The Jewish Lobby [Archive]

PanzerJaeger

07-21-2011, 08:37

Over the course of the last year or so, I've been entertaining ever more negative views of the state of Israel and particularly the Jewish effort in the United States to advance Israel's strategic interests at the expense of America's. I've even allowed some ugly tin-foil-hat type thoughts involving Zionism and disproportionate Jewish power to cross my mind.

I came to the realization that my unwavering support of Israel was based primarily on my extreme dislike for the Palestinians and their activities- dancing in the streets after 9/11, suicide bombing their children, suicide bombing other people's children, etc. There's no doubt, they're a pretty terrible group of people on the whole and have been consumed by the Islamist culture that I despise.

However, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Jews in America, acting on behalf of Zionism, may have done far more to damage America than Islamic extremism ever has.

So let's discuss. Here's (http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf) a good starting point.

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration’s attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.

The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.1

Israel and the Iraq War

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element. Some Americans believe that this was a “war for oil,” but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (2001‐2003), executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now Counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the “real threat” from Iraq was not a threat to the United States.139 The “unstated threat” was the “threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a University of Virginia audience in September 2002, noting further that “the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hard‐line speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that “Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.”140 By this point, according to Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached “unprecedented dimensions,” and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs.141 As one retired Israeli general later put it, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non‐conventional capabilities.”142

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when President Bush decided to seek U.N. Security Council authorization for war in September, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, because these developments seemed to reduce the likelihood of war.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that “the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.”143

At the same time, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op‐ed warning that “the greatest risk now lies in inaction.”144 His predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Case for Toppling Saddam.”145 Netanyahu declared, “Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,” adding that “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre‐emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.” Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003: “The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.”146

But as Netanyahu suggests, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam conquered in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both the politicians and the public enthusiastically favored war.147 As journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, “Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.”148 In fact, Israelis were so gung‐ho for war that their allies in America told them to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest it look like the war was for Israel.149

The Great Silencer

No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti‐Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro‐Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy—an influence that AIPAC celebrates—stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti‐Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti‐Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s “Jewish Lobby.” In effect, the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. This tactic is very effective, because anti‐Semitism is loathsome and no responsible person wants to be accused of it.

...

This is why pro‐Israel forces, when pressed to go beyond assertion, claim that there is a ‘new anti‐Semitism’, which they equate with criticism of Israel.112 In other words criticize Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti‐Semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that Caterpillar manufactures the bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that it would ʹhave the most adverse repercussions on ... Jewish‐Christian relations in Britainʹ, while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: “ʹThere is a clear problem of anti‐Zionist ‐ verging on anti‐Semitic ‐ attitudes emerging in the grass 25
roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.”113 However, the Church was neither guilty of anti‐Zionism nor anti‐Semitism; it was merely protesting Israeli policy.114

Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist. Instead, they question its behavior towards the Palestinians, which is a legitimate criticism: Israelis question it themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Rather, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely‐accepted human rights norms and international law, as well as the principle of national self‐determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.

Essentially, Jews in the United States have played on American's (inexplicable) guilt over the Holocaust and religious fundamentalism to sacrifice American lives and American treasure to achieve Israeli foreign policy goals. With friends like these...

Strike For The South

07-21-2011, 09:09

I'm going to refrain from Godwining this thread. Just know that my tact is causing me physical pain.

Americas relationship with Israel is far from ideal but so are most of Americas alliances not based in WEurope. Israel at best has been aloof and standoffish, it is a well documented fact that Israel will lie to our faces when something is stood to be gained, of course not acknowledging the fact America does this all the time as well would be intellectualy disingenous on my part. I disagree with many of Israels tactics and cringe at their human rights abuses but the other side of the coin is even less appealing. This puts us squarley in the relam of putting murder on some sort of bizzaro sliding scale. Unfortuanly this is real life and not all villians or friends are the caricitures we so desperatly need them to be

Israel does more than pay lip service to having a functioning democracy in the region and they are a counterweight to Iran superhappyfuntimeland. This makes an alliance with them vital and necesary. Israel does have it's fair share of insanity but I trust the Israelis to do a better job of keeping there crazies in line, I also feel like many more Isrealis would have no problem putting down their guns where as many Arabs see this as a 0 sum game. That is a major difference to me.

I do cringe at how buddy buddy the lobby has become but I do the same thing with the corn farmers. Lobbies and their power are entierly seperate issue. The Isreali lobby is merley a symptom of the creeping corpratism in America. I am also a bit perplexed you seem to buy into the tin foil hat crowd. Jews due tend to stick together and as a result have much of the same ignorance loged against them b/c of that. People fear what they don't quite understand and the jew in America has always been 1 foot in and 1 foot out from a WASPs eyes. So of course when one sees there is an entire country with the same kind of people in it, such outlandish conclusions are naturally drawn. I certainly don't think the lobby has been more destructive than your umberlla definition of islamic terrorism, nor do I think they are even close to being our worst ally.

These "authors" overplay there hand when they say American interests take a backseat to Israeli ones. Maybe THEIR idea of what Americas interests are do, but Americas has clearly demonstrated Isreal is crucial our stated interests.

I would say though Isreal should not be a road block in Americas effort in supporting flowering claims toward democracy in the region and I don't think it has.

Centurion1

07-21-2011, 09:14

Major Robert Dump

07-21-2011, 09:27

The whole you-can't-criticize-Isreal-or-else-you-are-a-anti-semite has always bugged me and still does. I guess by acknowledging that the NAACP exists then we are also racists, as anyone who speaks of the Isreali lobby in Washington is an anti-semite. I am also bugged by politicians who accuse other politicians whenever they don't cow tow to anything and everything Israel does, under the guise that Isreal is "one of our staunchest and long-time allies" which is kind of like calling your Culligan man your best friend. It's sort of a one-sided relationship, and I am obviosuly an anti-semite for comparing a jewish entity to someone who sells something.

I also don't understand why they get their very own word for racism, it's not fair to people who are racists.

Now pardon me, I'm having Bagels with Helen Thomas this afternoon.

rory_20_uk

07-21-2011, 09:34

I agree. Strike should staff off the sauce more often ;)

I think that other factors are:

Many Jews are rich. Money matters as it is linked to power.
There is only one Jewish state, so the message is very focused. With Christianity / Islam / Misc, there are more than one states, so the message from supporters gets diluted: Saudi arabia no more wants a powerful Iran than Israel does to choose one easy example.

Palestinians are not alone in their ways. I recall the jubilation on the streets in USA when Osama was killed (or is that somehow justified as it's different...?) I think that using children as suicide bombers is utterly abhorrent, but then shelling children with Phosphorous rounds isn't nice either (I guess we're on to Strike's sliding scale of atrocities where it's not as bad when allies are doing it).

~:smoking:

HoreTore

07-21-2011, 09:35

PanzerJaeger

07-21-2011, 17:01

I'm going to refrain from Godwining this thread. Just know that my tact is causing me physical pain.

I don't blame you. Jews pulling strings behind the curtains at the highest levels of government in pursuit of Zionism. It sounds like something that's been ripped straight out of Germany in the '30s. It is also true.

I disagree with many of Israels tactics and cringe at their human rights abuses but the other side of the coin is even less appealing.

What is the other side of the coin, really?

After the Soviet Union fell, one of Israel's big selling points was that it was the one nation in the region that was not made up of people who largely hate America, yet the hatred for America on the Arab Street is inextricably linked to America's unqualified support of Israel.

It's really quite brilliant, in an evil sort of way. The more cavalier Israel acts in the region, the more Arabs hate it and its great benefactor, and the more Arabs express anti-Americanism, the more money we feel compelled to give Israel (despite the fact that they do not support our wars in the Middle East in any identifiable way).

Israel does more than pay lip service to having a functioning democracy in the region and they are a counterweight to Iran superhappyfuntimeland. This makes an alliance with them vital and necesary.

This is common mantra, but doesn't exactly pass the smell test.

First, on democracy. What does their form of government have to do with our foreign policy? Are we compelled to lend our support to every democracy in the world when it faces limited democratic or authoritarian regimes, regardless of said democracy's actions? That's certainly not been our policy when other democracies have been threatened by authoritarianism - not that Israel has actually been threatened by authoritarianism for quite some time.

As to the counterweight argument, you must mean Saudi Arabia? Israel is a counterweight to nothing. The country has no sway and no influence beyond being able to menace its immediate neighbors with a superior military. It's distance from Iran makes that military effectively useless, though, leaving only soft power - of which Israel has effectively none in the region.

Saudi Arabia, the home of Sunni Islam and a large, wealthy, and powerful Arab state is the natural counterweight to Iran.

In any event, Israel is clearly no counterweight to Iran for the US, but is the US a counterweight to Iran for Israel?

Putting Iran in the Crosshairs

Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely adversary to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as an existential threat. As Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben‐Eliezer remarked one month before the Iraq war: “Iraq is a problem …. But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq.”203

Sharon began publicly pushing the United States to confront Iran in November 2002, in a high profile interview in The Times (London).204 Describing Iran as the “center of world terror,” and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush Administration should put the strong arm on Iran “the day after” it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was now calling for regime change in Iran.205 The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was “not enough.” In his words, America “has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.”

Israel does have it's fair share of insanity but I trust the Israelis to do a better job of keeping there crazies in line, I also feel like many more Isrealis would have no problem putting down their guns where as many Arabs see this as a 0 sum game. That is a major difference to me.

Really? Did you miss the Palestinian Papers?

I do cringe at how buddy buddy the lobby has become but I do the same thing with the corn farmers.

The corn lobby has yet to compel us into a disastrous war in the Middle East.

I certainly don't think the lobby has been more destructive than your umberlla definition of islamic terrorism,

Why?

nor do I think they are even close to being our worst ally.

Then which nation is? Saudi Arabia's support of Wahhabism in the '90's comes to mind, but they seem to have genuinely realized that didn't turn out well.

These "authors" overplay there hand when they say American interests take a backseat to Israeli ones.

Your quotations imply condescension and/or criticism of their abilities. Is there a reason for that other than your disagreement with their conclusions?

Maybe THEIR idea of what Americas interests are do, but Americas has clearly demonstrated Isreal is crucial our stated interests.

How has that been clearly demonstrated? Israel has no oil, no real power or influence in the region, and does nothing to advance our interests in the region. In fact, a very strong, even undeniable, argument exists that it has done the exact opposite.

No, the only people's interests that our unwavering support of Israel advance are Zionist American Jews who, inexplicably, hold a ridiculous amount of sway over our government.

PanzerJaeger

07-21-2011, 17:04

I would be happy to discuss an Isreal lobby.

However, I will never discuss a jewish lobby.

Edit: also, you had "unwavering support of Israel" a year ago? I remember you making an identical thread about "the jewish lobby" before. Methinks the resident fascist is being a bit dishonest here.

Really? I don't remember such a thread. I don't even think I was active this time last year. I've defended Israel on this board for years...

Edit: And upon looking in my profile to 'find all threads started by' (why is the backroom still not searchable?), I discovered that I am still a member of the long-defunct Israel supporters group. :rolleyes:

Ronin

07-21-2011, 17:29

the US - Israel relationship is for sure a strange one...and at times the level of support offered by the US government seems counter-producer to it's own goals.

part of it can be explained simply by politicians sucking up to voting blocks that are electorally important, i.e:
- voters of jewish descent - for obvious reasons
- evangelical cristians - for religions reasons

then I guess you will have actual lobbys aplying pressure also, like israel itself, the weapons manufacturers...etc.

