression [Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq pre-1991 and post-2003] - so long as they play by the rules of the game set forth by The Godfather.

I wouldn't have put it exactly like that, but that's pretty much it.

Real Politick. We have to have access to oil or the American civilization collapses. Despite what the touchy feely people like to think, they don't want their cushy existence ripped from them any more than anyone else.

Check the Carter Doctrine pronounced by the lord high touchy feely himself:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Viewed in this light and in the final analysis of what Bush actually did, as opposed to what he talked about, I suggest that the Bush Doctrine, was not in fact the Bush Doctrine, but the Bush Corollary to the Carter Doctrine.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.