Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[knaveofstaves]

What does USA gain from propping up Israel, and does it justify the enormous expenditure of taxpayer's money?

Well, OK, which answer do you want?

"Enormous expenditure" is relative -- to Congress, $2.8 billion in grants and about as much again in loans in FY 2010 can seem like pocket change. The U.S. could cut off funding to Israel entirely and the bottom line of our budget wouldn't feel a thing.

The proximate cause is AIPAC. It's one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States, with large amounts of money and appeal to voters (a right-wing issue that attracts left-wing crossover support). The United States is doing this because powerful interests in the United States want it, and like everything else that happens in Washington, is about winning the next election. It's easier to keep spending than fight the political battle over stopping.

Your bio says you're not from here, so I'm guessing these domestic-to-U.S. political answers will be unsatisfactory. Well: click the map in the link above. The United States sent $1.55 billion to Egypt, $843 million to Jordan, $500 million to the Palestinian Authority. My math says that number is strikingly similar to the $2.8 billion we gave Israel, and those numbers give us leverage over Arabs and Israelis alike. I don't know for sure how much peace those dollars buy us, but I suspect it's a good buy.

[Nikov]

Aaand the Israeli PM says its a no-starter while Syria shoots up its protestors with BMP-2's, Libya still isn't over yet and Obama continues his OBL victory lap at the CIA headquarters.

Back to your regularly schedualed program, but stay tuned for A Very Special Episode next week when Obama wears a leather jacket while waterskiing...

[MonkeyHead]

That whole part of the world has been pretty much fucked up since the Romans. The crusades made it worse. Then so did the British Empire. Any nation or imperialistic power that gets involved is being naive to think they can change a thing. WIth hindsight, the UN creating a state in that part of the world probably wasnt the smartest idea...

[knaveofstaves]

Aaand the Israeli PM says its a no-starter while Syria shoots up its protestors with BMP-2's, Libya still isn't over yet and Obama continues his OBL victory lap at the CIA headquarters.

Back to your regularly schedualed program, but stay tuned for A Very Special Episode next week when Obama wears a leather jacket while waterskiing...

Yes, one speech from the President failed to solve's the world's ills. Shark-jumper! Clearly Obama is powerless if magic pixie dust doesn't take care of everything, right now.

How do you justify your expectations of his effectiveness?

Is there an argument here? Is there anything of real content here?

[Nikov]

Aaand the Israeli PM says its a no-starter while Syria shoots up its protestors with BMP-2's, Libya still isn't over yet and Obama continues his OBL victory lap at the CIA headquarters.

Back to your regularly schedualed program, but stay tuned for A Very Special Episode next week when Obama wears a leather jacket while waterskiing...

Yes, one speech from the President failed to solve's the world's ills. Shark-jumper! Clearly Obama is powerless if magic pixie dust doesn't take care of everything, right now.

How do you justify your expectations of his effectiveness?

Is there an argument here? Is there anything of real content here?

I'll avoid the strawmen by simply asking;

Did Obama think dropping a bombshell like this on the Israelis one day before a heads-of-state meeting and a few days before facing the biggest pro-Israel political lobby in the US would do anything positive for him, Israel, or even Palestinians?

[PTTG??]

I'm far from a fan of Obama, but it could be said that it sets the tone for the meeting.

[Nikov]

I'm far from a fan of Obama, but it could be said that it sets the tone for the meeting.

Sets a tone like walking in wearing a Hawaiian shirt with two birdies flying to a state dinner. And at least that would make a funny photograph! I thought I couldn't be more disappointed, but now I am!

Dammit PTTG, stop destroying my faith in the CnC.

[Phmcw]

I'm far from a fan of Obama, but it could be said that it sets the tone for the meeting.

Sets a tone like walking in wearing a Hawaiian shirt with two birdies flying to a state dinner. And at least that would make a funny photograph! I thought I couldn't be more disappointed, but now I am!

Dammit PTTG, stop destroying my faith in the CnC.

Yeah, but it's a smooth move toward the north African, middle easter and European public opinion. I trust it is his goal. Why? No clues. Of course this may be good for his electorate as well, depending of the opinion of the American left.

[Nikov]

I'm far from a fan of Obama, but it could be said that it sets the tone for the meeting.

Sets a tone like walking in wearing a Hawaiian shirt with two birdies flying to a state dinner. And at least that would make a funny photograph! I thought I couldn't be more disappointed, but now I am!

Dammit PTTG, stop destroying my faith in the CnC.

Yeah, but it's a smooth move toward the north African, middle easter and European public opinion. I trust it is his goal. Why? No clues. Of course this may be good for his electorate as well, depending of the opinion of the American left.

Simple self-serving appeals to his electoral base at the peril of meaningful policies seems quite in-line with his usual, but there's a shark involved here, double-ironically enough. Both in the "look what I'm doing for approval ratings that is way outside the norm for any US president" way but also in the "Hamas might be emboldened by this and it will weaken Israel at the bargaining table but who cares anyway" fashion.

[knaveofstaves]

I'll avoid the strawmen by simply asking;

Did Obama think dropping a bombshell like this on the Israelis one day before a heads-of-state meeting and a few days before facing the biggest pro-Israel political lobby in the US would do anything positive for him, Israel, or even Palestinians?

