Talk Elections

I find it absurd that we treat Israel almost as if it were the 51st state.  It is also quite absurd how passionate some Americans are in their support for the country.

Of course not.

Yes, yes, yes.

Joe Lieberman should be stripped of his citizenship and deported to Israel. So should anyone who donates to AIPAC.

It's a shame Lieberman didn't become VP back in 2000.

What about people AIPAC donates to and supports?

Yes, absolutely.

In the light of recent events (last 5 years), definitely.

     To call it absurd is a grave understatement.

Go troll somewhere else.

Compared to what other countries that are in a similar situation as Israel? idk, but i could check how forgiving we are of other countries debt obligations compared to Israel's.

It is, of course.  One has to wonder if it is a bizzare case - a nation state not following its own interests in the long term - or if it is some how the case that an appearance of slavish devotion to another's interests is in fact a kind of smoke screen for empire.

We need a thrid party. The Republicans depend on crazy evangelicals for votes and the democrats on Jewish money.

Stark!  I missed you buddy!  Welcome back!

there are two sides to the story. and in america you only get the side the president wants you to see.

Nope, doesn't have anything to do with the President.

Probably the latter.

And it is absurd, but not the world's biggest problem.

America has always had a bias towards Israel because Christians think it's important. To get elected and reelected, politicians have to play that card. It's become an issue to the point that if we don't support them, the whole middle east could end up at war against them though. I don't want a war in the middle east and countries fighting over oil and religion though.

"ab" = from or of; "surdus" = deaf.  Yeah, it's absurd.  Deaf to the sensibilities.  So many UN votes were, like, 140 to 2 over the 70s, 80s, and 90s, when it came to questions of Israel.  In most bodies, a 140 to 2 vote would mean victory for the 140 side, but the UN wasn't then, and isn't now, a democracy.  All nations are equal, but some nations are just a little more equal than others.  In all fairness, though, the US does pay about 40% of the UN's bills.  Also, it's not just a matter of fairness.  Israel is the monster we helped create, with direct investment.  If we backed out of support for them now, we'd look like assholes.  I know you're not suggesting a total relinquishing of support, but rather just a step toward recognition that the role of an unbiased power broker in the region would serve us much better than the role we play now.  Every presidential administration since Carter has sought to bring Peace to the Middle East, and every presidential administration acts disappointed when those prospects for peace dim.  Pro-Israel neocons--and I'm not just picking on the Jews, but also on the many hard-line Christians who are big funders as well--put lots of weight behind our current policy.  If you don't tow the current line, then you probably don't win your party's nomination, or your senate seat.  This is a reality.  We won't be seen as a neutral power broker in my lifetime or yours, but maybe in your child's child's lifetime we well.  That would take some serious political will by US politicians.  Any change of policy must be made gradually, though, because if we radically change our policy now, the Israelis will be left without an ally in the world.  Asking any Israeli under 43 to "give back" land that he has always known to be his home is rather like asking a white yankee to "give back" his land to the native peoples of the Americas.  It would be absurd.  But then, a total failure to recognize the dispossession of the Palestinians is also absurd.

Is it not closer to 22% of the regular budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget?

22 + 27 = 49. Take that, earth logic!

Busted.

Okay, I was just pulling a number out of the air.  How did I know anyone was actually going to look it up?  Still, the point stands.  22 to 27 percent of the overall budget ought to buy us permanent bullying rights, even if permanent bullying rights hadn't been established in the original founding documents.

and 100 + 100 = 200!    [The 22% and 27% are percentages of two different totals, therefore it is illogical to add them.]

Indeed. That is why I wrote 'take that, earth logic!'

Sorry, I thought you meant something different.

Welcome to the Atlas Forum ;)

For your bedside reading: the assessed national contributions to the UN peacekeeping budget (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/64/220) – it contains the data for the percentage contribution for the regular budget as well.


Japan is the second biggest contributor at around 12.5% for both budgets. Germany around 8%.
The EU member states’ contributions amount to 38.9% and 41.3% of the respective budgets.

Not sure at what level of contribution bullying rights should be acquired?

No. The extent of left wing support for Terrorstine is though.

lol

I'm not knocking the fact that the US is a permanent veto-holder, and I reckon that the "premium" dues are commensurate with such privileges.  I'm just saying that if I weren't a yankee, and more specifically if I were a citizen of one of those nations that we seem to rub the wrong way by playing favorites, then I'd probably be disgusted with the whole arrangement.  But, the arrangement being what it is, I'd have to say that I'd rather be one of the hammers than one of the nails.  (To misquote, out of context, that old 17th-century Jose Milchberg song which was redone by Simon & Garfunkel about 40 years ago.)

Israel isn't a baby that needs to be fed and changed throughout the day. I'm sure that Israel can handle itself just fine. Yet we still feel the need to obsessively coddle and shelter it, thus wasting time and resources that could better be spent on fixing our own problems. Of course it's ridiculous.

Wow, for once I agree with Obamaisdabest...just lol....

Maybe you're missing something in your take on it.

I'm sure he'll 'figure it out' in 3 months. ;)

I agree 100%.

I'm sure the Likud party would welcome Lieberman.

He'd be a better fit in the party of the other Lieberman, IMO.

Don't necessarily like it but with all the bullies in the neighborhood having a big brother with his arms crossed behind you isn't necessarily a bad idea.

I think its just for oil and the US trying to influence oil supply. 

