Harvard/Univ. of Chicago Study: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

[Dari]

There is no doubt that American foreign policy in the Middle East has been shaped by the Israeli lobby. What's sad is that this is at the expense of American interests in the region. A primary example is the Iraq war where neo-conservatives, including myself at the time, were saying that "the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad." Well, that turned out to be entirely false. Now they're saying the same about Iran. God help us all should America/Israel attack that ancient civilization. While I have no doubt that American politicians had their own interests, I'm sure "protecting Israel" gave them the firm and final moral push to get us entangled in Middle Eastern politics. This has caused hatred from Muslims, which resulted in the Beirut blast that killed 241 Americans and Al Qaeda killings since then. I can't say we don't deserve it because we do. However, now we need to look at the mess we've gotten ourselves in and think of a way of getting out.

Here is a beginning of a study done by two great Universities, Univ. of Chicago (most Nobel Prize winners) and Harvard University. You can get the entire paper at the link below:

link

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 insurency 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 eopardized 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 imperativs. As we show below, however, neither of those
explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and
diplomatic support that the United States povides 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

In the pages that follow, we describe how the Lobby has accomplished this
feat, and how its activities have shaped America.s actions in this
critical region. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East and its
potential impact on others, both Americans and non.Americans need to
understand and address the Lobby.s influence on U.S. policy. 1

Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted
here are not in serious dispute among scholars. Indeed, our account relies
heavily on the work of Israeli scholars and journalists, who deserve great
credit for shedding light on these issues. We also rely on evidence
provided by respected Israeli and international human rights
organizations. Similarly, our claims about the Lobby.s impact rely on
testimony from the Lobby.s own members, as well as testimony from
politicians who have worked with them. Readers may reject our conclusions,
of course, but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I don't think there's any question the neoconservative philosophies that now form the lion's share of our foreign policy were cooked up by American Jewish intellectuals, for the benefit of Israel. I remember seeing a poll before the 2004 election of people in every country in the world about their preference in the election. Israel was the only country that would have votes to re-elect President Bush by a meaningful margin (Russia was the only other country in which he would have won, but it was by a tiny percentage within the margin of error).

I acknowledge Israel is an important ally, and have no problem with supporting them to the extent our respective national interests cohere, but what bothers me is that they clearly don't much of the time, and yet we continue to sacrifice billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in furtherance of an agenda that puts Israel first, America second.

 

[ayabe]

My problem is that we give more aid to Israel than any other country on earth, I think this is misguided, and instead of Israel it should be Liberia, since we created that country with help from the Brits and are more responsible for the problems there than anyone else.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ayabe
My problem is that we give more aid to Israel than any other country on earth, I think this is misguided, and instead of Israel it should be Liberia, since we created that country with help from the Brits and are more responsible for the problems there than anyone else.

The more I think about it the more I believe that Israel has been a disaster. I mean, think about it, any natural element can grow and prosper in its own environment, on its own. This is true whether in the natural or socio-economic world. However, an element planted in a foreign land will either die or it will come to dominate its environment. In the political case, we have seen that since the end of WWII many countries in Africa and the Middle East were carved up by Westerners and left to their own devices to survive. What happened? Look at Africa for a clue. Hundreds of wars and millions dead because different tribes and peoples were bunched up together. In the middle east, you see borders that look like they could've been drawn on a graphing paper by a high school student. The result has also been tension. But in the case of Israel, you put people who lost their homeland thousands of years ago back into power simply because of the mistakes you did against them in your homeland (the Holocaust in Europe)? What about those that already live there. Furthermore, you have to prop up the government with massive military, political, and economic support and you will have a yearning for a "correction" indefinitely. What I mean by that is that the natural forces will do their thing as they did in Africa, i.e. wars will be fought until stability ensues. So, no matter how many support Israel gets, the natives will continue to challenge her until she is either destroyed or comes to dominate the region, there is no middle ground. The problem with this is that she may end up destroying her supporters as well. That means America and Europe.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe
My problem is that we give more aid to Israel than any other country on earth, I think this is misguided, and instead of Israel it should be Liberia, since we created that country with help from the Brits and are more responsible for the problems there than anyone else.

We lost almost as much to Katrina fraud as we give to the Israeli's. You act as if it is hundreds of billions a year in aid. It isnt, and we dont control nor to the Israeli's relying soley on our aid to survive.

