US - Israeli partnership

GreenDoor

Today while listening to the radio a US based Irish journalist was talking about Israel attacking Lebonen. Then she said something very interesting. She said that nobody including herself in the USA can say anything bad against Israel because they'll be labelled anti-semetic. I was suprised to hear a self confessed left wing journalsit saying this. Why is this? Is the US gone PC mad or is their a large population of Jews living in the US?

The journalist was Marion McKeown (I think thats her name).

biko

The Israel-US relationship has gone on since ages, well since the creation/occupation of the country. The support for Israel from the US is massive - weapons, industry etc.

Fun fact: While Israel is against Iran having nuclear power they themselves never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons. Israel may have as many as 200 nuclear warheads but are not obliged to allow inspections by the IAEA.

Ray777

GreenDoor wrote:

Why is this? Is the US gone PC mad or is their a large population of Jews living in the US?

It's pretty simple. It's easier for some of Israel's apologists to spuriously play the 'anti-semite' card than to actually engage in a genuine debate on the rights and wrongs of Israel's actions.

aidan24326

GreenDoor wrote:

Why is this? Is the US gone PC mad or is their a large population of Jews living in the US?

According to the CIA World Factbook, Jews make up only 1% of the US population. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

So their high level of influence is certainly not proportionate. It's amazing to think such a tiny country as Israel could be influencing US foreign policy to the extent that they are (and have been doing for many years).

Manic Moran

The Jewish lobby is definitely disporportionate.

I think a lot of it goes back to the Cold War. I'm not sure which happened first: Israel falling into the American sphere of influence or the Arab countries falling into the Soviet sphere. Either way, it became a war by proxy between the allies of the two superpowers, and reversing a policy of 60 years of support is not something to be taken lightly. (It's much harder than, say, the case of US/Egypt relations where what was once a lack of support suddenly became a policy of support).

I don't think the 'anti-semite' card is really played as often as people claim it is/fear it is. When it is played, it's done by a small segment of the population. I think most people are able to comprehend a criticism on its own merits.

NTM

अधिनायक

This is a big question. There's max of 5 million jews in the US, many of whom disagree with Israeli policy. They let them build nukes. They let them bomb the airports of their democratic neighbours. They let them build a mini berlin wall and treat palestinians in a rather, ahem, familiar fashion. Why why why?

My favourite stupid answer is that Christian fundamenalists make up a large part of the electorate and believe every word of the bible. The bible is full of rubbish about israelites being victims and the Egyptians the bad guys so they have a natural affinity for the jews. Plus the second coming is sheduled to take place in Israel when Christ will save the jews following an armageddon with their enemies. So maybe they just want to speed up the armagedon bit.

Problem with this theory is that Clinton's administration took the same policy as republican administrations.

Another idea is that the US needs an isolated dependent ally as a base in the middle east to fight proxy wars on its behalf with gulf states to ensure oil supply and prevent any one islam state from dominating the region and screwing with fuel prices. I think this is most likely.

New_Departure06

The Christian Zionists in the US are a large part of the equation here. Christian fundamentalists are 40% of the US population according to polls, and many are fanatically pro-Israel. Christian Zionism wishes to bring about the Second Coming of Christ, and believes that for this to happen there must first be Armageddon in the Middle East. Hence the support for Israel's wars. 78% of the Christian Right voted for Bush in 2004.

Plus the second coming is sheduled to take place in Israel when Christ will save the jews following an armageddon with their enemies. So maybe they just want to speed up the armagedon bit.

Actually some Christian Zionists actually believe that when the Second Coming happens the Jews will be obliterated.

On the other hand, 76% of the US Jews voted for Kerry. However I have heard someone say that the majority of funding for the 2 parties comes from Jewish-Americans. A pressure group called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee supposedly (read this on wikipedia I think) releases lists of Congressmen/women who voted pro or anti-Israel and this is obviously going to get the pro-Israel lobby funding the pro-Israel candidates. At the same time politicians in the US, regardless of how they really feel, have to pander to the pro-Israel lobby to get funding from them at the primaries (where party candidates are chosen by popular vote) and then at elections.

Add to that the Cold War legacy of the Arabs (mostly) siding with the Soviet Union and Israel lining up with the Western Bloc, and the US displacing France as Israel's main arms-supplier in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and the importance of arms sales to Israel, and you get another part of the picture, along with the oil-lobby, who love the oil-price shooting through the roof during instability in the region, and you understand more the US support for Israel.

edanto

But how can the US be so naive as to never, ever criticise the actions of Israel? It's stunning.

