US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

The world hates Israel a hell of a lot more than they did South Africa and their demands are a lot less reasonable.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Gaza is not a territory anymore and it can't be reintegrated in any way, due to the long-time Hamas rule.

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it. However, it would never be accepted without many other demands being agreed to as well.

[politicus]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

The world hates Israel a hell of a lot more than they did South Africa and their demands are a lot less reasonable.

Clearly no to the first part, yes to the last part.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Would removing the military aid do that much? Israel could crush the Palestinians even without it.

The military aid isn't the most important thing. It's the diplomatic shield from the strongly anti-Israel UN and EU. Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

I think the UK and France are quite reasonable countries if the US would stop with its lone vetoes.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Would removing the military aid do that much? Israel could crush the Palestinians even without it.

The military aid isn't the most important thing. It's the diplomatic shield from the strongly anti-Israel UN and EU. Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

I think the UK and France are quite reasonable countries if the US would stop with its lone vetoes.

The UK, I could see being a reasonable broker. France would really depend on the Government at the time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

[MalaspinaGold]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

[politicus]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

The Law of Return applies to all Jews regardless of race.

Why should "area they control" be the relevant criteria? Britons were a minority in the British Empire in 1930 and it was still a democracy. The occupied territories are a sort of colonies, not the country itself.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

Also, an Israel that didn't give a guarantee of a refuge to any Jew would have been an Israel without a point, given the timing. Calling it "racist" is absurd.

[bedstuy]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

What are you talking about?  What did Obama do that was out of line?  If Netanyahu doesn't like what Obama is doing he should cut Israeli military aid to the US.  Oh wait, we send Israel military aid, so maybe respect is due.

Netanyahu has tried to strong-arm President Obama and flagrantly insulted him with that speech.  And, don't forget, Netanyahu basically endorsed Romney and openly disrespects Obama.  He acts like Israel defends the US, not the other way around.  We are the superpower and we provide for Israel's defense.

Israel is acting like a trust fund kid that gets angry when their parent buys them a BMW in charcoal gray instead of black.  What exactly has Obama done to hurt Israel?  Nothing.  Obama is pro-Israel and has held to the same position on Israel as previous Presidents.  Certainly, Obama is more pro-Israel than George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Do I think Obama should punish Israel because Netanyahu is surly, right-wing egomaniac?  No.  The fundamentals of our relationship with Israel go beyond personality politics.  And, Obama is a bigger man than Bibi.  But, no US President has ever tolerated this kind of disrespect from what is essentially a country on the US trust-fund and no President has ever made our policy unconditional support for settlements in the West Bank. 

They both took their shots at each other. They both missed. Fair play on that front, although Obama went further than simple tacit backing - he aided Herzog through a PAC.

But the election is over now, and if Obama starts to rachet up pressure on Israel solely as a result of their election results, it starts to look a lot like he's actually punishing a US ally for not going along with his orders on their vote. That's not the action of any sort of ally.

Now, Obama hasn't actually taken any sort of punitive action yet, and most of this is just Fox News scaremongering. However, if he does, that's a completely different matter and I expect to see the Democrats step up to keep this President from using his lame duck period to permanently destroy US foreign relations with an ally.

As to your last point, no, no President has ever backed West Bank settlements - but no President declared Jewish areas of eastern Jerusalem to be settlements either, especially since they're likely to remain with Israel in a land swap. That's really where all this tension began, with Obama picking  a fight he thought he could win at the start of his term and losing handily. Both sides have been escalating the tension since, but at this point it's a battle of personalities between two temporary leaders. The things discussed in this thread would cause permanent consequences long after they're gone.

Obama aided Herzog through a PAC?  Plz substantiate.  BTW, American political operatives have consulted in Israeli politics for years so it would be no surprise if the Israeli Labor party hired consultants who had previously worked for Obama.