Rhyfelwyr

07-21-2011, 18:29

Tellos Athenaios

07-21-2011, 19:03

In terms of how useful they prove themselves to be, it might be a good idea to invest some more in Turkey as your ally in the Mid East. Unlike Israel, Turkey has shown itself able to effect meaningful change in the region through diplomacy instead of gross violence and it actively aims to be a centre piece of economic and diplomatic activity in the region. It was Turkey along with Brazil and India which got Iran to agree to a uranium recycling deal on Turkish soil.

Strike For The South

07-21-2011, 19:19

I don't blame you. Jews pulling strings behind the curtains at the highest levels of government in pursuit of Zionism. It sounds like something that's been ripped straight out of Germany in the '30s. It is also true.
No it's not

What is the other side of the coin, really?

After the Soviet Union fell, one of Israel's big selling points was that it was the one nation in the region that was not made up of people who largely hate America, yet the hatred for America on the Arab Street is inextricably linked to America's unqualified support of Israel.

It's really quite brilliant, in an evil sort of way. The more cavalier Israel acts in the region, the more Arabs hate it and its great benefactor, and the more Arabs express anti-Americanism, the more money we feel compelled to give Israel (despite the fact that they do not support our wars in the Middle East in any identifiable way).

The populism that infects the Arab world has no basis in facts or reason. Your average man on the street belives the most insane propaganda and the force feeding generally begins at birth. You reference a common theme popular with school boy liberatarians but even if we pulled out everything tmrw, they would find a new reason to hate us. The Arab world loves conspiracy theories and a massive US pullout would be dripping with them

Besides, outside of postruing very few educated Arabs want Israel gone, they know it isn't feasable. We can still work with the Arab countries on an intra governemnt level, the propaganda they feed their masses non withstanding.

I must also express my shock that one of the most ardent supporters of realpolitik on this forum is begining to subscribe to the "If we just leave them alone" theory. Blowback is a real thing but to breakdown the geo-political struggle in the ME in such simple terms is naive and counter productive

This is common mantra, but doesn't exactly pass the smell test.

Awwww my little Fraulien, using American colluiialisms :kiss:

First, on democracy. What does their form of government have to do with our foreign policy? Are we compelled to lend our support to every democracy in the world when it faces limited democratic or authoritarian regimes, regardless of said democracy's actions? That's certainly not been our policy when other democracies have been threatened by authoritarianism - not that Israel has actually been threatened by authoritarianism for quite some time.

I think America has an interest in supporting democratic regimes all around the world, now this does not necersarily mean we should lend them a large amount of fiscal or tech support but Isreal has, on some level, expressed an interest in becoming a functioning democratic state. Those states tend to like us more.

As to the counterweight argument, you must mean Saudi Arabia? Israel is a counterweight to nothing. The country has no sway and no influence beyond being able to menace its immediate neighbors with a superior military. It's distance from Iran makes that military effectively useless, though, leaving only soft power - of which Israel has effectively none in the region.

Saudi Arabia, the home of Sunni Islam and a large, wealthy, and powerful Arab state is the natural counterweight to Iran.

Saudi Arabia is the home of Whabism and the monatery center for int'l terrorism. The fact we are on speaking terms with is only a reflection of the fact that both of our respective countries desperatly want the status quo to ensure the oil flows. They are an absolutely repugnant regime and it pains me we are forced to do buisness with them. If Iran wanted to they could roll into Riyadh tmrw and no one could stop them.

Expoliting the divisons in Islam works to a point but not while Israel is still there. I fail to see how a country with no hard power offers a real counterweight to Iran. Other than secratrianism.

Speaking of Americas soft power in the ME is kind of a moot point right now

In any event, Israel is clearly no counterweight to Iran for the US, but is the US a counterweight to Iran for Israel?

How is Israel not a counterweight to Iran? It's the worst kept secert this side of Judea that Israel has nukes. They have also stated they will not allow Iran to persue its program

Really? Did you miss the Palestinian Papers?

No, I never said the Israeli crazies weren't trying there damndest and as long as the status quo remains perpetual war, they will have support

The corn lobby has yet to compel us into a disastrous war in the Middle East.

OBL and Neo-Conservatism compeled us into war. I'm sure Israel is pleased with what happend but the Isreali lobby can't pull something like that off. I'm willing to concede that they were a minor third partner but inconsequntial

Why?

Becuase the spectere of Islamic terrorism is the boogeyman that whips the American masses up. Israel has been using the same hardline rhetoric about the region since Carter, it is only after 9/11 did we really start to listen to them. No terror attacks and Israeli policies take a backseat

Then which nation is? Saudi Arabia's support of Wahhabism in the '90's comes to mind, but they seem to have genuinely realized that didn't turn out well.

Pakistan, SA, Egypt. In that order

Your quotations imply condescension and/or criticism of their abilities. Is there a reason for that other than your disagreement with their conclusions?

I am upset because the authors imply there is a set of American forigen policy goals that take a backseat to Israels bidding. When Americas forigen policy is what the American government says it is. And every president since Carter has made Israel a centerpeice of that policy.

How has that been clearly demonstrated? Israel has no oil, no real power or influence in the region, and does nothing to advance our interests in the region. In fact, a very strong, even undeniable, argument exists that it has done the exact opposite.

I think both of us need to define what Americas endgame in the ME is. Lately both the Obama and Bush adminstrations have said they want friendly democracies in the region and as of right now very few countries tick that box. And Isreal is the only one with projectable power

No, the only people's interests that our unwavering support of Israel advance are Zionist American Jews who, inexplicably, hold a ridiculous amount of sway over our government.
You are a grown man who has demonstrated very good critical thinking skills. Please use them.

Strike For The South

07-21-2011, 19:27

I would also like to state that of course the Isreali lobby holds sway in the government, many well funded lobbies do. To assume though that they are pulling the forigen policy strings is walking a thin line

Lemur

07-21-2011, 19:34

I would also like to state that of course the Isreali lobby holds sway in the government, many well funded lobbies do.
There are lots of lobbies and lobbyists; to throw AIPAC in with the thousands of other special interest groups is dishonest. They are easily one of the three most powerful lobbies on the Hill, along with AARP and the NRA. Those are the three lobbies you do NOT mess with if you want to keep your cozy congressional/senate seat.

The Onion, as per usual, dishes more truth than the corporate media:

Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel Forced To Resign (http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/)

WASHINGTON—State Department diplomat Nelson Milstrand, who appeared on CNN last week and offered an informed, thoughtful analysis implying that Israel could perhaps exercise more restraint toward Palestinian moderates in disputed territories, was asked to resign Tuesday. “The United States deeply regrets any harm Mr. Milstrand’s careful, even-tempered, and factually accurate remarks may have caused our democratic partner in the Middle East,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an unequivocal condemnation of the veteran foreign-service officer’s perfectly reasonable statements. “U.S. policy toward Israel continues to be one of unconditional support and fawning sycophancy.” Milstrand, 63, will reportedly appear at an AIPAC conference to offer a full apology as soon as his trial concludes and his divorce is finalized.

HoreTore

07-21-2011, 20:02

Really? I don't remember such a thread. I don't even think I was active this time last year. I've defended Israel on this board for years...

Edit: And upon looking in my profile to 'find all threads started by' (why is the backroom still not searchable?), I discovered that I am still a member of the long-defunct Israel supporters group. :rolleyes:

Having looked through all the threads started by you, I can't find a thread like that. Sorry, must've mixed you up with someone else, because I'm damned sure I've seen a thread just like this here before...

Ronin

07-22-2011, 00:34

Aye, don't forget a lot of the pressure with Israel doesn't come from the Jews, but from WASP's of the more Evangelical variety.

I saw a documentary about how there are big businesses in Israel which get these Evangelicals coming and staying over and helping out with some of the communities, one kid was even talking about joining the IDF. :/

there are evangelical Christian's that belief that when the hypothetical second coming of Christ takes place in order for the Christians be saved (or raptured) Israel must exist....they have some role to play....not entirely sure what particular passage of the bible is supposed to mean this....but hey...people believe in silly stuff.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2011, 00:58

there are evangelical Christian's that belief that when the hypothetical second coming of Christ takes place in order for the Christians be saved (or raptured) Israel must exist....they have some role to play....not entirely sure what particular passage of the bible is supposed to mean this....but hey...people believe in silly stuff.

It's in the Book of Revelation, Israel will be restored and then destroyed by agents of the Devil, at which point God's true children will turn to him and the rest will be cast down.

So, actually, the Evangelicals are deliberately setting the Jews up for a fall and the Jews think they're playing the Evangelicals for fools (because they think Revelation is a false prophecy). I can't think of a more dysfunctional or messed up relationship.

PanzerJaeger

07-22-2011, 01:52

The populism that infects the Arab world has no basis in facts or reason.

Are you sure?

Your average man on the street belives the most insane propaganda and the force feeding generally begins at birth. You reference a common theme popular with school boy liberatarians but even if we pulled out everything tmrw, they would find a new reason to hate us. The Arab world loves conspiracy theories and a massive US pullout would be dripping with them

Besides, outside of postruing very few educated Arabs want Israel gone, they know it isn't feasable. We can still work with the Arab countries on an intra governemnt level, the propaganda they feed their masses non withstanding.

I must also express my shock that one of the most ardent supporters of realpolitik on this forum is begining to subscribe to the "If we just leave them alone" theory. Blowback is a real thing but to breakdown the geo-political struggle in the ME in such simple terms is naive and counter productive

Where did I endorse such a theory? :inquisitive:

In any event, as such an ardent supporter of realpolitik, how could I not eventually question our relationship with Israel - specifically the benefits we are getting for our substantial investment in the country?

I think America has an interest in supporting democratic regimes all around the world, now this does not necersarily mean we should lend them a large amount of fiscal or tech support but Isreal has, on some level, expressed an interest in becoming a functioning democratic state. Those states tend to like us more.

How is it in our interest to support Israel simply because it is a democracy? Communism is dead and democracy is on the rise in the region.

Saudi Arabia is the home of Whabism and the monatery center for int'l terrorism. The fact we are on speaking terms with is only a reflection of the fact that both of our respective countries desperatly want the status quo to ensure the oil flows. They are an absolutely repugnant regime and it pains me we are forced to do buisness with them.

Check your facts. You're operating on decade-old information.

Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism was an exercise in domestic social control that got completely out of hand. Since 9/11, the Saudis have cracked down (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/world/middleeast/22saudi.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311292197-trhwdNNfxyC+av2n4b324g) on Islamist terrorism more violently, decisively, and thoroughly than any other nation in the Middle East, and probably the world.

As to their repugnant internal society - we're talking realpolitik, right? Not my business, not my problem, and not my concern. I've long ago given up caring about how the Arabs govern themselves as long as they keep it in-country.

If Iran wanted to they could roll into Riyadh tmrw and no one could stop them.

That is not even remotely accurate. Saudi Arabia has the most advanced military in the region, trained by America, equipped with the best Western military equipment, and with a budget at least three times the size of Iran's and even greater than that of the IDF.

I would seriously question Iran's ability to even support a conventional military excursion of any meaningful size through Iraq and into Saudi Arabia even with no resistance.

Expoliting the divisons in Islam works to a point but not while Israel is still there. I fail to see how a country with no hard power offers a real counterweight to Iran. Other than secratrianism.

Saudi Arabia has far more influence in the region, and has actually taken steps to correct its contribution to 9/11 instead of using it to push a war in Iraq. Amazingly, the Kingdom can be considered a better ally.

How is Israel not a counterweight to Iran?

They can do precious little to curb their growing sphere of influence in the region. They can do nothing to stop Iranians from supplying IEDs and weapons to the Taliban. They cannot stop regime forces from attacking our own in Iraq. They couldn't even defeat Hezbollah in their own backyard.