 

[zephyrprime]

I completely concur. Our support of Israel is against our own interest.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe
My problem is that we give more aid to Israel than any other country on earth, I think this is misguided, and instead of Israel it should be Liberia, since we created that country with help from the Brits and are more responsible for the problems there than anyone else.

We lost almost as much to Katrina fraud as we give to the Israeli's. You act as if it is hundreds of billions a year in aid. It isnt, and we dont control nor to the Israeli's relying soley on our aid to survive.

That's just the point - they don't need it, at least relative to any number of other countries. Israel is far from being a third-world country - they are a relatively successful industrialized nation, yet they receive 20% of our total foreign aid. Although they don't receive hundreds of billions per year, they do receive billions. I can't help but wonder WHY we give them this much money.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe
My problem is that we give more aid to Israel than any other country on earth, I think this is misguided, and instead of Israel it should be Liberia, since we created that country with help from the Brits and are more responsible for the problems there than anyone else.

We lost almost as much to Katrina fraud as we give to the Israeli's. You act as if it is hundreds of billions a year in aid. It isnt, and we dont control nor to the Israeli's relying soley on our aid to survive.

That's just the point - they don't need it, at least relative to any number of other countries. Israel is far from being a third-world country - they are a relatively successful industrialized nation, yet they receive 20% of our total foreign aid. Although they don't receive hundreds of billions per year, they do receive billions. I can't help but wonder WHY we give them this much money.

Because they are an allie who is in a constant state of war. I will say one thing, I was surprised at the amount of foreign aid our country actually gives out. I think the total is under 10 billion for all foreign aid.

Not that I think we should increase it, but it is made to sound like 100 billion a year is going oversea's.

Of course it doesnt count the humanitarian side of it, which I think is about 12-15 billion a year.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe
My problem is that we give more aid to Israel than any other country on earth, I think this is misguided, and instead of Israel it should be Liberia, since we created that country with help from the Brits and are more responsible for the problems there than anyone else.

We lost almost as much to Katrina fraud as we give to the Israeli's. You act as if it is hundreds of billions a year in aid. It isnt, and we dont control nor to the Israeli's relying soley on our aid to survive.

I don't make it sound anything like hundreds of billions, that's all you buddy. That isn't implicitely or explicity stated, you just want to argue as you do with anyone who criticizes Israel.

here are some cold hard facts for you:



1. Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200. The interest costs born by US taxpayers on behalf of Israel are $49,937,000,000 ? making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $134,791,507,200 (more than $134 billion).


2. The total cost of this financial aid to US tax payers per Israeli is $23,240.


3. Since 1992, the US has offered Israel an additional $2 billion in loan guarantees every year.


4. Nearly all past loans to Israel have been forgiven ? leading Israel to claim that they have never defaulted on repayment of a US loan ? with most loans made on the understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them.


5. In 1997 alone, the total of US grants and loan guarantees to Israel was $5.5 billion, i.e., $15,068,493 per day.

Linkage

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: DonVito
That's just the point - they don't need it, at least relative to any number of other countries. Israel is far from being a third-world country - they are a relatively successful industrialized nation, yet they receive 20% of our total foreign aid. Although they don't receive hundreds of billions per year, they do receive billions. I can't help but wonder WHY we give them this much money.

Same here, this is one whacked one-way alliance if you ask me.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't think there's any question the neoconservative philosophies that now form the lion's share of our foreign policy were cooked up by American Jewish intellectuals, for the benefit of Israel. I remember seeing a poll before the 2004 election of people in every country in the world about their preference in the election. Israel was the only country that would have votes to re-elect President Bush by a meaningful margin (Russia was the only other country in which he would have won, but it was by a tiny percentage within the margin of error).

I acknowledge Israel is an important ally, and have no problem with supporting them to the extent our respective national interests cohere, but what bothers me is that they clearly don't much of the time, and yet we continue to sacrifice billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in furtherance of an agenda that puts Israel first, America second.

I'm beginning to agree as well. If the middle east countries cannot be brought into moderninity and moderation, I'm not sure the situation is tenable long-term. Right now at my sleepy vantage point in the morning here it seems a crappy choice between continuing to support 'apostate' regimes and earning Islamist ire and insurgency and maybe a nuclear attack on our own soil or... what? Well we could pull out and drop support for these regimes (Saud et al) as we move toward more energy independence... then what happens when they are overthrown by Salafi/Wahhabist types or name-your-Islamist-group ... other countries will still be buying the oil .. and what happens if these people get nuclear weapons ? A new caliph and a jihad is declared that is expansionist... "convert or kill" all non-believers...

what to do?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't think there's any question the neoconservative philosophies that now form the lion's share of our foreign policy were cooked up by American Jewish intellectuals, for the benefit of Israel.