What's the consensus so far, the reasons for all the support are the historical ties and some kind of benefits that accrue from having an ally in the middle east?

I was surprised to read that Israel is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid. I had thought that it would be some poor country.

But then I read that most of that aid to Israel must be spent on weapons in the US. Granted, that $3bn is only about 1% of the Pentagon budget, so it's not a massive boost to the Weapons industry. But the cynic inside of me started to wonder if the US could have any reasons for wanting to fill the middle east full of armaments?

Why give aid and INSIST that it's spent on arms?

uberpixie

edanto wrote:

But how can the US be so naive as to never, ever criticise the actions of Israel? It's stunning.

But then I read that most of that aid to Israel must be spent on weapons in the US. Granted, that $3bn is only about 1% of the Pentagon budget, so it's not a massive boost to the Weapons industry. But the cynic inside of me started to wonder if the US could have any reasons for wanting to fill the middle east full of armaments?

Why give aid and INSIST that it's spent on arms?

(1)Why would anyone in the US government risk backlash from the Jewish lobby?

Again look at the previous posts about how powerful that lobby is.

It's not in a politician's best interest to criticise Israel. They would be very naive to criticise Israel!

(2)Best kind of aid to give is the kind of aid where most of it comes back to line your pockets.

mike65

The States has got itself into the postion where its seen as Israels only reliable ally in a region of enemies. As noted it was the French who were Isreals guarantor initially. If the US did'nt back Israel it would'nt exisit (which would please some, even here).

Mike.

bonkey

GreenDoor wrote:

Then she said something very interesting. She said that nobody including herself in the USA can say anything bad against Israel because they'll be labelled anti-semetic.

Unless the person making such a statement is actually doing so in approval of the methodology, the statement effectively disproves itself.

Its a less-unpleasant version of the Ann Coulter tactics, of being venemous towards people whilst simultaneously claiming that it is being done becuase such people are on pedestals above criticism.

Why is this?

Well, generally because supporters of any group or ideology will tell you your criticism is wrong for one reason or another. Once it becomes difficult to make a clear case against the criticism (e.g. it would be nigh-on-impossible to claim Israel's response was proportionate) then one has to divert the discussion away from the criticism whilst still insisting it is wrong. The typical tactic for that is to claim ulterior motives - such as "you're only saying that because you hate Jews/Israeli's".

The other approach you'll see it coupled with is (deliberate) misconstrual of the criticism. People will say "Israel's response is disproportionate". The comeback from Israeli supporters will then go along the lines of "why do you wish to deny Israel the right to defend itself. You hate Jews/Israeli's." But very few are denying them the right to defend themselves, rather they are saying that there are limits to what is considered acceptable as a means of defence.

Again look at the previous posts about how powerful that lobby is.

Its not that powerful. Its loud, which isn't quite the same thing, but often achieves the same results.

Look at the tactics often used in "dirty" politics - smear campaigns etc. There doesn't have to be truth behind allegations...they just have to be shouted loudly enough that people hear them. As long as the truth doesn't get shouted as loudly (and lets face it, retractions and corrections are not the media's favourite headline-subjects). the damage is done.

Its the same with lobby groups. If you're loud enough, you'll have influence. Once you get influence, then you can use it to get more.

uberpixie

bonkey wrote:

Its not that powerful. Its loud, which isn't quite the same thing, but often achieves the same results.

Its the same with lobby groups. If you're loud enough, you'll have influence. Once you get influence, then you can use it to get more.

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) have a starting budget ranging from $15-16 million which swells to somewhere between $40-60 million when you include donations raised.
(do a quick google for AIPAC)

$40-60 million is a hell of a budget to have when you want to donate to politicians.