If your argument for the value of Israel's incredibly one-sided alliance is based on its ability to counter Iran's ambitions, I think a critical assessment of their actual capabilities is in order. Why don't you tell me exactly what Israel actually does to earn its special status? For comparison, our other special partner, Britain, has faithfully followed us into the depths of hell.

It's the worst kept secert this side of Judea that Israel has nukes. They have also stated they will not allow Iran to persue its program

And how will they stop them? It is highly questionable whether they have the technical ability to get to Iran, much less attack a underground system designed to resist modern bunker busting technology. Hence, the Israeli push for American action against Iran in the last years of the Bush administration.

OBL and Neo-Conservatism compeled us into war. I'm sure Israel is pleased with what happend but the Isreali lobby can't pull something like that off. I'm willing to concede that they were a minor third partner but inconsequntial

You may want to reexamine that position. The Jewish lobby, of which many were involved in neo-conservatism, relentlessly pushed for war against Iraq as far back as the Clinton regime. After 9/11, the opportunity was seized and a coordinated effort between American Zionist Jews and Israel was launched to make the war happen, including intense political pressure within congress and the White House, a sophisticated public relations scheme to sell the war, and doctored Israeli intelligence. When Bush wanted to get UN approval and allow time for weapons inspections, they threatened to bring down his presidency. None of this is in much contention, even within the Jewish Lobby and Israelis.

Pakistan, SA, Egypt. In that order

Pakistan is pretty bad, but it is generally understood that they are not really our ally - at least not in the same way that, say, Britain is. Again, Saudi Arabia's contribution to Islamic extremism through their support of Wahhabism in the '90s was bad, but they've taken steps to correct it. Egypt was actually a pretty reliable American ally under Sadat and Mubarak, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I am upset because the authors imply there is a set of American forigen policy goals that take a backseat to Israels bidding. When Americas forigen policy is what the American government says it is. And every president since Carter has made Israel a centerpeice of that policy.

Yet America's unqualified support of Israel goes against even its own stated foreign policy goals of stability and security in the region.

I think both of us need to define what Americas endgame in the ME is. Lately both the Obama and Bush adminstrations have said they want friendly democracies in the region and as of right now very few countries tick that box. And Isreal is the only one with projectable power

You vastly overestimate Israel's projectable power.

In any event, I don't think it is a stretch to say that America's endgame in the Middle East is one that yields favorable outcomes for America in terms of security, trade, and influence. America's immense financial and diplomatic support of Israel does nothing to enhance any of those positions.

You are a grown man who has demonstrated very good critical thinking skills. Please use them.

That's the problem. The more I think about our relationship with Israel in objective terms instead of simply assuming that because a) they are a democracy in a region of authoritarian regimes and/or b) they are also locked in a struggle with Allahu Akbar screamers that they must be on our team, the more I see that they are not. They offer nothing to the US, they do nothing for the US, and yet they receive incredible amounts of aid ($500 per year for each Israeli citizen). Worse, not only do they collect our money, they use their considerable influence in America to commit our dollars and our boys and girls to their foreign policy adventures.

In the future, I'd prefer what resources America has left to be employed for the benefit of a broader spectrum of the American public instead of a cabal of traitorous Zionist Jews in America and a tiny, unimportant, and contemptible nation half way around the world. :shrug:

Hax

07-22-2011, 01:54

They can do nothing to stop Iranians from supplying IEDs and weapons to the Taliban.

That is silly. The Iranians despise the Taliban, and were actually quite close to invading Afghanistan in 1999.

PanzerJaeger

07-22-2011, 01:58

That is silly. The Iranians despise the Taliban, and were actually quite close to invading Afghanistan in 1999.

Not as much as they despise the West, apparently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/22/military.afghanistan

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/iran-boosts-talibans-artillery/story-e6frg6tx-1111119001546

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/iranian-rockets-afghanistan-taliban-nimruz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RRl2JrvhAM&feature=related

Hax

07-22-2011, 02:12

Not as much as they despise the West, apparently.

I call :daisy:. I don't believe it, there's no way that the Iranian government would deal with the same Taliban that murdered the Iranian diplomats at Mazar ê-Sharif less than a decade earlier. Perhaps that the Iranian government funded some Shi'ite splinter group, but it doesn't make any sense for them to fund the Taliban as a whole. There's one sentence I find troubling in particular:

Ideological differences between Iran, a Shia Muslim state, and the Taliban, a Sunni militia, are thought to have been settled in light of the shared aim in attacking coalition forces.

The Taliban aren't just "Sunni militias", they are hardcore Sunnite fundamentalists to the extreme. It would not make any sense for them to forge even a temporary alliance with the Iranians, as the Shi'ites are worse than non-believers, they are apostates. Or something. I find it hard to believe.

A different explanation might be that there is a lot of corruption within Iran itself. It might be that the government either didn't know or didn't care about weapons smuggle to Afghanistan.

ICantSpellDawg

07-22-2011, 02:43

Israel is terrible. I hate them more and more every day. I'm gaining greater respect for Jews in an inverse relationship to my engorging hatred of Israel.

a completely inoffensive name

07-22-2011, 03:36

When did Eric Cartman join the org?

Major Robert Dump

07-22-2011, 06:53

I call :daisy:. I don't believe it, there's no way that the Iranian government would deal with the same Taliban that murdered the Iranian diplomats at Mazar ê-Sharif less than a decade earlier. Perhaps that the Iranian government funded some Shi'ite splinter group, but it doesn't make any sense for them to fund the Taliban as a whole. There's one sentence I find troubling in particular:

The Taliban aren't just "Sunni militias", they are hardcore Sunnite fundamentalists to the extreme. It would not make any sense for them to forge even a temporary alliance with the Iranians, as the Shi'ites are worse than non-believers, they are apostates. Or something. I find it hard to believe.

A different explanation might be that there is a lot of corruption within Iran itself. It might be that the government either didn't know or didn't care about weapons smuggle to Afghanistan.

No offense dude, but your linear view of alliances, associations and state sponsored hate is kind of comical.

So let me break it down for you:
Iran is no fan of the Taliban.
Iran is no fan of the US.
Iran can fuel a proxy war between two of its enemies by providing weapons.

It's not a question of "are they?" its a question of "why wouldn't they?" You do know that Iran shares a border with Afghanistan, I am sure, and that Iran has a huge stake in the future of the country. This is evident enough in the violence levels between the east and west. Iran is in a tug of war with Pakistan.

I should also point out that the Taliban is not the only hostile force in the region, as there are a dozen anti-government splinter groups operating in Afghanistan, both Sunni and Shia. They do, however, tend to get overshadowed by the Taliban and people talking geopolitics tend to refer to all insurgents in Afghanistan as the Taliban, either for simplicity or due to ignorance.

Hax

07-22-2011, 10:25

Well, you've served on the ground there, so I'll go with your personal experience. Maybe my point wasn't coming across clear enough (writing posts at 3 AM), but I completely agree with your final assessment:

I should also point out that the Taliban is not the only hostile force in the region, as there are a dozen anti-government splinter groups operating in Afghanistan, both Sunni and Shia. They do, however, tend to get overshadowed by the Taliban and people talking geopolitics tend to refer to all insurgents in Afghanistan as the Taliban, either for simplicity or due to ignorance.

Strike For The South

07-22-2011, 21:01

[QUOTE=PanzerJaeger;2053346721]Are you sure?
I am

Where did I endorse such a theory? :inquisitive:

In any event, as such an ardent supporter of realpolitik, how could I not eventually question our relationship with Israel - specifically the benefits we are getting for our substantial investment in the country?

I was referencing your "arab hate" comment. US support of Israel makes for great propoganda but it is a small part of the larger machiene at work.

The Arab world is capital poor, rescource rich and ruled by despots who use a religon to strike fear and hate in the hearts of the populace. Until real changes come internally there will always be an underclass ready to lash out at whomever they think is responsible for their plight.

The men who buy into this propaganda are young, unemployed, and due to the precarious status of women in there country have few prospects for love or a family. The US could hand out Ice cream every thursday and it would be turned against us.

How is it in our interest to support Israel simply because it is a democracy? Communism is dead and democracy is on the rise in the region.

The Arab spring got allot of press but it seems to be turninig into a carsouel of strongmen, Israel is light years ahead of anyone else in the region and democratic states tend to cure many of the ills that plauge the Arab states right now.

Check your facts. You're operating on decade-old information.

Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism was an exercise in domestic social control that got completely out of hand. Since 9/11, the Saudis have cracked down (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/world/middleeast/22saudi.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311292197-trhwdNNfxyC+av2n4b324g) on Islamist terrorism more violently, decisively, and thoroughly than any other nation in the Middle East, and probably the world.
Only b/c they began to challenge the status quo within the country. The Whabbi schools and the money are still there, I love killing grown terrorists to but until we root out the problem that's all we'll do.

As to their repugnant internal society - we're talking realpolitik, right? Not my business, not my problem, and not my concern. I've long ago given up caring about how the Arabs govern themselves as long as they keep it in-country.

I agree

That is not even remotely accurate. Saudi Arabia has the most advanced military in the region, trained by America, equipped with the best Western military equipment, and with a budget at least three times the size of Iran's and even greater than that of the IDF.

I would seriously question Iran's ability to even support a conventional military excursion of any meaningful size through Iraq and into Saudi Arabia even with no resistance.

I would still take the IDF any day of the week, not to mention I don't want our ace in the hole to be SA in the region. I'm well aware of the secertain differences in Islam but push comes to shove and those differences get swept under the rug. Not the same with Israel

Saudi Arabia has far more influence in the region, and has actually taken steps to correct its contribution to 9/11 instead of using it to push a war in Iraq. Amazingly, the Kingdom can be considered a better ally.

I'll reference the whabbi schools and money again

They can do precious little to curb their growing sphere of influence in the region. They can do nothing to stop Iranians from supplying IEDs and weapons to the Taliban. They cannot stop regime forces from attacking our own in Iraq. They couldn't even defeat Hezbollah in their own backyard.

If your argument for the value of Israel's incredibly one-sided alliance is based on its ability to counter Iran's ambitions, I think a critical assessment of their actual capabilities is in order. Why don't you tell me exactly what Israel actually does to earn its special status? For comparison, our other special partner, Britain, has faithfully followed us into the depths of hell.

Heh perhaps I overplayed my hand, I should know better than to talk about the military with you. However, curbing Irans ambitions is not just about the military.

And how will they stop them? It is highly questionable whether they have the technical ability to get to Iran, much less attack a underground system designed to resist modern bunker busting technology. Hence, the Israeli push for American action against Iran in the last years of the Bush administration.

I was under the impression that Israels was ready to strike with or without US support until they were talked off the ledge

You may want to reexamine that position. The Jewish lobby, of which many were involved in neo-conservatism, relentlessly pushed for war against Iraq as far back as the Clinton regime. After 9/11, the opportunity was seized and a coordinated effort between American Zionist Jews and Israel was launched to make the war happen, including intense political pressure within congress and the White House, a sophisticated public relations scheme to sell the war, and doctored Israeli intelligence. When Bush wanted to get UN approval and allow time for weapons inspections, they threatened to bring down his presidency. None of this is in much contention, even within the Jewish Lobby and Israelis.

and without 9/11 none of your contentions could've happened. I would love to see links, as a quick google search yeilds nothing repuetable. And if Bush truly did forgo inspectors, and send American boys to die b/c he vauled his presidency over the truth, that seems like a unuiqely American issue

Pakistan is pretty bad, but it is generally understood that they are not really our ally - at least not in the same way that, say, Britain is. Again, Saudi Arabia's contribution to Islamic extremism through their support of Wahhabism in the '90s was bad, but they've taken steps to correct it. Egypt was actually a pretty reliable American ally under Sadat and Mubarak, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

All of these countries have harbored and supported terror while Israel did not

Yet America's unqualified support of Israel goes against even its own stated foreign policy goals of stability and security in the region.