You mean Mel Gibson was right?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't think there's any question the neoconservative philosophies that now form the lion's share of our foreign policy were cooked up by American Jewish intellectuals, for the benefit of Israel.

You mean Mel Gibson was right?

Hee hee - I'm surprised nobody else has called me anti-Semitic for pointing that out. The irony is that I've also been accused of "playing the anti-Semite card" for criticizing Mel for his racist remarks. I must be doing something right!

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Hee hee - I'm surprised nobody else has called me anti-Semitic for pointing that out.

It won't be long though...

This thread is good because, so far, it's discussing an issue that is becoming more and more relevant to Americans, especially those of us without an ethnic or spiritual link to Israel, without denigrating into pathetic accusations of anti-Semitism and/or even more pathetic displays of actual anti-Semitism.

A growing number of Americans are concerned with Israeli influence on American foreign policy and it's not born out of hatred for Jews but love of their own nation. The US government must protect American interests above all others. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't think there's any question the neoconservative philosophies that now form the lion's share of our foreign policy were cooked up by American Jewish intellectuals, for the benefit of Israel. I remember seeing a poll before the 2004 election of people in every country in the world about their preference in the election. Israel was the only country that would have votes to re-elect President Bush by a meaningful margin (Russia was the only other country in which he would have won, but it was by a tiny percentage within the margin of error).

I acknowledge Israel is an important ally, and have no problem with supporting them to the extent our respective national interests cohere, but what bothers me is that they clearly don't much of the time, and yet we continue to sacrifice billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in furtherance of an agenda that puts Israel first, America second.

This is well put Don! I would agree...:thumbsup:

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't think there's any question the neoconservative philosophies that now form the lion's share of our foreign policy were cooked up by American Jewish intellectuals, for the benefit of Israel.

You mean Mel Gibson was right?

Hee hee - I'm surprised nobody else has called me anti-Semitic for pointing that out. The irony is that I've also been accused of "playing the anti-Semite card" for criticizing Mel for his racist remarks. I must be doing something right!

It's a touchy issue, unfotunately, people are quick to label others. Mel may be right but he was politically incorrect, or whatever you wanna call it.

The Iraq war, which was to protect Israel, among other things, is costing American lives and money and there is no way out. Now that we've surrounded Iran and AIPAC's main goal (as stated on their website) is for Iran to not get nuclear weapons, I won't be surprised if the Israelis do something covert to drag the United States into a war with Iran. I really wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Zebo]

You mean like Americans Homocidal pressure on israel after the six-day-war to return all of territories won to the Arab nations after seven Arab armies vowed to obliterate Israel (and still do), the Jewish State fought back and won, and tripled its original size. All that land is their right under "Rules of Warfare and Postwar Settlement" and the US forced them to give it back?

You mean like supporting a terrorist thug in Egypt to the tune of 4 billion a year who ships rockets and arms into West Bank to rain down on Isrreli cities? Supporting Hamas even with 300 Million a year?

You mean like poltically forcing Israel to unilateraly with draw from Gaza thier rightful settlements both purchased from Ottoman turks and in the "mandate for palestine?"


You mean like failing to support the Cedar revolution in Lebanon and allowing it to fall to radicals bent on israels destruction? Not to mention all the deaths of innocent lebanese.

Don't make me laugh. With freinds like that you don't need enemies. Israel does'nt even have a mutaul defense agreement with USA and Bush went into Iraq for his own reasons. Namley, like most American wars money and politcal expediancy- did'nt work out quite like he thought so lets blame Israel..

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You mean like Americans Homocidal pressure on israel after the six-day-war to return all of territories won to the Arab nations after seven Arab armies vowed to obliterate Israel (and still do), the Jewish State fought back and won, and tripled its original size. All that land is their right under "Rules of Warfare and Postwar Settlement" and the US forced them to give it back?

You mean like supporting a terrorist thug in Egypt to the tune of 4 billion a year who ships rockets and arms into West Bank to rain down on Isrreli cities? Supporting Hamas even with 300 Million a year?

You mean like poltically forcing Israel to unilateraly with draw from Gaza thier rightful settlements both purchased from Ottoman turks and in the "mandate for palestine?"


You mean like failing to support the Cedar revolution in Lebanon and allowing it to fall to radicals bent on israels destruction? Not to mention all the deaths of innocent lebanese.