Also, when have Democrats been anti-Israel?  I live in one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country.  We had a primary race between pro-Israel and anti-Israel candidates and the anti-Israel guy got smoked like a fine gouda cheese.  Is anti-Israel sentiment a growing problem on the left globally?  For sure.  But, in the US most Jews are Democrats and we're still solid on Israel. 

And another thing, supporting Israel right or wrong is contrary to Jewish values.  If Israel does something wrong, Jews should call them out.  If Obama disagrees with Bibi on specific details, that's normal and fine.  Bibi should show respect, because he's the junior partner in this relationship.  I'm a Zionist and I support Israel, but if that means I have to subscribe to anything that fanatical, crazy settlers want, you've lost me and most reasonable people.  And, ultimately, Israel needs people like me on their side.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Would removing the military aid do that much? Israel could crush the Palestinians even without it.

The military aid isn't the most important thing. It's the diplomatic shield from the strongly anti-Israel UN and EU. Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

I think the UK and France are quite reasonable countries if the US would stop with its lone vetoes.

The UK, I could see being a reasonable broker. France would really depend on the Government at the time.

French foreign policy doesn't vary much depending on the government of the time.

[ag]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

The world hates Israel a hell of a lot more than they did South Africa and their demands are a lot less reasonable.

This is completely not true.

[Indy Texas]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

So you don't think the United States should evaluate its relationship with a given country based on  how that country's government behaves toward the United States?

Elections have consequences. Your apologism for Netanyahu is yet more proof that you need to get rid of your New Jersey avatar because you clearly care more about Israel than you do about the United States.

Do you accuse all Israel-supporters of having dual loyalty, or just the Jews? In case you didn't notice, the majority of its supporters are Christians - and Israel has a far higher approval rating with the country than this President.

You didn't answer my question - probably because you think the United States should support Israel no matter how Israel behaves towards the US. that's why I think you put Israel before America.

As US and Israeli diplomats often exasperatedly say to the media, friends can have disagreements. But you don't think the US should be allowed to disagree with Israel. And I think it's really pathetic that you're once again crying wolf about anti-Semitism because someone called you out.

[Indy Texas]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

Also, an Israel that didn't give a guarantee of a refuge to any Jew would have been an Israel without a point, given the timing. Calling it "racist" is absurd.

It would have been less offensive if they hadn't done everything they could to push out the non-Jewish people who were already living there at the time, Ray.

Please don't compare it to the settling of the United States in the 1700s. Forced population transfers aren't acceptable in the modern era. If Israel had done what it did to the Palestinians a century or two earlier, it would have been a fait accompli akin to the tragic fates of many indigenous peoples. But they didn't - they waited too long.

[politicus]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

Also, an Israel that didn't give a guarantee of a refuge to any Jew would have been an Israel without a point, given the timing. Calling it "racist" is absurd.

It would have been less offensive if they hadn't done everything they could to push out the non-Jewish people who were already living there at the time, Ray.

Please don't compare it to the settling of the United States in the 1700s. Forced population transfers aren't acceptable in the modern era. If Israel had done what it did to the Palestinians a century or two earlier, it would have been a fait accompli akin to the tragic fates of many indigenous peoples. But they didn't - they waited too long.

Turkey ethnically cleansed Hatay/Sanjak of Alexandrette for Christian Arabs and Armenians in 1938 and it was accepted. Germans were driven from Eastern Europe after WW2 etc. There are plenty of generally accepted ethnic cleansings in the modern era. What was special in the Palestinian case was the lack of willingness from the neighbouring Arab countries to integrate the refugees and the determination of the Palestinians to assert their claim for generations (those two things obviously being connected).

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

So you don't think the United States should evaluate its relationship with a given country based on  how that country's government behaves toward the United States?

Elections have consequences. Your apologism for Netanyahu is yet more proof that you need to get rid of your New Jersey avatar because you clearly care more about Israel than you do about the United States.

Do you accuse all Israel-supporters of having dual loyalty, or just the Jews? In case you didn't notice, the majority of its supporters are Christians - and Israel has a far higher approval rating with the country than this President.