You vastly overestimate Israel's projectable power.

Probably

That's the problem. The more I think about our relationship with Israel in objective terms instead of simply assuming that because a) they are a democracy in a region of authoritarian regimes and/or b) they are also locked in a struggle with Allahu Akbar screamers that they must be on our team, the more I see that they are not. They offer nothing to the US, they do nothing for the US, and yet they receive incredible amounts of aid ($500 per year for each Israeli citizen). Worse, not only do they collect our money, they use their considerable influence in America to commit our dollars and our boys and girls to their foreign policy adventures.

They are a fairly important peice on the chess board in a part of the world where we don't have many peices. Any other ally in the region comes with a nasty strain of anti americanism and a voltaile social base only held in check by tyranny, not a very good basket to put your eggs in.

In the future, I'd prefer what resources America has left to be employed for the benefit of a broader spectrum of the American public instead of a cabal of traitorous Zionist Jews in America and a tiny, unimportant, and contemptible nation half way around the world. :shrug:

What rescources we have left? Do I need to talk you off the ledge? You can also stop trying to convince to your cause with inflammotory rhetoric, allot of your arguments bring up valid points, then you end a post like this and it makes me think your insane

Centurion1

07-23-2011, 00:07

Israel despite their obvious Palestinian issues is far more internally stable than Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, or even SA. The government in Israel is fairly elected and has gone through numerous regime changes.

SA is run by eccentric and most likely evil Monarchs, Egypt is undergoing regime change and will likely be replaced by another strong man or oligarchy of some sort, Pakistan is a nuclear nation with internal instability and already a crap history of being good american allies, and Iran is ruled by a tyrant as well. Not to mention the only other viable potential ally i currently see in that list, Pakistan is not anywhere near as likable as their giant and increaisngly more powrrful neighbor of India. True support of Pakistan would isolate India. Who the Hell would choose Pakistan over India in terms of Realpolitik.

SA is destined to be a desert with no discernible uses once the oil dries up. Israel is self sustaining and has its own economy not based on a single commodity good. The average citizen in Israel is better off than the residents of any of the countries leading to further political stability. Israel has and never will harbor dangerous islamic terrorists and is even more committed than america to rooting them out.

Israel's armed forces are the premier in the region and could likely and has in the past defeat entire coalitions of middle eastern countries.

I see no true realpolitik reason we should ever support anyone else in the ME.

Ronin

07-23-2011, 00:42

I see no true realpolitik reason we should ever support anyone else in the ME.

I don´t see anyone seriouslly defending that any other player in the ME should be supported.....I think the question is the level of support....
when it comes to the US-Israel relationship there are moments where a certain "tail wagging the dog" vibe can be felt.

Louis VI the Fat

07-23-2011, 01:33

econ21

07-23-2011, 02:14

Compare London's long standing requests for US support in maintaining the Falklands, ....

Don't remind me. Whenever I feel misty eyed about the "special relationship", I should remember that the UK ranks about equal with a decrepit, suicidal, Argentinian military junta in the eyes of of the U.S. I still chaff at the bit in the Thatcher diaries where she recalled telling Al Haig that British troops were about to land on South Georgia to retake it and he felt honour bound to inform the Argentinians. Thankfully Weinberger talked him out of it. But I can't sustain that clear vision very long - god help me, I just love America. "Land of the free" - how can you not?

Back on topic: what happened to change US attitudes to Israel after 1967? As far as I can make out, Israel fought its critical wars with about as much help from the US as Britain had in the Falklands[1]. But once Israel attained regional hegemony with its spectacular success in 1967, it suddenly became America's bff. What changed stateside?

[1]Hyperbole aside, some figures here - no idea how good the source is:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html

rory_20_uk

07-23-2011, 10:04

Israel was flying American planes which were crucial to their air superiority which won them the war.

~:smoking:

Lemur

07-23-2011, 16:51

Israeli interests have been sold to America as American interests, when they most likely are not.
This. Precisely this.

ICantSpellDawg

07-23-2011, 21:23

This. Precisely this. Agreed. This is the most frustrating part

PanzerJaeger

07-23-2011, 22:57

I was referencing your "arab hate" comment. US support of Israel makes for great propoganda but it is a small part of the larger machiene at work.

The Arab world is capital poor, rescource rich and ruled by despots who use a religon to strike fear and hate in the hearts of the populace. Until real changes come internally there will always be an underclass ready to lash out at whomever they think is responsible for their plight.

The men who buy into this propaganda are young, unemployed, and due to the precarious status of women in there country have few prospects for love or a family. The US could hand out Ice cream every thursday and it would be turned against us.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure if you're in a position to speak to the motivations of such a broad spectrum of people.

Regardless, our subservience to Israeli foreign policy goals in the region contributes greatly to the anti-Americanism rampant in the Middle East. That would be fine if we were getting some discernable benefit in return. You have yet to identify that return.

The Arab spring got allot of press but it seems to be turninig into a carsouel of strongmen, Israel is light years ahead of anyone else in the region and democratic states tend to cure many of the ills that plauge the Arab states right now.

Sure, but why does that mean we should support them? Israel certainly isn't willing to export democracy to the rest of the reason, unless it is done with American money and American lives.

This element of your argument doesn't seem entirely thought out. It may have made since in the Cold War, when the very concept of democratic government was locked in a power struggle with authoritarianism and all democracies had a vested interest in standing together, but that time has long ago passed.

Again, what American interests are served through our support of Israel?

I would still take the IDF any day of the week, not to mention I don't want our ace in the hole to be SA in the region. I'm well aware of the secertain differences in Islam but push comes to shove and those differences get swept under the rug. Not the same with Israel

The IDF was never the amazing fighting force it has been made out to be, and has grown ever more complacent over the years since Yom Kippur. It hasn't had to contend with a real enemy in decades, and its recent performance against Hezbollah reflects that. It is still a capable force, but the assumption of superiority over Arab militaries that is common in the West is a mistake.

On the other hand, after the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia invested heavily in its military both technologically and, critically, in training - which was always the problem when the Arabs faced the Israelis. The Saudi Arabian military is far more 'American' in its structure and capabilities than the IDF. (Note, also, that I am not advocating for Saudi Arabia here - I'm only using the nation as an example for comparison. )

Of course, this whole discussion is completely irrelevant, as you will never see Israeli soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. The IDF could be the most potent, capable, and powerful military force in the world and it would still be of absolutely no benefit to the United States.

Just like with Israeli democracy, it is great for Israel that they have a modern military (paid for in large part by the US), but what does that do for America? One could argue, for example, that Britain's military is a clearly identifiable benefit in our alliance with that nation. Unlike Britain, which, by the way, pays for its own military, Israel will not commit the IDF to US conflicts, rendering it useless in any discussion of the costs and benefits of our alliance with the country.

However, curbing Irans ambitions is not just about the military.

Certainly not. It will require quite a bit of diplomatic capital as well, of which Israel has none in the region.

I was under the impression that Israels was ready to strike with or without US support until they were talked off the ledge

It is highly doubtful that they can do it on their own, although the perceived need is so pressing that they may have overcome their technical difficulties. In 2008, at least, they needed American equipment to do it.

and without 9/11 none of your contentions could've happened. I would love to see links, as a quick google search yeilds nothing repuetable. And if Bush truly did forgo inspectors, and send American boys to die b/c he vauled his presidency over the truth, that seems like a unuiqely American issue

And without Zionist Jews, none of it would have happened either.

Here are some more links:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/630/op14.htm

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/08/i_dont_mean_to_say_i_told_you_so_but

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Israel_lobby_and_U_S_foreign_policy.html?id=zIrFUBs7G6kC

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/steve-walt-feels-vindicated-by-blair-confession-as-well-he-should.html

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/488

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-92996109.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-says-iraq-israel-oil-line-not-pipe-dream-1.91911

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/mutual-wariness-aipac-and-the-iraqi-opposition-1.13755

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0304/03042517DS.asp

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-94998618.html

http://www.forward.com/articles/5719/

http://www.slate.com/id/2073093/

http://www.forward.com/articles/9335/

And http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac

But AIPAC showed its true power -- and its continuing ability to steer American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction -- when a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before using military force against Iran.

The pro-Israel lobby's victory on the Iran bill is almost unbelievable. Even after the nation repudiated the Iraq war decisively in the 2006 midterms, even after it has become clear that the Bush administration's Middle East policy is severely unbalanced toward Israel and has damaged America's standing in the world, Congress still cannot bring itself to stand up to the AIPAC line.

The fact that AIPAC, which is ranked as the second-most powerful lobby in the country (trailing only AARP, but ahead of the NRA) virtually dictates U.S. policy in the Mideast has long been one of those surreal facts of Washington life that politicians discuss only when they get near retirement -- if then. In 2004, Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings had the bad taste to reveal this inconvenient truth when he said, "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here." Michael Massing, who has done exemplary reporting on AIPAC for the New York Review of Books, quoted a congressional staffer as saying, "We can count on well over half the House -- 250 to 300 members -- to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants." In unguarded moments, even top AIPAC figures have confirmed such claims. The New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg quoted Steven Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign-policy director who is now awaiting trial on charges of passing top-secret Pentagon information to Israel, as saying, "You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin."

Until 9/11 and the Iraq war, this state of affairs was of little concern to anyone except those passionately interested in the Middle East -- a small group that has never included more than a tiny minority of Americans, Jews or non-Jews. If the pro-Israel lobby wielded enormous power over America's Mideast policies, so what? America's Mideast policies were always reliably pro-Israel anyway, for a variety of reasons, including many that had nothing to do with lobbying by American Jews. And the stakes didn't seem that big.

But in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq war, that all changed dramatically. 9/11, and the Bush administration's response to it, made it inescapably clear that America's Mideast policies affect everyone in the country: They are literally a matter of life and death. The Bush administration's neoconservative Mideast policy is essentially indistinguishable from AIPAC's. And so it is no longer possible to ignore it -- even though it is a notoriously touchy and divisive subject.

The touchiest aspect of all is the role played by pro-Israel neoconservatives in laying the groundwork for the Iraq war. Much of the media has been loath to go near this, for obvious and in some ways honorable reasons: It feels a little like "blame the Jews." But that taboo has faded as it has become clearer that "the Jews" are not the ones being blamed for helping pave the way to war, but a group of powerful neoconservatives, some but not all of them Jewish, who subscribe to the hard-right views of Israel's Likud Party. This group no more represents "the Jews" than the Shining Path represents "the Peruvians."

They are a fairly important peice on the chess board in a part of the world where we don't have many peices. Any other ally in the region comes with a nasty strain of anti americanism and a voltaile social base only held in check by tyranny, not a very good basket to put your eggs in.

1. Other than being a lightning rod for regional hatred, are they really important beyond their own borders?

2. Do we really not have many pieces? Before the Iraq War and the Arab Spring, the US had nearly complete hegemony in the region, with the few stragglers completely isolated and impoverished. Even after all that, we still have plenty of 'allies', 'proxies', or whatever you want to call them who are far more pliable and useful than Israel.