Don't make me laugh. With freinds like that you don't need enemies. Israel does'nt even have a mutaul defense agreement with USA and Bush went into Iraq for his own reasons. Namley, like most American wars money and politcal expediancy- did'nt work out quite like he thought so lets blame Israel..

Did you get a chance to think through everything you've just posted? I find it hard to believe that you did. I'd recommend that you repost this with your own thoughts added. It'll make for some intellectual discussion. In the mean time, I want you to read this editorial:

link

Between two friends

By Tom Segev

It is difficult to decide which of the two war starlets is more annoying - Miri Regev or Condoleezza Rice. The Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman parades in front of the cameras stammering officers, some of whom do tell the truth at least. Among other things, she produced a press conference with one of the air force commanders, who sounded like a character in an Agatha Christie novel: He does not know what happened during the hours that passed between the bombing of the home in Qana and the deaths of dozens of children who had crowded together in its cellar, he claimed with a tone of mystery in his voice. Who knows? Perhaps someone else killed those children. Perhaps they killed themselves.

A few hours later, during the early morning, the U.S. secretary of state emerged from her Jerusalem hotel room with an announcement that was no less fantastic: By week's end - by tomorrow, in other words - everything will be fine, she declared. She took her sheet of paper and flew away.

Rice is more troubling than Regev: It isn't easy to be the spokesperson for a confused and meaningless war; the faltering stance of the Americans requires, on the other hand, a re-evaluation of what the appropriate attitude toward the United States should be - the United States of George W. Bush at least. The following lines should not be counted among those foolish anti-American outbursts heard in Europe. But, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers, it is possible to say that the country many Israelis adopted as their beacon of values, almost a second motherland, has lost a great deal of its moral authority in the past few years. This is a good opportunity to rethink our relationship with Europe.

During the past 39 years since the Six-Day War, the United States did not force Israel to pull out of the West Bank, but more than once acted to block Israeli military actions. Over time, we have grown accustomed to the Americans saving us, not only from the Arabs, but from ourselves too. Not in this war. It is still unclear whether this war was coordinated with the United States; only the release of government records of the past three weeks will shed light on this. Whatever the case may be, the impression is that the Americans are linking the events in Lebanon to their failing adventure in Iraq.

Israel's elites, in all fields, are made up of people who spent a number of years in the United States and returned with not only professional skills but also an appreciation for the value of the individual and basic freedoms. For the most part, this was a useful process, even though it did contribute to a fading of social compassion. This process of Americanization has led Israel in recent years to covet a role in what Bush has described as a war on the "axis of evil."

As such, Israel has adopted the moral values of Hezbollah: Whatever they are doing to the residents of northern Israel, we can also do to the citizens of Lebanon, and even more. Many Israelis tended to look at the Qana incident primarily as a media disaster and not as something that imposed on them any ethical responsibility. After all, the restrictions of humanitarian warfare are not applicable to the "axis of evil." Just like in Iraq, the lessons of Vietnam have been forgotten. It is hard to avoid the impression that the routine brutality of oppression in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is also reflected in the unbearable ease with which Israel has forced out of their homes hundreds of thousands of Lebanese and bombed civilians. No less than three weeks have passed, and only now is Rice beginning to make noises suggesting that enough is enough.

If Europe had some say in the region, Israel may have started negotiations with Hezbollah on the release of the soldiers it abducted - and hopefully, it still will do so - instead of getting mixed up in war. For some years now, more Middle East-related wisdom emanates from Europe than from the United States. It wasn't Europe but the United States that invented the diplomatic fable called the road map; it wasn't Europe but the United States that encouraged unilateral disengagement and is allowing Israel to continue oppressing the population in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The United States is not engaged with Syria; Europe is. Syria is relevant not only for settling the situation in Lebanon, but also in managing relations with the Palestinians. This is the real problem. Because, even if the United States conquers Tehran, we will still have to live with the Palestinians. In Europe, they already understand this.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo
You mean like Americans Homocidal pressure on israel after the six-day-war to return all of territories won to the Arab nations after seven Arab armies vowed to obliterate Israel (and still do), the Jewish State fought back and won, and tripled its original size. All that land is their right under "Rules of Warfare and Postwar Settlement" and the US forced them to give it back?

You mean like supporting a terrorist thug in Egypt to the tune of 4 billion a year who ships rockets and arms into West Bank to rain down on Isrreli cities? Supporting Hamas even with 300 Million a year?

You mean like poltically forcing Israel to unilateraly with draw from Gaza thier rightful settlements both purchased from Ottoman turks and in the "mandate for palestine?"


