US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

[Dan the Roman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

Bigger concern is veto overrides on aid and/or additional Iran sanctions. I would have thought that impossible 36 hours ago, but Obama seems to have abandoned any effort to try and allow Netanyahu to hang himself in favor of playing to a negative caricature of himself.

Democrats in congress could not support the sort of sentiments expressed above publicly even if they did share them, and I doubt very many do. The only way they can justify not supporting efforts to overturn Obama's policy is if he gives them political cover to claim they are protecting the executive prerogative in foreign affairs during a sensitive time. That requires Obama to give the impression that his Administration is showing at least a minimal degree of subtlety and judgement, both of which are currently lacking, replaced with a poor imitation of a jilted 15 year old girl.

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

[Dan the Roman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

Works both ways though. Equally easy to spin it as "why does Obama care so much about these terrorists that he is willing to shut down the government?"

What exactly is the WH line here anyway? We know what the GOP line is, which is that Iran can't be trusted, and Khamenei reinforced that pretty directly with his "Death to America" thing this weekend. Granted it lacks an alternative policy on Iran, but the issue here isn't so much the policy, not least because as far as I can tell there isn't one, but the complete and utter lack of anything that resembles messaging. Given how poorly this is being set up, it would be political malpractice not to pick a fight here if the congressional GOP can figure out how.

[Gass3268]

Post-midterm Obama continues to be the best Obama.

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

Works both ways though. Equally easy to spin it as "why does Obama care so much about these terrorists that he is willing to shut down the government?"

What exactly is the WH line here anyway? We know what the GOP line is, which is that Iran can't be trusted, and Khamenei reinforced that pretty directly with his "Death to America" thing this weekend. Granted it lacks an alternative policy on Iran, but the issue here isn't so much the policy, not least because as far as I can tell there isn't one, but the complete and utter lack of anything that resembles messaging. Given how poorly this is being set up, it would be political malpractice not to pick a fight here if the congressional GOP can figure out how.

We're not talking about Iran though.

And quite frankly, Khameini can say what he wants. So long as he doesn't get nuclear weapons, what do we care? Besides he'll be dead in two years anyway.

If you're still pushing for regime change regardless of nukes, then I suspect you will not get American support. This is not 2003.

[Indy Texas]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Of course they are not. But while this is a dispute over land ownership rights, I reject the idea that the land in question creates a nationality where none existed, anymore than Hungarians in Romania or Germans in Silesia were independent nations, rather than Germans or Hungarians who happened to live outside of Germany's borders. I also reject the idea on the Israeli side of any sort of biblical or historical claim - where Israel is happens to be incidental to the fact that it is where it currently is located and has the borders which it has. The question is how to make that situation as functional as possible.

I understand completely why people do not want to live in someone else's national state, as well as why people want to live in their own national state. But the solution to that is not to deny Jews their national state, and there would only be an argument for that if there were not plenty of Arab national states around. But I find the fixation on the West Bank as some sort of sacred "national" land incomprehensible. It is first and foremost territory. If the issue is wanting to live in an Arab state, then it is possible to move. If the issue is compensation, it can be provided on an individual basis as it was for decades in Israel, or in the form of compensation. But the insistence that Palestinians want an Arab national state, that they want it to encompass territory they do not control, and that they want to set the conditions on which those who actually control the territory can remain and live there under is delusional lunacy given the reality on the ground and makes any rational solution impossible. The Copts were in Egypt before the Arabs, but for them to demand a Coptic state encompassing  Egyptian territory in which Judaism would be treated at best as a tolerated minority, and in exchange they might allow a third or so of Egypt's Arab population to remain they would be laughed at.

You don't really...get Arabs, do you? I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the entire swath of people who can be described as "Arab" have about as much in common with one another as the people from the Americas to Iberia who are called "Hispanic."

Pan-Arabism was more a reaction to the end of colonialism and a sense of insecurity at being surrounded by European liberal capitalists on one side and Russo-Chinese communists on the other, than the result of any cohesive Arab identity that could rise above regionalism and sectarianism.

Jews, apparently, have no problem moving across the world and living with other people who happen to be Jewish but speak different languages, have different cultural traditions and come from a different political reality. That's all well and good. But you can't get Arabs not to view even the people who live in a town a few miles away with suspicion and derision. They're overcome with parochialism and the vanity of tiny differences.

[Gass3268]

Israel spied on Iran talks and used that intel to lobby Congress

[Dan the Roman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

Works both ways though. Equally easy to spin it as "why does Obama care so much about these terrorists that he is willing to shut down the government?"