You didn't answer my question - probably because you think the United States should support Israel no matter how Israel behaves towards the US. that's why I think you put Israel before America.

As US and Israeli diplomats often exasperatedly say to the media, friends can have disagreements. But you don't think the US should be allowed to disagree with Israel. And I think it's really pathetic that you're once again crying wolf about anti-Semitism because someone called you out.

You have a long history of playing the dual loyalty card with American supporters of Israel. You've been called out for it before, with Dead0man among others.

Also, you're misrepresenting my statements. Nowhere am I saying that the US has no right to disagree with Israel. What I am saying is that a US President - who was rebuked by the American public in the last election - has no right to unilaterally destroy a long-standing relationship with an ally by surrendering it to the whims of the UN in a fit of anger over a foreign election going against his wishes. If he tries that - and I am skeptical about the fear mongering - he will be rebuffed by Congress and will likely cause Israel to knuckle down and embrace the far right even more.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

Also, an Israel that didn't give a guarantee of a refuge to any Jew would have been an Israel without a point, given the timing. Calling it "racist" is absurd.

It would have been less offensive if they hadn't done everything they could to push out the non-Jewish people who were already living there at the time, Ray.

Please don't compare it to the settling of the United States in the 1700s. Forced population transfers aren't acceptable in the modern era. If Israel had done what it did to the Palestinians a century or two earlier, it would have been a fait accompli akin to the tragic fates of many indigenous peoples. But they didn't - they waited too long.

Turkey ethnically cleansed Hatay/Sanjak of Alexandrette for Christian Arabs and Armenians in 1938 and it was accepted. Germans were driven from Eastern Europe after WW2 etc. There are plenty of generally accepted ethnic cleansings in the modern era. What was special in the Palestinian case was the lack of willingness from the neighbouring Arab countries to integrate the refugees and the determination of the Palestinians to assert their claim for generations (those two things obviously being connected).

There's also the mass expulsions during the settling of borders in the India/Pakistan/Bangladesh region. Which started at roughly the same time and went on long after.

There's a lot of people responsible for how the Palestinian refugees got ed over, although the surrounding Arab states hold the majority of the blame.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

What are you talking about?  What did Obama do that was out of line?  If Netanyahu doesn't like what Obama is doing he should cut Israeli military aid to the US.  Oh wait, we send Israel military aid, so maybe respect is due.

Netanyahu has tried to strong-arm President Obama and flagrantly insulted him with that speech.  And, don't forget, Netanyahu basically endorsed Romney and openly disrespects Obama.  He acts like Israel defends the US, not the other way around.  We are the superpower and we provide for Israel's defense.

Israel is acting like a trust fund kid that gets angry when their parent buys them a BMW in charcoal gray instead of black.  What exactly has Obama done to hurt Israel?  Nothing.  Obama is pro-Israel and has held to the same position on Israel as previous Presidents.  Certainly, Obama is more pro-Israel than George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Do I think Obama should punish Israel because Netanyahu is surly, right-wing egomaniac?  No.  The fundamentals of our relationship with Israel go beyond personality politics.  And, Obama is a bigger man than Bibi.  But, no US President has ever tolerated this kind of disrespect from what is essentially a country on the US trust-fund and no President has ever made our policy unconditional support for settlements in the West Bank. 

They both took their shots at each other. They both missed. Fair play on that front, although Obama went further than simple tacit backing - he aided Herzog through a PAC.

But the election is over now, and if Obama starts to rachet up pressure on Israel solely as a result of their election results, it starts to look a lot like he's actually punishing a US ally for not going along with his orders on their vote. That's not the action of any sort of ally.

Now, Obama hasn't actually taken any sort of punitive action yet, and most of this is just Fox News scaremongering. However, if he does, that's a completely different matter and I expect to see the Democrats step up to keep this President from using his lame duck period to permanently destroy US foreign relations with an ally.