Too say the Jewish lobby is just "loud" is a wee bit of an understatement :-)

smallpaws

US based Irish journalist was talking about Israel attacking Lebonen. Then she said something very interesting. She said that nobody including herself in the USA can say anything bad against Israel because they'll be labelled anti-semetic

That's on the money; virtually every statement uttered about Israel politics has to be prefaced with " I'm not an anti-Semite. I don't like what the Israeli govt does because...." or someone someplace will be insisting you personally hate all Jews everywhere because you dared criticize the behavior of the Israeli govt. It's pathetic , really. Hating a government's behavior towards the Palestinians is not hating its members religion; to claim so is such a cheap shot at avoiding rational discussion about a policy that is clearly damaging towards Palestinians lives and futures and maintains the dispute. The victim card gets played over and over again here in the US. Also, what is done to the Palestinians when their homes are demolished, etc, has almost never been here on the news--- the public gets washed with images of screaming Israeli people who have been hurt by terrorists/suicide bombers, but almost nothing of the screaming Palestinians who have been hurt by soldiers. The news is very one sided when it comes to humanizing the problems with the Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have blood on their hands in their conflict; there's no excuse for being a terrorist when you've got a functional brain and you can negotiate, and no excuse for creating a terrorist when you've got a functional brain and can negotiate.

अधिनायक

uberpixie wrote:

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) have a starting budget ranging from $15-16 million which swells to somewhere between $40-60 million when you include donations raised.
(do a quick google for AIPAC)

$40-60 million is a hell of a budget to have when you want to donate to politicians.

I don't buy this. If the price of unconditional security council veto level support from the US is just $40-60m/year wouldn't every country pay up?

I think these arguments are all variations on the international zionist conspiracy theory.

Burgermaster

biko wrote:

The Israel-US relationship has gone on since ages, well since the creation/occupation of the country. The support for Israel from the US is massive - weapons, industry etc.

Fun fact: While Israel is against Iran having nuclear power they themselves never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons. Israel may have as many as 200 nuclear warheads but are not obliged to allow inspections by the IAEA.

Israel was not an occupation the lovely UN and the world community ratified it as a state in 1948 to little to late.

As for the Samson option that is necessary when your surrounded by Fantical Anti Semtic butchers..

I hope they retake the security zone, pound lebanon to ash and then take out syria and Iran once and for all..

As for Judea and Samaria it is a matter of time until we get back what is ours.

You can all rant as long as you want but Israel will never be defeated in any form or manner and why should they care about world opinion as a Jew dying is acceptable but an Arab is a tragedy...My Hole...

sovtek

Burgermaster wrote:

You can all rant as long as you want but Israel will never be defeated in any form or manner

I remember hearing something very similar when I was a kid, 'cept it was said with a distinctly Afrikaans accent.

uberpixie

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

I don't buy this. If the price of unconditional security council veto level support from the US is just $40-60m/year wouldn't every country pay up?

I think these arguments are all variations on the international zionist conspiracy theory.

"AIPAC has been connected to several controversial events. In 1982, AIPAC was able to convince the US Congress and President Reagan to veto a French-supported UN resolution condemning the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Lebanon to allow for the safe evacuation of Palestinians. This caused some critics in the media to argue that the "Reagan administration could not commit itself to concrete action to stop the killing in Lebanon". [2] The United States defended its vote stating that the proposed resolution would allow the PLO to retain its weapons during the evacuation, thus allowing it to potentially carry out attacks throughout the evacuation.
In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner had to resign when he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence, saying he had "cut a deal" with the Bush administration to give more aid to Israel. He had arranged for "almost a billion dollars in other goodies," he added and was "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over appointing a pro-Israeli Secretary of State. Steiner also stated AIPAC had "a dozen people in (the Clinton) headquarters. And they are all going to get big jobs."
Haim Katz told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC



If lobbying didn't work, lobby groups, with multi million dollar budgets wouldn't exist.

I don't believe there is some sort of mad zionist conspiracy: what I do believe is that there is a large, effective, well organised Jewish lobby that donate millions of dollars each year to key US politicans in order to push a pro Israel agenda.


In all honesty any group that donate very large sums of money to political campaigns will have influence.


You don't eat the goose that lays the golden eggs now do ya?

LostinBlanch

New_Departure06 wrote:

On the other hand, 76% of the US Jews voted for Kerry.

Don't forget that Kerrys running mate was Joseph Lieberman which might have something to do with it. Much the same way that having someone called Pat Murphy might sew up the Irish vote :rolleyes:

But I remember Kerry calling for an "even handed" approach to the middle east and being slapped down very quickly. He never said it again. I don't have a link or time to go looking for one, but I do remember him saying it, and the reaction.

HelterSkelter

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

...Problem with this theory is that Clinton's administration took the same policy as republican administrations....