You mean like failing to support the Cedar revolution in Lebanon and allowing it to fall to radicals bent on israels destruction? Not to mention all the deaths of innocent lebanese.

Don't make me laugh. With freinds like that you don't need enemies. Israel does'nt even have a mutaul defense agreement with USA and Bush went into Iraq for his own reasons. Namley, like most American wars money and politcal expediancy- did'nt work out quite like he thought so lets blame Israel..

Did you get a chance to think through everything you've just posted? I find it hard to believe that you did. I'd recommend that you repost this with your own thoughts added. It'll make for some intellectual discussion. In the mean time, I want you to read this editorial:

link

Between two friends

By Tom Segev

It is difficult to decide which of the two war starlets is more annoying - Miri Regev or Condoleezza Rice. The Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman parades in front of the cameras stammering officers, some of whom do tell the truth at least. Among other things, she produced a press conference with one of the air force commanders, who sounded like a character in an Agatha Christie novel: He does not know what happened during the hours that passed between the bombing of the home in Qana and the deaths of dozens of children who had crowded together in its cellar, he claimed with a tone of mystery in his voice. Who knows? Perhaps someone else killed those children. Perhaps they killed themselves.

A few hours later, during the early morning, the U.S. secretary of state emerged from her Jerusalem hotel room with an announcement that was no less fantastic: By week's end - by tomorrow, in other words - everything will be fine, she declared. She took her sheet of paper and flew away.

Rice is more troubling than Regev: It isn't easy to be the spokesperson for a confused and meaningless war; the faltering stance of the Americans requires, on the other hand, a re-evaluation of what the appropriate attitude toward the United States should be - the United States of George W. Bush at least. The following lines should not be counted among those foolish anti-American outbursts heard in Europe. But, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers, it is possible to say that the country many Israelis adopted as their beacon of values, almost a second motherland, has lost a great deal of its moral authority in the past few years. This is a good opportunity to rethink our relationship with Europe.

During the past 39 years since the Six-Day War, the United States did not force Israel to pull out of the West Bank, but more than once acted to block Israeli military actions. Over time, we have grown accustomed to the Americans saving us, not only from the Arabs, but from ourselves too. Not in this war. It is still unclear whether this war was coordinated with the United States; only the release of government records of the past three weeks will shed light on this. Whatever the case may be, the impression is that the Americans are linking the events in Lebanon to their failing adventure in Iraq.

Israel's elites, in all fields, are made up of people who spent a number of years in the United States and returned with not only professional skills but also an appreciation for the value of the individual and basic freedoms. For the most part, this was a useful process, even though it did contribute to a fading of social compassion. This process of Americanization has led Israel in recent years to covet a role in what Bush has described as a war on the "axis of evil."

As such, Israel has adopted the moral values of Hezbollah: Whatever they are doing to the residents of northern Israel, we can also do to the citizens of Lebanon, and even more. Many Israelis tended to look at the Qana incident primarily as a media disaster and not as something that imposed on them any ethical responsibility. After all, the restrictions of humanitarian warfare are not applicable to the "axis of evil." Just like in Iraq, the lessons of Vietnam have been forgotten. It is hard to avoid the impression that the routine brutality of oppression in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is also reflected in the unbearable ease with which Israel has forced out of their homes hundreds of thousands of Lebanese and bombed civilians. No less than three weeks have passed, and only now is Rice beginning to make noises suggesting that enough is enough.

If Europe had some say in the region, Israel may have started negotiations with Hezbollah on the release of the soldiers it abducted - and hopefully, it still will do so - instead of getting mixed up in war. For some years now, more Middle East-related wisdom emanates from Europe than from the United States. It wasn't Europe but the United States that invented the diplomatic fable called the road map; it wasn't Europe but the United States that encouraged unilateral disengagement and is allowing Israel to continue oppressing the population in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The United States is not engaged with Syria; Europe is. Syria is relevant not only for settling the situation in Lebanon, but also in managing relations with the Palestinians. This is the real problem. Because, even if the United States conquers Tehran, we will still have to live with the Palestinians. In Europe, they already understand this.

Steven Walts war on Israel and contemtuous respect for Human rights is well documented no need to rehash it on my part. If you're interested follow the link. My point was clear, America gives aid to Israel's enemies and rarly supports Israel unless it serves thier intrests proven time and time again. The only thing preventing Israels destruction is themselves and the Nuclear technology they devoloped no thanks to America but the French of all people.