What exactly is the WH line here anyway? We know what the GOP line is, which is that Iran can't be trusted, and Khamenei reinforced that pretty directly with his "Death to America" thing this weekend. Granted it lacks an alternative policy on Iran, but the issue here isn't so much the policy, not least because as far as I can tell there isn't one, but the complete and utter lack of anything that resembles messaging. Given how poorly this is being set up, it would be political malpractice not to pick a fight here if the congressional GOP can figure out how.

We're not talking about Iran though.

And quite frankly, Khameini can say what he wants. So long as he doesn't get nuclear weapons, what do we care? Besides he'll be dead in two years anyway.

If you're still pushing for regime change regardless of nukes, then I suspect you will not get American support. This is not 2003.

Oh but I meant that scuttling an Iran deal would be the easiest way for Congress to retaliate for executive actions at the UN or elsewhere.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Of course they are not. But while this is a dispute over land ownership rights, I reject the idea that the land in question creates a nationality where none existed, anymore than Hungarians in Romania or Germans in Silesia were independent nations, rather than Germans or Hungarians who happened to live outside of Germany's borders. I also reject the idea on the Israeli side of any sort of biblical or historical claim - where Israel is happens to be incidental to the fact that it is where it currently is located and has the borders which it has. The question is how to make that situation as functional as possible.

I understand completely why people do not want to live in someone else's national state, as well as why people want to live in their own national state. But the solution to that is not to deny Jews their national state, and there would only be an argument for that if there were not plenty of Arab national states around. But I find the fixation on the West Bank as some sort of sacred "national" land incomprehensible. It is first and foremost territory. If the issue is wanting to live in an Arab state, then it is possible to move. If the issue is compensation, it can be provided on an individual basis as it was for decades in Israel, or in the form of compensation. But the insistence that Palestinians want an Arab national state, that they want it to encompass territory they do not control, and that they want to set the conditions on which those who actually control the territory can remain and live there under is delusional lunacy given the reality on the ground and makes any rational solution impossible. The Copts were in Egypt before the Arabs, but for them to demand a Coptic state encompassing  Egyptian territory in which Judaism would be treated at best as a tolerated minority, and in exchange they might allow a third or so of Egypt's Arab population to remain they would be laughed at.

You don't really...get Arabs, do you? I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the entire swath of people who can be described as "Arab" have about as much in common with one another as the people from the Americas to Iberia who are called "Hispanic."

Pan-Arabism was more a reaction to the end of colonialism and a sense of insecurity at being surrounded by European liberal capitalists on one side and Russo-Chinese communists on the other, than the result of any cohesive Arab identity that could rise above regionalism and sectarianism.

Jews, apparently, have no problem moving across the world and living with other people who happen to be Jewish but speak different languages, have different cultural traditions and come from a different political reality. That's all well and good. But you can't get Arabs not to view even the people who live in a town a few miles away with suspicion and derision. They're overcome with parochialism and the vanity of tiny differences.

     Part of the process of otherizing is reduction. People seek to otherize the Arabs, so it becomes necessary to reduce them to a single monolithic entity. Likewise, many Arabs (though classically this seems to be associated with communists) have tended to otherize "Westerners", a term so broad as to be useless for any purpose other than propaganda.

     Simply put, other Arabs don't want the Palestinians and the Palestinians don't want to live in other Arab states. The very idea of making them do this is ultimately born out of the process of dehumanization through defining them as something "other". Many different people have applied this to their adversaries in many different times and places. I don't claim that the Palestinians are innocent of this, but it is important to recognize it for what it is.

[MalaspinaGold]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

Evidence?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

Evidence?

No country has ever indefinitely maintained military superiority, especially such a small and outnumbered country.  As it is, Israel only enjoys superiority now because of the assistance it has received from others in the past.  Israel has a extreme numerical inferiority compared to its neighbors in population and it has no particularly desirable natural resources. Imagine if you will if Egypt had military equipment equal to Israel's in quality, but also had a military ten times the size of Israel's to match its population being ten times as great.  Do you really think that Israel would last long if it had to face Egypt in a war in such circumstances without any outside assistance?  Do you really think such circumstances are impossible?  Israel has forgotten the lessons of the Yom Kippur War, and I see no chance of it relearning them before it is too late.

Israel is not in any immediate danger, but it has irrevocably chosen to act in a manner that depends upon it maintaining the unmaintainable.

[MalaspinaGold]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

Evidence?

No country has ever indefinitely maintained military superiority, especially such a small and outnumbered country.  As it is, Israel only enjoys superiority now because of the assistance it has received from others in the past.  Israel has a extreme numerical inferiority compared to its neighbors in population and it has no particularly desirable natural resources. Imagine if you will if Egypt had military equipment equal to Israel's in quality, but also had a military ten times the size of Israel's to match its population being ten times as great.  Do you really think that Israel would last long if it had to face Egypt in a war in such circumstances without any outside assistance?  Do you really think such circumstances are impossible?  Israel has forgotten the lessons of the Yom Kippur War, and I see no chance of it relearning them before it is too late.