3. A chess piece implies that it can be played. Which nation is the piece and which is the player in our relationship?

What rescources we have left? Do I need to talk you off the ledge? You can also stop trying to convince to your cause with inflammotory rhetoric, allot of your arguments bring up valid points, then you end a post like this and it makes me think your insane

My words were very deliberate. What would you call a group of citizens in one country solely focused on promoting the interests of another at the expense of the former - going so far as to compel their fellow citizens into a war to further the interests of their favored country? I would call them a traitorous, contemptible fifth column that needs to be rooted out, exposed, and deported.

Israel is self sustaining and has its own economy not based on a single commodity good. The average citizen in Israel is better off than the residents of any of the countries leading to further political stability. Israel has and never will harbor dangerous islamic terrorists and is even more committed than america to rooting them out.

Israel's armed forces are the premier in the region and could likely and has in the past defeat entire coalitions of middle eastern countries.

I see no true realpolitik reason we should ever support anyone else in the ME.

Then I must question your understanding of the concept.

The very essence of realpolitik is putting aside ideological and moral judgments in favor of mutual gain.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. As Strike stated, most of us in America consider the nation repugnant in more ways than one - but we deal with each other because we both get real, tangible, and important benefits from the relationship.

In contrast, you've stated a) why Israel is a much nicer country to live in than other Middle Eastern nations and b) a description of the IDF based more in myth than reality.

While a and b are great, they do not actually constitute any sort of rationale for our one sided relationship with the country. Instead of coming up with positive attributes that describe Israel as a nation, you and Strike need to come up with positive attributes that describe our relationship with Israel. I'll return to a familiar refrain - what do we get out of it?

Mein Führer, it doesn't help to say all that with a PanzerJäger in your sig!

I admit it has an unsavory air about it, but I was a big supporter of Iraq because I thought it was in America's interest. I don't like to be played, by Zionist Jews or anyone else.

Centurion1

07-24-2011, 00:55

Then I must question your understanding of the concept.

The very essence of realpolitik is putting aside ideological and moral judgments in favor of mutual gain.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. As Strike stated, most of us in America consider the nation repugnant in more ways than one - but we deal with each other because we both get real, tangible, and important benefits from the relationship.

In contrast, you've stated a) why Israel is a much nicer country to live in than other Middle Eastern nations and b) a description of the IDF based more in myth than reality.

While a and b are great, they do not actually constitute any sort of rationale for our one sided relationship with the country. Instead of coming up with positive attributes that describe Israel as a nation, you and Strike need to come up with positive attributes that describe our relationship with Israel. I'll return to a familiar refrain - what do we get out of it?

Egypt is a perfect example of why a stable government is infinitely preferable in terms of realpolitik. Mubarak was american backed and he led the country to disaster. Now the country is wracked with insurrection and its is increasingly more probable a fundamentalist Islam party will emerge from the wreckage. Then all our money and aid is wasted because we have yet another enemy in the region. Israel is under little threat of being seized by enemies of America and are therefore a safer long term bet to hedge on. You know business a safer commodity even if the possible return is lower than another commodity is often preferable to purchase and invest in.

What do American's get out of it?

99% of Hamas efforts are focused on Israel. Terror organizations and the people within them do not just disappear. If america withdrew support and Israel fell then Hamas would not pull a Cinncinnatus and return to their fields. It would just create more American focused enemies. Hezbollah is an even more likely case. With a weaker Israel they would be able to focus more attention on America. FTR the same applies to every single terrorist organization in the ME.

Israel is a true hater of terror and actually aids us. You can give me your bull about how Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are really ratcheting up their efforts in stopping terrorists but I see a different story. They tell us these things and then when we discover the most hated man in America living next to a military academy in a mansion it leaves me a bit skeptical. If the Israeli's found out about that we wouldn't get the joy of killing OBM. What we would get is a delivery from Mossad with his head inside for proof.

Also you don't know the extent of our military sharing and intelligence sharing. My father was recently in Israel on business to see how they retrofitted a certain aircraft and later adopted similar hardware as a result.

And as Louis said your usage of the term "Zionist Jew" and Jew controlled-etc makes your whole argument unsavory though I know it isn't meant in such a manner. I mean I keep expecting you to link a video of you frothing at the mouth and propagandizing about the Jew controlled media.

Major Robert Dump

07-24-2011, 14:01

PanzerJaeger

07-26-2011, 05:25

Re-posted as per Hooahguy's request.

Dear PJ:
I have been recently made aware of your post in the backroom about the Jewish lobby.
I have also noticed that you are grouping AIPAC and Jews in one group.

I want to tell you something. I love this country. It has given me everything I could ever want. Except a girlfriend who sticks with me longer than a year, but I guess thats my problem.
Anyhow, I love this country, and thats why I plan to fight for it. I plan to enlist in the US Army after I return from my year abroad. I plan to take an oath to defend this country, this country, not Israel, from all threats, foreign and internal.

That being said, I vehemently protest your grouping of Jews and the Jewish Lobby. Yes, the vast majority of Jews are pro-Israel, but thats to be expected. But to say that Jews are out to destroy America is just flat-out wrong.
Most love America, and while you have every now and then the nutjob who does want to put Israel before the US, most are apathetic about it all.

Dont get me wrong. I truly believe that the Israel lobby is way too strong. It needs to be curtailed.
But do not group AIPAC with Jews. Jews are not trying to take down this country. This is not the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Best regards,
Hooahguy

PS: PJ, if you would be so kind as to post this in the Backroom as to make my position clear, that would be appreciated.

I discussed this with him over Steam, but just to be explicitly clear, I am refering to Zionist Jews in this thread. As discussed in my original link (that I guess no one actually read; that's ok) Zionist Jews =/= Jews. They are a powerful minority within the greater, mainstream Jewish population in America. Their loyalty lies with Israel, despite their American citizenship, and they have no qualms about using American power to further Israel's interests.

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro‐Israel to include letter‐writing, financial contributions, and supporting pro‐Israel organizations. But not all Jewish‐Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 percent of Jewish‐Americans said they were either “not very” or “not at all” emotionally attached to Israel.60

Jewish‐Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are run by hardliners who generally supported the expansionist policies of Israel’s Likud Party, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process. The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more favorably disposed to making concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups—such as Jewish Voice for Peace—strongly advocate such steps.61 Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both support steadfast U.S. support for Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States. As one activist with a major Jewish organization wrote, “it is routine for us to say: ‘This is our 14 policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.’ We as a community do it all the time.”62 There is also a strong norm against criticizing Israeli policy, and Jewish‐American leaders rarely support putting pressure on Israel. Thus, Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of “perfidy” when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid‐2003 urging Bush to pressure Israel to curb construction of its controversial “security fence.”63 Critics declared that, “It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.”

Similarly, when Israel Policy Forum president Seymour Reich advised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to pressure Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip in November 2005, critics denounced his action as “irresponsible behavior,” and declared that, “There is absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security‐related policies . . . of Israel.”64 Recoiling from these attacks, Reich proclaimed that “the word pressure is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.”
Jewish‐Americans have formed an impressive array of organizations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and well‐known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington.65 AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL‐CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington’s “muscle rankings.”66

Papewaio

07-26-2011, 06:59

You know normally it is the smaller country that has to pretend that it's larger allies interests are its interests.

Political judo or just a fact of who needs who more?

Strike For The South

07-26-2011, 07:44

While I haven't had time to formulate an articulate a response worty of my reputation I would just like to say I do not support Israel on any grounds other the geo political and I read your link

Love me?

Centurion1

07-26-2011, 08:39

Lemur

08-09-2011, 18:20

20 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives will be using this congressional recess to tour Israel. WHAT THE FUDGE. (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=232876) Do we give this kind of slobbery-mouthed kissing to any other ally? I mean, seriously, what the hell are the congresscritters thinking?

Eighty-one congressmen, or about 20 percent of the US House of Representatives, will visit Israel over the next three weeks during Congress’s summer recess, with the first group of 26 Democrats scheduled to arrive on Monday.

The Democratic delegation will be followed by two Republican ones, bringing a total of 55 Republicans.

[...] The week-long trips are sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, a charitable organization affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which brings large delegations of congressmen here every other August.

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) will head the Democratic delegation, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) will lead one of the Republican groups.

Ronin

08-09-2011, 18:27

I mean, seriously, what the hell are the congresscritters thinking?

they are thinking about re-election.

come on..that one was low hanging fruit.

Adrian II

08-09-2011, 18:30

20 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives will be using this congressional recess to tour Israel.

:thinking:

It's because of the goils. :idea:

AII

Sasaki Kojiro

08-09-2011, 20:40

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.

Well that's pretty heavy on implication certainly. But I mean, Susan B. Anthony made a significant effort in her daily life to "bend" U.S. domestic policy so that it advanced women's interests.

"Interests" is much too murky a word to rely on for serious talk.

Congressman visiting Israel, good, I would hope our congressman have some first hand experience of things like that.

Lemur

08-09-2011, 21:23

Congressman visiting Israel, good, I would hope our congressman have some first hand experience of things like that.
And do you imagine that an all-expenses-tour paid by a lobbying group is the best possible way for them to get "some first hand experience"? Really? I hope they take some money from Merck and Abbott to go visit the Caribbean as well, so that they can learn about the issues surrounding prescription drugs.

Kralizec

08-21-2011, 21:07

I call :daisy:. I don't believe it, there's no way that the Iranian government would deal with the same Taliban that murdered the Iranian diplomats at Mazar ê-Sharif less than a decade earlier. Perhaps that the Iranian government funded some Shi'ite splinter group, but it doesn't make any sense for them to fund the Taliban as a whole. There's one sentence I find troubling in particular:

The Taliban aren't just "Sunni militias", they are hardcore Sunnite fundamentalists to the extreme. It would not make any sense for them to forge even a temporary alliance with the Iranians, as the Shi'ites are worse than non-believers, they are apostates. Or something. I find it hard to believe.

A different explanation might be that there is a lot of corruption within Iran itself. It might be that the government either didn't know or didn't care about weapons smuggle to Afghanistan.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were mortal enemies according to their respective ideologies, but they cooperated for several years on a variety of issues - culminating in the partition of eastern Europe per the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, and ending only when Germany invaded the USSR by surprise.

On several ocassions you yourself have pointed out that the Iranian government isn't entirely composed out of near-suicidal, foaming-at-the-moath lunatics. Iran may have had pragmatic reasons to support Afghan insurgents, such as undermining an ally of the USA (the current Afghan republic)
I'd also question the ideological purity of the average "Taliban" bloke, or members of other splinter groups. I recall reading somewhere that during the Afghan-Soviet war the Arab volunteers (OBL's ilk) weren't always popular with the local Afghan insurgents because the former had a "holier than thou" attitude. They probably would have no qualms with using weapons from one "enemy" (Iran) in combat against another, more relevant enemy (NATO).

rasoforos

08-23-2011, 10:21

Re-posted as per Hooahguy's request.
Their loyalty lies with Israel, despite their American citizenship, and they have no qualms about using American power to further Israel's interests.

Says someone with a Panzer as a sig, german origin, and well documented Right Wing views...

Why does the US support Israel? Its Realpolitik! Simple as that. For the same reason it was no problem selling F-15 planes to Saudi at the same time. For the same reason Osama bin Laden was made into a freedom fighter and then into a terrorist. Its what made the U.S a superpower in the first place. The ability to promote the country's interests without moral or cultural burdens. From my point of view there is absolutely no need for endless posts on a matter where things are simple.

Slyspy

08-23-2011, 12:41

The argument being made is that the support of Israel is not in the best interests of the US. Or that, at least, the level of support is disproportionate to the benefit received. If this is the case then such support ceases to be Realpolitik.