But I'm surprised that a country that values religious non-discrimination would support any religious theocracy.  I'm very pro-religious freedom, meaning its okay for someone to be pro-christian conservative, pro-catholic, jewish, pro-muslim, etc.  I think its extremely disgusting to discriminate against anyone based on religion or race, and it seems to me that Israel discriminates against religion and ethnicity for non-jews.  I think jews and muslims got along okay until israel declared statehood and a jewish theocracy and jewish-only govt is just not going to be acceptable to a region that has such a large muslim population.  The israeli govt should be non-religious and allow for complete religious freedom of govt officials.  They should not be bound to just one religion.  Maybe the world isn't big enough for all these religions.  I always thought America was a pretty great place for religious freedom and allowing people to strongly practice their faiths but apparently the rest of the world doesn't understand that Theocracies divide and create war. 

For those people who are anti-religion or atheists, then fighting over land based on religious factions is just silly, immature, and discriminatory.  Its time to love thy neighbor and work towards celebrating our different Faiths rather than trying to control the land.

Oil is an export of Israel? Interesting.


Yeah, that's cute and all, if both sides make that their goal. Back here in the real world however.

I don't see why it would be so difficult to have a bipartison govt in Jeruselum with a Jewish and Muslim leader.  I think Palestinians would welcome greater involvement and influence in the Israeli govt.

Maybe US operatives are trying to influence the mid-east oil countries somehow.  But war instability would actually drive up oil prices, maybe it helps texas oilmen? 

But I'm also surprised that "anti-religion yet pro-Israel Bill Maher" thinks that its okay to have separate yet equal Jewish and Palestinian states.  There was large Jewish immigration into Palestine and many of those Jewish new-comers eventually fought for against the Palestinians.  Instead of trying to take over Palestine and create their own Jewish Govt, they should have sought to create a partnership govt with the Palestinian inhabitants.  I don't think a "Separate but equal" solution is fair or historically accurate. 

I favor strong American support for Israel as a counterbalance to the impulses of destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state that are so strong in the Muslim world. However, I think we are at the point where Israelis are getting too spoiled by that support and occasional tough love should be administered more often.

Maybe I'm naive, but for some reason I had always thought Israel was Secular just like the rest of the Western countries, especially the USA.  As an American, I completely believe in freedom of religion and all religions, and that the federal govt should not favor or discriminate against any religion.  As an American I also believe in democracy and majority rule, and it seems to me that Israel has tried to rule as a minority religion in an area where there are far more Muslims, historically in the Palestine area.  I know there was a history of British colonialism, Turkish colonialism, etc over Palestine and the Palestinian govt never really took hold before Israel and the Jewish immigrants announced independence.  It just seems un-American to support one religion over another, or support any theocratic government.  I believe that religious wars and fighting is stupid and every govt needs to be secular.

That's nice and all, but if the nation of Israel was to go away it would most certainly be replaced by a govt that is MUCH more tied to a religion, just a different one.  Wishing all govts be secular is nice and all, but doesn't really change the facts on the ground.  You've heard of the people in charge of Gaza right?  But, one could argue, it won't necessarily be Hamas that takes over...maybe it would be a friendly govt like Egypt.  Ya know, the country that just released a guy that's been in prison for four years (and beaten, but that goes without saying) for "insulting" Islam.  link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/17/international/i074545S67.DTL)


I could go around the region finding stories like this, but I just remembered how these discussions always go.  It doesn't matter what information is put up, the anti-Zionists know they are right and know nothing is more important than getting rid of the state of Israel.  So I'll not waste any more of my time.

Eh.  If a Palestine had been born 20 years ago it'd have been on secular Arab nationalist grounds (probably similar to Syria or old Iraq).  If a Palestine is born 20 years from now, who knows what it'd subscribe to?  While you're right that at the moment, it'd probably be Hamas-dominated (though not much more than probably...the West Bank knows what a s**thole Gaza is), that won't necessarily always be the case.

Two shining beacons on the hill there is no doubt. ;)

No thanks, I'll keep Israel.  The Palestinians are free to make a couple of new countries out of the land they do have.  Yes two.  There is no reason the reasonable people of the West Bank need to have the anchor that is Gaza tied around their necks.

Is this a new variation on the victimhood card?

Because, of course, "Zionism" is completely synonymous with "Jewish Self Determination".

The problem with that is that something needs to be done with Gaza, and because of current Israeli (and Egyptian) policy, Gaza is completely unfeasible as a state.

I think a Secular country is completely possible.  Unless you think that America is broken and should become a Jewish State, or Christian State, or Catholic State, etc.  I'm sure it would make people in those religions happy. 

Nothing is perfect, but to practice religious favoritism and theocracy, even though the majority people in the area are not that religion is wrong.  I don't believe in religious favoritism or discrimination and I won't support any organization that does.  I don't think any American should and I don't think any American should put his/her religion above country.

I don't know what the definition of Zionism is?  Does it mean a Jewish-state that discriminates against other religions?  Does it mean a Jewish-State in Jerusalem only or in other parts of Israel/Palestine?  Can a Jewish state be one city or does its borders change and expand?

Its really insane how Americans have this fetish for Israel. All these Faux Christian evangelical whackjobs who litterally worship Israel and all the corrupt politicians taking bribes from the Israeli Lobby. And we wonder why the Arab world hates us so much.

Let's just let decades of peace talks and negotiations go to waste then.  If Israel was destroyed today the Middle east would be an even bigger mess.  If you want a giant middle east power vacuum feel free to uphold your opinion.  Sure, perhaps some of the funds we give them should be scrutinized but, it can't be eliminated immediately.  The Arab world would hate us anyway, even if we didn't support Israel.  The radicals that control a lot of the Middle East hate the freedoms of expression and religion we have.  Maybe we should stop trying to please people that are impossible to please without drastically changing the foundation of our society. 

That's a rather succinct argument as to why the United States should stop giving Israel a blank check, especially with our own budget the way it is.

The demographic trends will slowly but surely turn Israel into a Sunni Arab Levantine society anyway.