Israel is not in any immediate danger, but it has irrevocably chosen to act in a manner that depends upon it maintaining the unmaintainable.

This presupposes that Israel's surrounding countries have an interest in attacking it. Without an interest action is much less likely. Pan-Arab nationalism is much weaker than it was 50 years ago.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Pan-Arabism has been weak not because of popular disinterest but because the various undemocratic leaders of the Arab states have their own reasons for being disinterested.

[MalaspinaGold]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Pan-Arabism of the last century was the result of something other than undemocratic leaders of the Arab states being interested in it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Pan-Arabism of the last century was the result of something other than undemocratic leaders of the Arab states being interested in it?

Yes.  Do you really think the abortive attempt to form a United Arab Republic would have gotten as far as it did were it not for popular support for the idea?  Don't make the naive mistake that such leaders don't ever try to secure popular support by trying to co-opt popular positions.

[Hnv1]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Pan-Arabism of the last century was the result of something other than undemocratic leaders of the Arab states being interested in it?

Yes, I know plenty of Arabs who still support it or at least the minimized version of Hashamism (great syria). Also, I think historically it was the undemocratic nature of those leaders that halted its progress.

[dead0man]

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

You've been saying this for years (usually with the cop out that it won't happen for at least 50 years), and sure, a lot sh**t can happen in that time.....but why and how do you think it's inevitable?  Which Arab country (or countries) do you think are going to pass Israel militarily?  Most of them are basket cases, granted a few of them have money to burn right now, and they are no doubt burning it, but those wells aren't bottomless, the tap is going to run dry and what then?  The powers in charge will no doubt look to da Joos to blame (again) for the troubles of the masses and the masses will (again) swallow the hook of bigotry, but to what end?  Even if they buy toys on par with the IDF, are they going to learn how to practice using them?  Maintain them properly?  Use them with together with other toys?  If you'll remember the early wars fought here you'll notice the equipment was close in quality (certainly closer than now), the IDF was very much outnumbered yet still came out on top, over and over again.  Arabs can't win wars.

Is it possible?  Sure
Likely?  I don't think so
Inevitable?  No way

[Famous Mortimer]

As if Israel's conventional military supremacy means sh!t in the face of suicide bombings/terrorist attacks.

[politicus]

As if Israel's conventional military supremacy means sh!t in the face of suicide bombings/terrorist attacks.

Those things do not threaten the existence of a state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

You've been saying this for years (usually with the cop out that it won't happen for at least 50 years), and sure, a lot sh**t can happen in that time.....but why and how do you think it's inevitable?  Which Arab country (or countries) do you think are going to pass Israel militarily?  Most of them are basket cases, granted a few of them have money to burn right now, and they are no doubt burning it, but those wells aren't bottomless, the tap is going to run dry and what then?  The powers in charge will no doubt look to da Joos to blame (again) for the troubles of the masses and the masses will (again) swallow the hook of bigotry, but to what end?  Even if they buy toys on par with the IDF, are they going to learn how to practice using them?  Maintain them properly?  Use them with together with other toys?  If you'll remember the early wars fought here you'll notice the equipment was close in quality (certainly closer than now), the IDF was very much outnumbered yet still came out on top, over and over again.  Arabs can't win wars.

Is it possible?  Sure
Likely?  I don't think so
Inevitable?  No way

And where will Israel get its money and tech to continue having superior toys if it continues to burn its bridges the way it has been?  As I said, I see no way for Israel to turn aside from the course it has chosen.  Conversely, the idea that the Arabs will always remain idiots is itself idiotic.  History is littered with countries that thought it would impossible for them to ever be defeated by their neighbors because they couldn't be defeated now.

[dead0man]

Where do you think Israeli money and tech is going to go?

I'm not saying it's never going to happen, but I don't see any evidence of it happening in the next 50 years.  The trends don't seem to be in that direction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The tech won't go anywhere, but once the Israelis are cutoff from foreign R&D, it'll stagnate and give the Arabs a chance to catch up.  Similarly, a good chunk of Israeli defense spending, especially on the R&D side, is funded via foreign sources which will dry up.  Personally, I think it'll take longer than fifty years.  Fifty years is merely the bare minimum time frame it could happen in unless the Zionists do something real stupid sooner than that.  But anything real stupid would require the ultranationalists to do something that POs not just the West but also the liberal elements within Israel to the point of risking an Israeli civil war.  Something along the lines of a Neo-Irgun group blowing up the Dome of the Rock, but I just don't see that happening outside of fiction anytime soon.

[dead0man]

Obama is only President for a couple more years.

The Israeli economy is one of the most advanced and modern in the world.  From wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure why you think they'll be "cut off".  Because some lefties feel sorry for Gaza?