Vladimir

08-23-2011, 16:28

Says someone with a Panzer as a sig, german origin, and well documented Fascist views...

Why does the US support Israel? Its Realpolitik! Simple as that. For the same reason it was no problem selling F-15 planes to Saudi at the same time. For the same reason Osama bin Laden was made into a freedom fighter and then into a terrorist. Its what made the U.S a superpower in the first place. The ability to promote the country's interests without moral or cultural burdens. From my point of view there is absolutely no need for endless posts on a matter where things are simple.

Godwin?

Montmorency

08-23-2011, 17:08

Louis already did it in this thread, except humorously.

Centurion1

08-23-2011, 18:28

gah

Vladimir

08-23-2011, 18:43

Louis already did it in this thread, except humorously.

Shoot! Thanks for the correction.

To contribute something meaningful: For all their faults supporting the Jewish lobby is far better than supporting those directly opposing them.

Lemur

08-23-2011, 19:13

supporting the Jewish lobby is far better than supporting those directly opposing them.
I do not understand why it is in our national interest to support either. Where is it written than we must choose sides in the Israeli/Palestinian Axis of Stupidity? Why is any of it our fight?

Hax

08-23-2011, 19:23

Also, false dilemma. "With them or against them", well, international politics don't really work that way.

Louis VI the Fat

08-23-2011, 19:37

I do not understand why it is in our national interest to support either. Where is it written than we must choose sides in the Israeli/Palestinian Axis of Stupidity? Why is any of it our fight?This. When presented with the choice between Israeli hardliners and Palestinian hardliners, pick 'none of the above'.

Why should the world revolve around a conflict about three square miles of Middle Eastern desert?
I mean, why not let global politics be held hostage by the etnic conflicts on New Caledonia? The same size after all. Or, have the UN Security Council occupy itself nearly fulltime with the Western Sahara? Much more desert, plenty of displaced people, complicated history of post-colonialism and occupation. Why not send twenty percent of US members of Congress to this part of the desert? Surely it is worth studying?

The Middle East conflict is the concern of the world simply because it is the concern of the world. Because Western and Middle Eastern governments, for different reasons, have been pushed into taking a position in the conflict, until it became an automatism. It has become unquestioned, natural, to have a strong opinion about the Middle Eastern conflict One looks a provicial for not having intimate knowledge about, a strong position in the conflict.

But why should that be? What if it isn't any of our concern to begin with? I mean, in the Eastern Congo they seem to manage to keep up their conflict for decades on end perfectly fine without outside involvement. They don't seem to need us to sustain their conflict.

Louis - 'if only they would've had a good psychiatric hospital in Jerusalem, the world would've been a peaceful place the past three thousand years'.

Louis VI the Fat

08-23-2011, 19:38

Godwin?Nobody out-Godwins Louis. :knight:

Louis - confused fascist antifascist. :wall:

Seamus Fermanagh

08-23-2011, 21:21

... the Western Sahara? Much more desert, plenty of displaced people, complicated history of post-colonialism and occupation. Why not send twenty percent of US members of Congress to this part of the desert? .... [/I]

Sounds good. Anyway you could arrange for them to stay?

rasoforos

08-24-2011, 17:47

Godwin?

My dear Vladimir this topic had reached 100% Godwin ab initio :)

Vladimir

08-24-2011, 18:27

My dear Vladimir this topic had reached 100% Godwin ab initio :)

Ahh. New Latin phrase. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Seamus Fermanagh

08-24-2011, 19:49

Ahh. New Latin phrase. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Pax vu biscum.

Vladimir

08-24-2011, 20:47

Pax vu biscum.

I'm waiting for someone to start quoting Life of Brian because I don't want to risk the warning points. Wait, those are names.

But yes, thank you. :bow:

PanzerJaeger

08-25-2011, 02:58

Says someone with a Panzer as a sig, german origin, and well documented Right Wing views...

rasoforos. I haven't seen that name around the forum in many years. It's good to see you posting again. :bow:

Why does the US support Israel? Its Realpolitik! Simple as that. For the same reason it was no problem selling F-15 planes to Saudi at the same time. For the same reason Osama bin Laden was made into a freedom fighter and then into a terrorist. Its what made the U.S a superpower in the first place. The ability to promote the country's interests without moral or cultural burdens. From my point of view there is absolutely no need for endless posts on a matter where things are simple.

If only it were that simple... Unfortunately, the situation is very much the opposite of that which would be expected under realpolitik - one that can only be described as the subservience of a global superpower to a tiny, geopolitically meaningless country. Israel is completely reliant on America, not the other way around. And yet, Israel's will is sacrosanct and her national security objectives, economic priorities, and even the fleeting whims of her political class become America's. Why is that? The powerful Jewish lobby has a stranglehold on America's political structure.

Papewaio

08-25-2011, 05:05

Why? Its what happens when you mix church with state (from the point of view that you have relatively religious politicians who wear it with pride)... end with very strange decisions based not on economics but religious geography to keep their voters happy. :coffeenews:

Could be worse, you could be a buddhist country trying to support Tibet. 'China please leave Tibet or we will have to write you a stern note:deal:. And if you really upset us we will set ourselves on fire.:bomb2:'... kind of like the UN with more firepower.:7firefighter:

Lemur

09-14-2011, 18:46

Here's an amazing interview with Tony Judt (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/tony-judts-final-word-on-israel/245051/2/), shortly after the flotilla raid. Quoted for truth.

The characterization that comes to mind is "autistic." Israel behaved in a way that suggests it is no longer fully able to estimate, assess or understand the way other people think about it. Even if you supported the blockade (I don't) this would be an almost exemplary case of shooting oneself in a painful part of the anatomy.

Firstly because it alienates Turkey, who Israel needs in the longer run. Secondly because it was undertaken in international waters and largely at the expense of civilian victims. Thirdly because it was an overreaction. Fourthly because it had the predictable effect of weakening the case for a blockade rather than strengthening it.

In short, this is the action of a country which is fast losing touch with reality. [...]

Israel should be much, much more afraid of the Israel it's creating for itself: a semi-democratic, demagogic, far-right warrior state dominated by racist Russians and crazed rabbis. In this perspective, an internationally policed and guaranteed federal state of Israel, with the same rights and resources for Jews and Arabs, looks a lot less frightening to me. [...]

Israel is behaving very much like the annoying little Judean state that the Romans finally dismantled in frustration. This classical analogy may be more relevant than we think. I suspect that in decades to come America (the new Rome) will abandon Israel as annoying, expensive, and a liability.Honestly, Israel's behavior in the past couple of years is beyond understanding. Describing it as "autistic" is fair and accurate. Alienating Turkey? Madness. Alienating Egypt? Madness. Dissing the current President and depending on a single party in the USA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-and-israel-stalled-diplomacy-or-suspicion-and-distrust/2011/07/08/gIQAwJwa4H_blog.html?hpid=z3) (which may or may not hold power in any given year)? Madness. It's as though Israel wants to be isolated, friendless and vulnerable.

Hax

09-14-2011, 22:34

Autism would be incorrect, I believe not all of the Knesset or indeed, the Likud party has gone to hell. Misplaced arrogance would likely come closer, they probably think they're invincible. And with American support, they pretyt much are. For now, at least.

Tellos Athenaios

09-15-2011, 11:02

I don't think he cares too much for Belgium though:

Well, there could be a federal state of two autonomous communities -- on the Swiss or Belgian model (don't tell me the latter doesn't work -- it works very well but is opposed by Flemings led by people very much like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman)

... That's rather a weird comparison to make.

Hooahguy

04-16-2012, 05:06

Im going to necro this thread only in light of the whole Iran thing. Also, the whole Jonathan Pollard issue which many Jews are now taking up, now that Shalit is free and they need another "free this guy now" campaign.

First off, Iran. I think its hilarious that Israel, which seems so intent on a strike on Iran, is expecting the US to help. Yet they fail to remember that we just got out of one war and is still bogged down in another. And most likely the US would be carrying most of the weight in a war because Israel doesnt have the manpower to have a war with a country like Iran. So you would have to be naive to not realize why the US is so cautious about a war.

And now for Pollard. What. The. :daisy:.
He is a spy. He deserves his sentence 100%. People are always saying "oh, Israel is an ally, he shouldnt have had such a long sentence" and other bull:daisy:.
Here's an idea for you: a stranger comes up and hits you in the face. Later, a friend comes up and hits you in the face. Who will you be more angry at and punish more?
I dont know about you guys, but Id be angrier at my friend, and as such, Pollard should rot in jail like the traitor he is.

And yeah, AIPAC is way too powerful. Needs to be curtailed. Sometimes I wonder who "wears the pants" in this relationship.

And Israel is turning into a "a semi-democratic, demagogic, far-right warrior state dominated by racist Russians and crazed rabbis" country, as the quote in Lemur's post said.

Crazed Rabbit

04-16-2012, 06:40

Man, I just did a bit of reading on that Pollard. Hooahguy has the right of it; he's a traitor scum who should die in prison.

I also don't see what Israel offers us as an ally, except a huge reason for Islamists to hate us more. And they always want us to fight wars for them.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

04-16-2012, 19:24

I also don't see what Israel offers us as an ally, except a huge reason for Islamists to hate us more. And they always want us to fight wars for them.

CR

That's pretty mercenary.

Lemur

04-16-2012, 20:21

That's pretty mercenary.
In general, nations should pursue their best interests, correct? To suggest otherwise is an appeal to some sort of altruism or idealism.

In the cold war we judged support of Israel a sensible and sound investment. Now? I'd be curious to hear the rationale.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-16-2012, 21:21

In general, nations should pursue their best interests, correct?

Why would it not be in the national interest to help people out who don't do much for us? We like doing that, therefore it's in our interest to do it. You wouldn't propose that as way to live personally would you? "This friend of mine hasn't done much for me lately...not sure he's a sound investment anymore..." would make you sound like a sociopath. And moving from the personal to the national scale isn't an excuse to become amoral.

If there's a good reason to back away from Israel it isn't that.

rvg

04-16-2012, 21:24

Sasaki Kojiro

04-16-2012, 21:28

So I learned two things today.

1) "appeal to altruism" is apparently some kind of logical fallacy
2) rvg doesn't think genocide is wrong when you do it against another country, rather than internally :laugh4:

rvg

04-16-2012, 21:29

Lemur

04-16-2012, 22:17

"This friend of mine hasn't done much for me lately...not sure he's a sound investment anymore..." would make you sound like a sociopath. And moving from the personal to the national scale isn't an excuse to become amoral.
That's a strange way of looking at things. Friends give each other all sorts of things, the pleasure of one another's company being first and foremost. Not to mention shared activities, shared interests, movie time, etc. I don't see how that translates into geopolitics.

If you're keen that we stand by our friends (defined by nations who hold similar interests and have been there for us time and time again (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4885895/History-of-Britains-special-relationship-with-America.html)) then I'm all in favor. But Israel, like any rational nation, is looking out for number one. They have no problem with spying on us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard) or killing our sailors and marines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident) should they deem it appropriate. They don't care even slightly about our aims in the Middle East. Indeed, the entire Arab Spring can be seen as a bit of an inconvenience to Israel, given that it undercuts their claim to be the sole democracy in the neighborhood.

Our friend is out for himself. He's the kid of guy who forgets to buy his round at the bar, beats his live-in girlfriend and involves us in his drama. If we call him for help moving that couch? I don't think he's gonna show up. You say "friend," I say bipolar deadbeat who wants us to pay his bills and fight his fights. Where do you go when the friendship is almost entirely a one-way street?

We have some real friends. If you want to make the case that Israel is one, by all means do so.