Looks like nothing will change if/when Hillary Clinton gets into power, she attended a rally in New York yesterday in support of Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886029570&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

New York Jews rally in support of Israel

Thousands of American Jews clogged the streets leading to the United Nations building here in a massive show of support for Israel on Monday afternoon. The turnout was particularly impressive for a weekday and one of the hottest so far this summer.

A large group of sweating dignitaries looked out from the dais onto 42nd Street where the overflowing crowd chanted, sang songs, and lifted banners that said, "No to Terror!" Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from New York, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and numerous Jewish community leaders addressed the crowd.

The turnout was in stark contrast to the demonstration last week in front of the Syrian mission to the UN, where only 500 people came out to protest the capture of soldier Gilad Shalit. The change seemed to indicate that the attacks by Hizbullah, committed across an internationally recognized border, had inspired many more American Jews to unequivocally support Israel in its counterattack.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman spoke first and struck a particularly aggressive and confident tone. "From this stage, I would like to send out a clear message to that glass building behind you," Gillerman said, referring to the United Nations. "Let us finish the job! You know better than anyone else that what we are doing is doing your own work: fighting terror.... And to those countries who claim we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: you're damn right we are!"

His comments drew wild applause. Other speakers suggested that Israel should be given the time it needs to destroy Hizbullah or at least push it away from the Israeli border. There was no mention of diplomacy or international intervention as an option.
Wiesel said Hizbullah and Hamas were "believers in the cult of death and therefore they must be vanquished." He also expressed his appreciation for President George W. Bush, saying, "Thank God for him," to which a woman in the audience responded by screaming, "We love Bush!"

Local New York politicians drew parallels between the city that was attacked on September 11, 2001, and the citizens of Haifa. Clinton, yelling into the microphone and, like the other politicians, fighting the sweltering heat, called Hizbullah the "totalitarians of the 21st century." She said she wanted "us in New York to imagine if terrorists were launching terror attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks by extremists?"

Steve Landau, an investment banker who works in midtown, stood in the crowd, pumping his fist in the air and chanting, "Am Yisrael hai [the people of Israel lives]." He said, "I came here today because Israel needs our support. We can't let the terrorists think that can bring the Jewish people down with a few Katyushas."

A small opposition of about 30 people waving the Palestinian flag and signs that read "Stop the slaughter" stood across the street in a cordoned-off area. But they were a small, though noisy, presence. The overwhelming impression was of a surge of support for Israel from different sectors of New York's Jews.

Among the people at the protest was Miriam Appelbaum, from Crown Heights, who arrived with her four children, all wearing baseball caps in the orange of last summer's anti-disengagement protests. "Even people that screamed at each other about Gaza, even the leftists, they are here too. Nobody questions that Israel needs us now."

uberpixie

HelterSkelter wrote:

Looks like nothing will change if/when Hillary Clinton gets into power, she attended a rally in New York yesterday in support of Israel.

Jewish lobby donated a huge sum of money to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in '96.

Wouldn't be suprised if Hillary was courting them:they do donate generously to those that support them.
(like all good lobby groups:D)

अधिनायक

uberpixie wrote:

If lobbying didn't work, lobby groups, with multi million dollar budgets wouldn't exist.

True. Check out who spent $4 billion on lobbying last year: http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/top.aspx?act=topcompanies
So what I'm not sure is how a claimed 1% of this spend could determine US foreign policy in the Middle East.

I don't believe there is some sort of mad zionist conspiracy: what I do believe is that there is a large, effective, well organised Jewish lobby that donate millions of dollars each year to key US politicans in order to push a pro Israel agenda.

anecdote: I wrote a short article for a Catholic newspaper distributed to <10,000 clergy in Asia. I mentioned the word 'Palestine'. The editor received a letter of complaint from an Israeli lobby group (don't know which one). The editor was amused but it is spooky to think that they their monitoring extends to such a publication.

Pazaz 21

I think the US - Israel patnership is too often used as an excuse to blame what Israel does on the US. I believe that the US are partly to blame as their un-questioning support for Israel emboldens it to attack other countries and generally do what ever it wants. But don't forget that Israel would do what it does anyway, even if the Americans told it not too. It's not like America is fighting the "palestinians", etc, through Israel.

Burgermaster

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

True. Check out who spent $4 billion on lobbying last year: http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/top.aspx?act=topcompanies
So what I'm not sure is how a claimed 1% of this spend could determine US foreign policy in the Middle East.

anecdote: I wrote a short article for a Catholic newspaper distributed to <10,000 clergy in Asia. I mentioned the word 'Palestine'. The editor received a letter of complaint from an Israeli lobby group (don't know which one). The editor was amused but it is spooky to think that they their monitoring extends to such a publication.