There was no strawman.

"Leather jacket while waterskiing" is a clear callout to jumping the shark, which means that you feel Obama has "run out of ideas" or "move[d] beyond the essential qualities that initially defined [his] success, beyond relevance or recovery."

You said this in the context of Netanyahu's intransigence, Syria's murder of civilians, and Qaddafi's continued hold on power. This implies that Obama had ideas or success in these areas, and has since lost them. It implies it strongly enough that you can fairly be described as having said it.

I ask you again, how do you justify your expectations of his effectiveness? What makes you think POTUS can change all that with one speech?

[Phmcw]

Simple self-serving appeals to his electoral base at the peril of meaningful policies seems quite in-line with his usual, but there's a shark involved here, double-ironically enough. Both in the "look what I'm doing for approval ratings that is way outside the norm for any US president" way but also in the "Hamas might be emboldened by this and it will weaken Israel at the bargaining table but who cares anyway" fashion.

Isn't that he norm for every politician right now?
But, just as said other, I don' see why Israel is so useful right now. They constantly embarrass you in front of everyone and they are an obstacle for the bond US want to make with he newly emerged government from the Arab spring.
Not a bad plan overall.

[Nikov]

Eh, I'm skeptical of the "Arab Spring". If cozying up to these emegent popular uprisings requires scorning a very affluent Western-style democracy we practically signed into existance, I'm not sure how well those new partnerships will turn out. I mean, the Cedar revolution was such great promise. A quarter of the country out peacefully marching for a secular government and the removal of Syrian troops. Everything looked rosy. Then Hezbollah moved in. Now things are still recovering from the suck of the 2006 war that Hezbollah won simply by standing when the dust settled. Will a Palestinian state, however well intended, not turn into a base of operations for the violent minority there as Lebanon did? I have my doubts, since they would need just eight more miles of ground to cut the country in half.

Besides, even if you gently remove Israel from the map in whatever way, you're still left with Sunni and Shi'a conflict, slightly younger, although still nasty. Saudi Sunnis, Iranian Shi'a, both with huge arsenals and the lion's share of the world's oil flowing between the straight that divides them. Without a third party these factions either cannot be balanced and it will all burn or they'll unite and hold the world's most strategic resource hostage.

[Bouchart]

The Obama presidency has just jumped the shark. I still cannot comprehend this speech, and if he came out declaring it was Defcon Six and all of our nuclear weapons are being mothballed by executive order, I think I could take that in stride.

He should have known that Netenyahu was too hard line to support any unilateral withdrawal.  Similarly, there's a strong pro-Israel lobby in Congress so he shouldn't expect support there.  Hamas, Hezbollah and others will use Netenyahu's rebuke as a means to rally and agitate.

This was a tremendous blunder and could potentially start a war.

[Aqizzar]

How much longer are we going to cling to the idea that if the United States doesn't unilaterally and unconditionally support one very particular "western-style democracy" in the Middle East, the whole region will erupt in flames and Israel will be wiped off the map?  The history of this argument is predicated on the fact that Israel has already survived full-scale invasion several times in the past, and is stronger militarily now than they've ever been.  Arab Spring or not, all of the countries bordering Israel know they have to have workable relationships with the US for their economies to survive, and no government but Syria has even rhetorically entertained the idea of launching a war with Israel for a generation.  Heck, for what it's worth, I wouldn't wish Israel's style of democracy on any of these newly emerging governments.

Yes, Israel fought a war in Lebanon because of Hezbollah, but that's going to be a factor no matter the situation.  For as long as Israel exists, there will be radical militant groups trying to do it harm - but as long as that isn't going to change anyway, Israel might as well do right (for the first time) by the other 95% of Palestinians and give them a state where the IDF won't kick them around quite as often.  Rest assured that any settlement that allowed for an autonomous Palestinian state would include a very solid agreement about Israel's ability to retaliate against non-government forces in the country.  And if a new Palestinian government doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, well, welcome to the exact same situation as today, but said government will no one to blame anymore but itself.

I don't know why the Sunni-Shi'a divide would even need be mentioned, since that has nothing to do with Israel, unless the suggestion is that Israel provides a magnet for Middle Eastern tension so a different conflict doesn't erupt.  Which isn't much of an argument for anything.  Besides, the only time a serious conflict broke out in the 20th century between countries along that religious divide was Iraq and Iran, and that was less a war over religion as a war over insanity.  Not to mention a war the United States had a pretty big hand in starting and fueling, because we as always thought it was our decision what kind of countries were the "right" ones for the region.

[PTTG??]

More importantly, Israel is not the United states. They are separate countries. The citizens of Israel are not US citizens, and vice versa.

Israel and the United States are not the same country. The elected government of the US is not elected by and does not represent Israel. Israeli citizens do not pay US taxes. US citizens do not pay Israeli taxes. The US constitution does not mention Israel.

Israel has Israeli soldiers paid with Israeli tax revenue. These Israeli soldiers are not expected to defend the US.

Is my point becoming clear in any way?