PanzerJaeger

04-16-2012, 22:20

Why would it not be in the national interest to help people out who don't do much for us? We like doing that, therefore it's in our interest to do it. You wouldn't propose that as way to live personally would you? "This friend of mine hasn't done much for me lately...not sure he's a sound investment anymore..." would make you sound like a sociopath. And moving from the personal to the national scale isn't an excuse to become amoral.

If there's a good reason to back away from Israel it isn't that.

The issue is that in the realm of international politics, supporting the geopolitical interests of one nation is almost always to the detriment of another - so it is best for nations to support others when interests align. That is the core of Realpolitik. In this instance, unwavering support of Israel has pitted the US against the interests of others in the region and garnered significant ill will. It is worthwhile to question the benefit of the relationship to the US.

Altruism is really a completely different animal, as it does not entail weighing the interests of multiple factions. The choices are much simpler when altruism comes into play. If there were some sort of natural disaster or humanitarian crisis in Israel, I, and I suspect most that take issue with the Israeli stranglehold on US Middle Eastern policy, would have no hesitation about sending as much aid as possible to the scene, as the US always does in such situations. Similarly, if Israel were attacked by her neighbors without cause other than hatred and historical animus as was done in the past, support would surely be forthcoming. However, such situations are not what are being discussed. There is a significant difference between altruism and reflexively vetoing every UN resolution pertaining to Israel, proffering political cover for provocative actions in the region, and sending billions of dollars to the developed nation.

That's where a lot of the support for Israel in the US comes from - misplaced altruism. Most Americans still view Israel through the lense of the David versus Goliath narrative that resulted from the Israeli-Arab wars and the religious overtones it invokes in Christian circles. The geopolitical makeup of the region is much different these days, though. Israel has not faced a threat to its existence in a very long time.

ICantSpellDawg

04-17-2012, 01:51

I came to the realization that my unwavering support of Israel was based primarily on my extreme dislike for the Palestinians and their activities- dancing in the streets after 9/11, suicide bombing their children, suicide bombing other people's children, etc. There's no doubt, they're a pretty terrible group of people on the whole and have been consumed by the Islamist culture that I despise.

Welcome. I hope that we are able to break the Zionist power hold soon. I think that it is wavering. The excesses of the modern Israeli government are showing themselves everywhere. Israel weakens us. We should seek to ensure that they survive as "A" state (notice I didn't say anything about a "jewish" state, which is an abusive and horrifying concept in the 21st century), but purely to protect people from the backlash that they have caused over the past century. Israel has been one of the single worst creations in past memory and, while the Jewish enthno/religious group needs to be protected from destruction, their "state" does not.

Sasaki, Israel is no friend of ours. Israel likes it's disproportionate advantage in the world and sucks up to the bare minimal extent. They are currently occupied by a racist and apartheid government and no government of that sort should be a long term ally of ours.

P.S. - I fail to see a purpose for our support of Israel, except that they are a tremendous buyer of our weapons... with the money that we give them. Where is it that we would be without our support of that place? If Israel were just another State or was never created in the first place, how would we be harmed by this?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-17-2012, 01:53

Well, that's like I was saying. The reasons people normally give for not wanting to back israel involve a whole lot more than the stuff that was being said.

Hooahguy

04-17-2012, 02:29

Recently, an IDF soldier hit a Danish protester (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/apr/16/israeli-soldier-assaults-protester-video) in the face with his rifle.

Way to go Israel, keep alienating people.

Idiots.

Strike For The South

04-17-2012, 03:56

Welcome. I hope that we are able to break the Zionist power hold soon.

I can't take this seriously

Hax

04-17-2012, 10:53

Interestingly, the David and Goliath narrative is built upon the fallacy that Israel was supposedly outnumbered during the 1948 war. The Arabs weren't only outnumbered by over 10,000 men but also suffered from internal divisions and weren't able to capitalise on the June ceasefire as much as the Israelis. It wasn't really all that surprising that the Israelis won the war.

I also think that the idea of Palestinians as a whole approving of massacring children is kind of stereotypical. I've witnessed the greatest naivety and misguidedness amongst pro-Palestinian supporters, but advocating or approving of suicide bombing goes a bit too far.

rvg

04-17-2012, 13:29

Interestingly, the David and Goliath narrative is built upon the fallacy that Israel was supposedly outnumbered during the 1948 war. The Arabs weren't only outnumbered by over 10,000 men but also suffered from internal divisions and weren't able to capitalise on the June ceasefire as much as the Israelis. It wasn't really all that surprising that the Israelis won the war.
They knew that too, did they not? Yet they still refused to negotiate and approve the 1947 partition.

I also think that the idea of Palestinians as a whole approving of massacring children is kind of stereotypical. I've witnessed the greatest naivety and misguidedness amongst pro-Palestinian supporters, but advocating or approving of suicide bombing goes a bit too far.
Both sides killed innocents.

ICantSpellDawg

04-17-2012, 13:39

I can't take this seriously

I see what you mean. Do you dispute that there is such a thing or that their lobby has a tremendous amount of power?

Hooahguy

04-17-2012, 13:42

I see what you mean. Do you dispute that there is such a thing or that their lobby has a tremendous amount of power?
That has nothing to do with it. The whole "WE MUST BREAK THE STRANGELHOLD OF TEH ZIONISTS!!!!!" sounds like some crazed person.

rvg

04-17-2012, 14:10

That has nothing to do with it. The whole "WE MUST BREAK THE STRANGELHOLD OF TEH ZIONISTS!!!!!" sounds like some crazed person.

Not to mention that the bulk of "teh zionist" support comes from the evangelicals.

Hax

04-17-2012, 17:24

Both sides killed innocents.

Excuse me, why are you telling me this? Don't think I don't know.

They knew that too, did they not? Yet they still refused to negotiate and approve the 1947 partition

I'm keeping this quote here so I can respond to it later. For the Arab side, I think it was largely a matter of principle: any surrender of Arab land was unacceptable. It's not that strange a position to take, really.

rvg

04-17-2012, 17:30

Excuse me, why are you telling me this? Don't think I don't know.
To make it clear that this wasn't a "good guys vs bad guys" kind of conflict.

Vladimir

04-17-2012, 17:35

I'm keeping this quote here so I can respond to it later. For the Arab side, I think it was largely a matter of principle: any surrender of Arab land was unacceptable. It's not that strange a position to take, really.

Agreed. It is completely justified Islamic, if not Arabic, et al, moral code to recover "lost" land. It's not too different from anyone else's views, really. :shrug:

On Israel's value to the U.S.: Israel is our closest ideological partner and most stable country in that corner of the planet. We give them significant amounts of money and technology and put up with a lot of their b.s., but they give us access to a great deal of stuff that no other country in the region can. You don't ditch partners just because they come with baggage.

rvg

04-17-2012, 17:42

Agreed. It is completely justified Islamic, if not Arabic, et al, moral code to recover "lost" land. It's not too different from anyone else's views, really. :shrug:

It was still a mistake imho. Their utter refusal to compromise had backfired in a very bad way. The "my way or the highway" kind of attitude usually results in the "highway".

Vladimir

04-17-2012, 17:44

It was still a mistake imho. Their utter refusal to compromise had backfired in a very bad way. The "my way or the highway" kind of attitude usually results in the "highway".

Highways? Kinda like Roman roads?

rvg

04-17-2012, 17:46

Highways? Kinda like Roman roads?

Kinda, but not quite.

Vladimir

04-17-2012, 18:32

Kinda, but not quite.

Sorry. Should have typed "like the roads the Roman Empire built?", but I hope you understand the point. Instead of taking the highway, they build them.

drone

04-17-2012, 21:29

But apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Hooahguy

04-17-2012, 21:39

But apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Dont forget an awesome TW game.

Hax

04-17-2012, 23:21

Agreed. It is completely justified Islamic, if not Arabic, et al, moral code to recover "lost" land. It's not too different from anyone else's views, really

Islam was used for anti-Jewish rhetoric against the Zionists, but it didn't play that large a role: the root of the conflict was between Arabs (not necessarily Muslims) and Jews. Of course, such people as Hajj Amin al-Husayni (who has also been portrayed as much more of an extremist than he actually was) used Islamic concepts to justify anti-Jewish raids and killings.

In any case, the fact that the Arab side was so divided would even further stress the point that this wasn't as clear-cut as Muslims versus Jews. In fact, there was no central command, there was not a clear strategy and the goals of King Abdullah of Transjordan were completely different from that of the Egyptians and the Iraqis, to the point that in the field, Abdullah's Arab Legion encountered more hostility from the Egyptians than from the Jews.

To make it clear that this wasn't a "good guys vs bad guys" kind of conflict.

Thanks, I guess. We already know this.

ICantSpellDawg

04-17-2012, 23:24

That has nothing to do with it. The whole "WE MUST BREAK THE STRANGELHOLD OF TEH ZIONISTS!!!!!" sounds like some crazed person.

I think Zionists are crazy people. I'm not saying "the Jews". As it has been said, anyone who honestly advocates that the Jewish people own all "promised land" and can use biblical force to expand or keep it for all time is a lunatic. I don't care if the people advocating this are evangelicals, jews, neo-cons. What they are doing is insane and not based on any rational approach to foreign policy. We shouldn't allow them to drag our nation down with them.

Zionism is real, most people wouldn't deny that the proponents of "Zionism" hold a wildly disproportionate sway over our foreign policy in that region. We need to break the hold and replace it with a pragmatic and reasonable approach, similar to the approach that we attempt to use elsewhere.

rvg

04-17-2012, 23:39

...I think Zionists are crazy people...

That may be. Then again, maybe you have to be crazy in order to survive in a region where you're surrounded by crazies.

a completely inoffensive name

04-17-2012, 23:48

Maybe we are all a bit crazy. Maybe none of you exist and this is all in my mind.

I don't know why my mind created some of you people though, other than to torture myself.

ICantSpellDawg

04-18-2012, 00:14

That may be. Then again, maybe you have to be crazy in order to survive in a region where you're surrounded by crazies.

Maybe you were crazy to move there in the first place, start killing people, and expect otherwise.

rvg

04-18-2012, 00:15

Maybe you were crazy to move there in the first place, start killing people, and expect otherwise.

Not if your other option was to stay and be exterminated by a bunch of other crazies.

ICantSpellDawg

04-18-2012, 03:02

rvg

04-18-2012, 03:11

"By the end of World War II, the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33% of the total population" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate). The crazies were out of power by the time stuff hit the fan in the Levant. They violently took control of other peoples land after the Nazis had been wiped off the face of the earth.

What were they supposed to do, pack up and leave for war ravaged Europe? By then they had families, property, roots, children who were born in Palestine and most importantly they no longer had to depend on someone else's benevolence to ensure their safety. For the first time in almost two millenia they had a place where they could be themselves, where they didn't have to hide their identity and their culture, where they didn't have to blend in with the dominant population. If I were them, I'd fight to the death to preserve that, which incidentally they did.

PanzerJaeger

04-18-2012, 06:36

What were they supposed to do, pack up and leave for war ravaged Europe? By then they had families, property, roots, children who were born in Palestine and most importantly they no longer had to depend on someone else's benevolence to ensure their safety. For the first time in almost two millenia they had a place where they could be themselves, where they didn't have to hide their identity and their culture, where they didn't have to blend in with the dominant population. If I were them, I'd fight to the death to preserve that, which incidentally they did.