Palestine does not exsist it is Israel.. Would you like Ireland to be Called the Free State of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland !

Pazaz 21

Burgermaster wrote:

Palestine does not exsist it is Israel.. Would you like Ireland to be Called the Free State of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland !

What are they the "Occupied Territorys" or sorry the "Disputed Territorys" is what we are supposed to call them now isn't it !

Pazaz 21

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I think the US - Israel patnership is too often used as an excuse to blame what Israel does on the US. I believe that the US are partly to blame as their un-questioning support for Israel emboldens it to attack other countries and generally do what ever it wants. .

The US through its military aid to Israel is in a unique and strong position to influence Israeli actions. If the US threatened withdrawl of aid, Israel would likely do whatever the US wanted. The fact that they don't is why the US tends to be criticised for Israeli actions.

But don't forget that Israel would do what it does anyway, even if the Americans told it not too.

It is questionable if Israeli would be able to maintain its military supremacy and do what it does anyway without US help.

It's not like America is fighting the "palestinians", etc, through Israel

True, but with a bit of propoganda it's not that difficult to interpret US actions in this light. Anti-US extremists tend to use this to their advantage. Along with greater energy independence, a separation of US interests from Israeli ones is the one of two key ways in which the US could abate anti US views in the middle east.

Burgermaster

Burgermaster wrote:

Palestine does not exsist it is Israel.. Would you like Ireland to be Called the Free State of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland !

Perhaps not as a properly functioning independent state, but it certainly does as a nation.

Pazaz 21

I agree that the US is in a great position to pressure Israel to act in certain ways by threatening to withhold aid and money and perhaps America is to blame for it's inaction in regard to Israel. But people seem to automatically say that when Israel attacks someone, America attacks someone, as if they are one in the same. People seem to be more worried about America's reaction and thoughts rather then Israel's, it's Bush talking about Syria, i haven't seen Olmert say anything yet, Perez was on newsnight last night and he pulled the government line, but thats about it.

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote:

The US through its military aid to Israel is in a unique and strong position to influence Israeli actions. If the US threatened withdrawl of aid, Israel would likely do whatever the US wanted.

I don't think the one necessarily follows the other. Israel has quite a healthy arms export industry, even the Americans buy from them. They've been trying to become a lot less dependent on foreign sources in general and the US in particular over the last thirty plus years. They probably view the aid from the US as 'nice to have' but not 'vitally important.'

NTM

The Corinthian

This working paper may interest those in this debate:

http://tinyurl.com/rknsm

Also, here's some of the criticisms that were levied against it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201039.html?nav=rss_world
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515/weiss

अधिनायक

Burgermaster wrote:

Palestine does not exsist it is Israel..

Yeah that's what the letter said!

Would you like Ireland to be Called the Free State of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland !

Couldn't care less.

One thing that confuses me about Israel is that my experience with jews is that they are really very good negotiators yet Israeli government behaviour would not be considered good strategy by many. Now I may be misreading the situation and I have to allow that they may have a supersmart plan that I don't grasp but...israelis and palestinians (can I say that word?) claim to both want a two-state solution. They both want security, peace, prosperous economies and an end to using apache gunships to shoot kids and human bombs to blow up buses. So you would think they could reach an agreement.

Another possibility is that the Israelis are willing to make their country a living hell for the next few decades to achieve a single state solution with Palestine obliterated. While there are calls for a return to pre-1967 borders, eventually there is the idea of adverse possession. If the Israelis occupy and populate a piece of land for long enough it will have to be recognised as theirs eventually. They might take notice of England's plantation of Ulster and that even 300 years was not enough to heal all ills.

Pazaz 21

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

If the Israelis occupy and populate a piece of land for long enough it will have to be recognised as theirs eventually.

It seems to have worked for them so far !!

Israel did follow the road-map and leave Gaza and what did they get for it, a Katyuska up the A**!! so what does that message send to Israel from the "palestinians", give us an inch and we'll take a mile? I mean how stupid can you be, the only reason the Israeli's would re-occupy Gaza would be if Israeli citizens were threatened by people in Gaza and what do they do, fire rockets at Israel !!!! I mean come on !!!