Is The Extent of U.S. Support for Israel Absurd?

[Free Palestine]

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.

[Bo]

Of course not.

[Sewer]

Yes, yes, yes.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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

[Bo]

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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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

What about people AIPAC donates to and supports?

[Franzl]

Yes, absolutely.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Associate Justice PiT]

     To call it absurd is a grave understatement.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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

Go troll somewhere else.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, absolutely.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[Heimen]

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

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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!

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

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

[Franzl]

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.

[Mechaman]

     To call it absurd is a grave understatement.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

Probably the latter.

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

[Derek]

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

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.

[angus]

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.

"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.

[tpfkaw]

Yes, absolutely.

To call it absurd is a grave understatement.

[Јas]

In all fairness, though, the US does pay about 40% of the UN's bills. 

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

[Phony Moderate]

     To call it absurd is a grave understatement.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In all fairness, though, the US does pay about 40% of the UN's bills. 

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

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