They were depending on someone else's benevolence to ensure their safety - first France and then the US, and they smartly parlayed fundamentalist Christian sentiments and the Holocaust into a powerful lobby to keep the money and technology flowing from the latter. Israel is, by far, the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The Zionist State would not resemble its current, modern form without American patronage, and probably would not exist.

rvg

04-18-2012, 12:53

They were depending on someone else's benevolence to ensure their safety - first France and then the US, and they smartly parlayed fundamentalist Christian sentiments and the Holocaust into a powerful lobby to keep the money and technology flowing from the latter. Israel is, by far, the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The Zionist State would not resemble its current, modern form without American patronage, and probably would not exist.

They had allies, sure, but by and large they carved out their own country using their own resources. Afterwards the French helped, then the Americans. While I'm no fan of Israel's policies I do take into account their struggle for survival. This just might be Nietzsche's case of becoming a monster after having fought monsters for a very long time.

Vladimir

04-18-2012, 13:26

They were depending on someone else's benevolence to ensure their safety - first France and then the US, and they smartly parlayed fundamentalist Christian sentiments and the Holocaust into a powerful lobby to keep the money and technology flowing from the latter. Israel is, by far, the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The Zionist State would not resemble its current, modern form without American patronage, and probably would not exist.

Well of course they wouldn't exist in their current form if their history was different. They didn't need our help and didn't receive it until the 1970s; however, they did make good use of our AT missiles.

Bring me an alternative partner in the region. Jordan would be nice but a landlocked monarchy, with Israel on one border, isn't even close.

Hooahguy

04-18-2012, 13:41

They had allies, sure, but by and large they carved out their own country using their own resources. Afterwards the French helped, then the Americans. While I'm no fan of Israel's policies I do take into account their struggle for survival. This just might be Nietzsche's case of becoming a monster after having fought monsters for a very long time.

QFT

Lemur

04-18-2012, 13:50

Bring me an alternative partner in the region.
How about one we already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey%E2%80%93United_States_relations)?

Strike For The South

04-18-2012, 16:05

They were depending on someone else's benevolence to ensure their safety - first France and then the US, and they smartly parlayed fundamentalist Christian sentiments and the Holocaust into a powerful lobby to keep the money and technology flowing from the latter. Israel is, by far, the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The Zionist State would not resemble its current, modern form without American patronage, and probably would not exist.

How much of it is this and how much of it is realpolitik? I think you are seeing ghosts.

I can agree that Isreal often skirts its responsbility in what should be a partnership. I can agree that I am concerned in the direction in which Isreal is heading.

I am not ready, however, to head in the oppisite direction with reckless absandon based on inflamitory rhetoric

Vladimir

04-18-2012, 16:10

How about one we already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey%E2%80%93United_States_relations)?

Because it is bordering on Islamic extremism, military coup, and involved in a bloody multi-decade civil war.

It makes the problems in Gaza look like a block party with fireworks.

gaelic cowboy

04-18-2012, 16:16

...a country bordering on Islamic extremism and military coup involved in a bloody multi-decade civil war.

Sounds just like Israel however unfortunately for Israel it turns out Turkey is a far bigger and more important geo-political piece of the puzzle. Israel always tries not to annoy the Turks too much or effectively Israeli strategic policy on Syria/Lebanon falls in a heap.

Vladimir

04-18-2012, 16:19

Sounds just like Israel however unfortunately for Israel it turns out Turkey is a far bigger and more important geo-political piece of the puzzle. Israel always tries not to annoy the Turks too much or effectively Israeli strategic policy on Syria/Lebanon falls in a heap.

Made a few edits. Israel is highly unlikely to turn against us in the next election. The same can't be said for the Turks.

gaelic cowboy

04-18-2012, 16:28

Made a few edits. Israel is highly unlikely to turn against us in the next election. The same can't be said for the Turks.

Thats because there emerging as a major player again on the world stage, there position is relatively unstable the US alliance keeps the Russians at bay and keeps the Caucasus regions conflict from hurting Turkey. (pretty much like in the 19th century)

The US is no fool they will not secure Israeli security by butting against Turkey and her interests.

Effectively the US will need/has a new relationship with Turkey becasue historically you never can make a move in the Mid East without either Turkey or Eygpt.

Thats why the Kurds have not been granted the own country by the Americans because Turkey would object and also because it would further strengthen Iran due to increased Shia control of Iraq.

US mid east policy can merrily run along without Israel so you shouldnt put too much stock on there importance. (hence all the fiery rhetoric about annihilation and the courting of US religious whack jobs)

classical_hero

04-18-2012, 17:11

Re-posted as per Hooahguy's request.

I discussed this with him over Steam, but just to be explicitly clear, I am refering to Zionist Jews in this thread. As discussed in my original link (that I guess no one actually read; that's ok) Zionist Jews =/= Jews. They are a powerful minority within the greater, mainstream Jewish population in America. Their loyalty lies with Israel, despite their American citizenship, and they have no qualms about using American power to further Israel's interests.

When you speak of Zionism, you are speaking of the Jews. http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

Tellos Athenaios

04-18-2012, 17:45

My irony detector just went off. You didn't link to that source to support that claim (anti-Zionism == anti-semitism), did you?

Hax

04-18-2012, 18:01

Because it is bordering on Islamic extremism, military coup, and involved in a bloody multi-decade civil war.

None of that. I dislike Erdogan and his Islamic rhetoric, but bordering on Islamic extremism? Not really.

Military coups have occured in the past, but it's unlikely that it'll happen again. Who knows, though? This multi-decade civil war you're talking about concerns the Kurds, I assume. I think you're making it larger than the way it is in reality.

Vladimir

04-18-2012, 18:26

None of that. I dislike Erdogan and his Islamic rhetoric, but bordering on Islamic extremism? Not really.

Military coups have occured in the past, but it's unlikely that it'll happen again. Who knows, though? This multi-decade civil war you're talking about concerns the Kurds, I assume. I think you're making it larger than the way it is in reality.

Yes, well, to an extent. Maybe it's extreme to say "extremism" but we can very much wake up to see Turkish national interest turn away from the U.S. It wasn't but a year or two go that there was a serious, ongoing discussion about another military coup.

Point is: Only trust the Turks if

1. You're in a combat zone.
2. You're fighting against the same enemy.
3. You're surrounded.
and
4. They're armed with knives; then it's game on. :knight:

rvg

04-18-2012, 18:37

...4. They're armed with knives; then it's game on. :knight:

CEMAAT!!!!!

Kralizec

04-18-2012, 23:24

On Israel's value to the U.S.: Israel is our closest ideological partner

I really don't see how Israel is even remotely comparable to the US in terms of ideology. Just look at all the instances where Israeli law sanctions, accomodates or promotes religious practices.

Hooahguy

04-19-2012, 00:52

I really don't see how Israel is even remotely comparable to the US in terms of ideology. Just look at all the instances where Israeli law sanctions, accomodates or promotes religious practices.

And furthermore, where it fails to act.
Like for instance, a few months ago, bands of Orthodox Jews ran around violating Mosques and Palestinian property and the Israeli government did nothing.
As I mentioned in a different thread, around the same time as the majority of the Price Tag attacks, one guy in the (I think in NJ) threw rocks at a few Jewish businesses, a lot of world Jewry claimed it was the "second Kristallnacht." Yet when the Price Tag attacks became a regular thing, only Haaretz published it.
And even when there were arrests, it was swept under the rug.

Also there is an ignorance of the world in Israel, for a lack of better wording. Last February we went to an Israeli army base and met with an Israeli tank colonel, Bentzi Gruber. While we were there he gave us a speech on IDF moral code. Then he said two things that just struck me as totally ignorant:

1) The US military's policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was to level towns even if they had one terrorist in it, something which, to the best of my knowledge, is 100% false. This got me angry and made me lost 90% of the respect I had for him about 5 seconds before he made this comment.

2) The reason why so many US soldiers have PTSD is because they kill innocent people, and in the IDF they dont do that so they have a clean conscience.

What? Besides the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are vastly different wars than what Israel has fought since 1973. The wars since then for Israel have been a few months long and very close to home, allowing for troops to not have to stay out in the field for too long, and not to mention. Yet for the US, troops are deployed for a year, sometimes more, in a combat zone, which includes ambushes and IEDs on a daily basis (depending on the area).
It doesnt take a genius to add up that the war experiences of US troops and Israeli troops are not the same.

Also, most Israeli soldiers are either behind a desk or are manning checkpoints for their entire draft service, very few actually see combat. Not exactly so dangerous.

EDIT: and the fact that this colonel was talking to a large group of teens who know nothing about the US military doesnt help either.

Hax

04-19-2012, 01:26

Thats why the Kurds have not been granted the own country by the Americans because Turkey would object and also because it would further strengthen Iran due to increased Shia control of Iraq.

There already is a quasi-independent Kurdistan in Iraq. Also, Kurds living in Turkey are not Shi'ite. There's more at play here than just religious differences.

rvg

04-19-2012, 02:52

There already is a quasi-independent Kurdistan in Iraq. Also, Kurds living in Turkey are not Shi'ite. There's more at play here than just religious differences.
Yeah, but independent Kurdistan would further increase the proportion of shias in the remainder of Iraq.

gaelic cowboy

04-19-2012, 12:02

There already is a quasi-independent Kurdistan in Iraq. Also, Kurds living in Turkey are not Shi'ite. There's more at play here than just religious differences.

Indeed but quasi is not actual as we both know, also look at how delicately the US acts about it in relation to Turkey they even turn a blind eye to the odd border incursion.

And I wasnt stating that the Kurds were Shia but that essentially as RVG stated the Shia block in Iraq would increase in power even more if Kurdistan were declared. Also I dont believe that Iran bases her strategy on religion as such, but they do have a habit of couching it in those terms for public consumption. It's also easier for them obviously to convince a co-religionist to support Iran not this neccessarily means it would allow Iran to control Iraq.

Iran needs to help Syria and one way to to do this is to attempt to draw Iraq into it's fold, the US will not allow this and naturally keeps the Kurdish card underwraps as a potential block. At the minute it is not in the interests of the US probably due to Turkish and Sunnai Iraq basically not wanting to allow a full Kurdish republic of any kind. That does not mean that as the US turns it's eye on Iran that things wont take a life of there own.

If Turkey does not back the US with regard to the Iranian question in the future then the Kurds may be encouraged in order to block this Shia Arc that keeps the Saudis up at night. For the record I think the Shia Arc theory is a bit beyond the capability of an Iran that has basically drawn attention to itself.

Turkey has a problem in that any attempt to block Iran by destabilising her potentialy allies could unleash real Kurdish separitism in Iraq and Syria.
However at the same time they cant afford not to face off against Iran due to the potential nuclear problem.

Vladimir

04-19-2012, 12:57

Kralizec

04-19-2012, 13:20

That really begs the question what those similarities are. Without wanting to be pedantic, I'll point out that you said "closest" - meaning closer than the UK, Canada, Germany, etc.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-19-2012, 14:23

That really begs the question what those similarities are. Without wanting to be pedantic, I'll point out that you said "closest" - meaning closer than the UK, Canada, Germany, etc.

Which is absurd - as the closest US ally is clearly the UK, politically, ideaologically and culturally.

I'm not even sure Israel is the closest ally in the region - Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan all have things to recomend them, as does Bahrain.

Vladimir

04-19-2012, 14:30

That really begs the question what those similarities are. Without wanting to be pedantic, I'll point out that you said "closest" - meaning closer than the UK, Canada, Germany, etc.

No, sorry. I should have specified "in the region." Again, it's all relative and I'm not saying that I wouldn't like a bit of change, but I understand the context.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-20-2012, 00:49

Everyone always forgets Kuwait. That little country loves us. :creep:

Oh yeah. The Kuwaitis are reputedly even useful in a scrap.