Who do you think is preventing Israel from attacking Iran right now? Bush and the united states. No stranger to Nazi movements and appeasment in his family he is going to let walk a country calling for the "Final Solution" against Israel and Jews..

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: DonVito
The US government must protect American interests above all others. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take.

It isn't, and an argument that it is is logically self-solvable by reversing it

Would it be acceptable for Israel to put our national interests before their own?

Of course, the argument would then go to attempting to show that Israeli national interest is also US national interest... you can see the argument being made lately that Israel is the "west's outpost in the Islamic world" etcera.

Personally, all my sympathy is with Israel. It comes down to whether it's worth it to fight a long ass war with a worldwide Islamic uprising/insurgency until.... when? Maybe until we exhaust ourselves a la the USSR ...maybe not.


Would abandoning support for Israel even solve anything other? What happens when that nation uses nukes out of desparation?

The main problems here as I see them are the intolerant nature of modern Islam as practiced in this region, along with our support of tyrannies for the purposes of affording ourselves cheaper oil. It's a hell of a mess and I can see why the Bush admin hoped that it could pre-empt a lot of these problems by starting democratic reform in the region..which really means a hope that more moderate and tolerant voices be allowed into the fold... but which may simply be impossible and incompatible with the current state of the region.

So ... what to do? Fighting it out long term probably means getting nuked on our own soil and how would that change our way of life?

One additional problem is that because of our support of regimes like the al-Sauds we don't have the kind of moral rightness which we had in WWII and the cold war

 

[Red Dawn]

n/m

 

[ScottFern]

I have read the entire 43 page essay and I have to say it really opened my eyes to how things work in Washington. It's obvious Israel is leading us down a path of destruction yet no one thinks to say wait a minute is this a good foreign policy for the United States?

I applaud and commend these 2 authors for actually speaking up and taking the beating from right wing zionist supporters.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Steven Walts war on Israel and contemtuous respect for Human rights is well documented no need to rehash it on my part. If you're interested follow the link. My point was clear, America gives aid to Israel's enemies and rarly supports Israel unless it serves thier intrests proven time and time again. The only thing preventing Israels destruction is themselves and the Nuclear technology they devoloped no thanks to America but the French of all people.

Who do you think is preventing Israel from attacking Iran right now? Bush and the united states. No stranger to Nazi movements and appeasment in his family he is going to let walk a country calling for the "Final Solution" against Israel and Jews..

I wish every American take a good look this post and see the true face of Israel and their supporter. Not only they don't appreciate the foreign aid (Fact, Israel received the biggest chunk of American foreign aid), they blame American for not giving them the freedom to take up more ME land, and kill more Arab.

I mean, why not just let them deal with the Arab anyway they want and let them suffer whatever consequence. If they think throwing nuclear weapon at some country is wise, let them do it and see if the region and the world is gonna stand by and watch. If they think taking up more Palestinian land and killing more Arab is gonna strengthen themselves, just let them do it and see how many more people are gonna join Hamas and Hezbollah to blow up Israelis.

Why give them our hard earn tax money, getting blamed for their problem, and making the entire region and religion our enemy.

 

[SamurAchzar]

1. What ARE the American interests, and how do they collide with the support given to Israel?
It's so easy saying the support of Israel leads to the negligence of American interests, but do you even know what they are?

2. Is the direct support given to Israel any cheaper than the indirect support given to NATO as well as Japan, South Korea, etc? How much does it cost to operate the overseas parts of the American armed forces?

3. Did Israel ever require direct American military intervention?

4. If Israel stopped existing tomorrow, would the Islam put the weapons down?

5. US which does not support can not restrain. How does that settle with American interests?

Tom Segev, BTW is somewhat of an extreme left. Israel doesn't take Europe too seriously, although Germany, Britain and some Eastern Europe members do show some support.
Back in the late 90's, PM Nethanyau called for stopping the monetary aid from US to reduce foreign influence on Israel's policy. I don't recall the US goverment liking that, and it was eventually dropped.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: DonVito
The US government must protect American interests above all others. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take.

It isn't, and an argument that it is is logically self-solvable by reversing it

Would it be acceptable for Israel to put our national interests before their own?

Of course not. This is where diplomatic, economic and military weight come into play... which we seem to have no problem throwing around elsewhere to try to ensure our interests win out over other's interests.

BTW, I?m certainly not advocating abandoning Israel at all. Check out the 'Do you Support Israel' thread for a post that goes into some detail about how I feel about the relationship.