As to your last point, no, no President has ever backed West Bank settlements - but no President declared Jewish areas of eastern Jerusalem to be settlements either, especially since they're likely to remain with Israel in a land swap. That's really where all this tension began, with Obama picking  a fight he thought he could win at the start of his term and losing handily. Both sides have been escalating the tension since, but at this point it's a battle of personalities between two temporary leaders. The things discussed in this thread would cause permanent consequences long after they're gone.

Obama aided Herzog through a PAC?  Plz substantiate.  BTW, American political operatives have consulted in Israeli politics for years so it would be no surprise if the Israeli Labor party hired consultants who had previously worked for Obama.

Also, when have Democrats been anti-Israel?  I live in one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country.  We had a primary race between pro-Israel and anti-Israel candidates and the anti-Israel guy got smoked like a fine gouda cheese.  Is anti-Israel sentiment a growing problem on the left globally?  For sure.  But, in the US most Jews are Democrats and we're still solid on Israel. 

And another thing, supporting Israel right or wrong is contrary to Jewish values.  If Israel does something wrong, Jews should call them out.  If Obama disagrees with Bibi on specific details, that's normal and fine.  Bibi should show respect, because he's the junior partner in this relationship.  I'm a Zionist and I support Israel, but if that means I have to subscribe to anything that fanatical, crazy settlers want, you've lost me and most reasonable people.  And, ultimately, Israel needs people like me on their side.

V15 has so many ties to the Obama administration that I'd be shocked if it wasn't going on with at least his tacit approval. But like I said, they took their shots at each other, and ideally they would move on like grownups. I don't really have any grudge over that.

And you're right, Democrats are not anti-Israel. Actually, the party by and large has been incredibly supportive, even in the face of this specific administration's periodic hostility. The crisis in 2010 would have escalated far worse if it wasn't for guys from Obama's own party letting him know they weren't supporting the diplomatic offensive further. The idea that either party is "Anti-Israel" is incredibly wrong. I would even hesitate to say Obama truly is, as right now it seems like he just hates Netanyahu - however, that would change if he was to take the actions being cheered on in this thread.

[MalaspinaGold]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

So you don't think the United States should evaluate its relationship with a given country based on  how that country's government behaves toward the United States?

Elections have consequences. Your apologism for Netanyahu is yet more proof that you need to get rid of your New Jersey avatar because you clearly care more about Israel than you do about the United States.

Do you accuse all Israel-supporters of having dual loyalty, or just the Jews? In case you didn't notice, the majority of its supporters are Christians - and Israel has a far higher approval rating with the country than this President.

You didn't answer my question - probably because you think the United States should support Israel no matter how Israel behaves towards the US. that's why I think you put Israel before America.

As US and Israeli diplomats often exasperatedly say to the media, friends can have disagreements. But you don't think the US should be allowed to disagree with Israel. And I think it's really pathetic that you're once again crying wolf about anti-Semitism because someone called you out.

You have a long history of playing the dual loyalty card with American supporters of Israel. You've been called out for it before, with Dead0man among others.

Also, you're misrepresenting my statements. Nowhere am I saying that the US has no right to disagree with Israel. What I am saying is that a US President - who was rebuked by the American public in the last election - has no right to unilaterally destroy a long-standing relationship with an ally by surrendering it to the whims of the UN in a fit of anger over a foreign election going against his wishes. If he tries that - and I am skeptical about the fear mongering - he will be rebuffed by Congress and will likely cause Israel to knuckle down and embrace the far right even more.

The few times IndyTX has played the dual loyalty card, it's generally been for a good reason. And I say that as someone you would consider an American supporter of Israel.

The president has the right to look over the interests of the American people. If the interests of the American people conflict with those of Israel, he has an obligation to side with the former. Though I would very well argue that in acting in the ways suggested by hnv1 among others, the president may well be acting in the interests of the Israeli people as well.

Keep in mind the president was fairly elected by a majority of the population twice, and there is no will in congress to override any reasonable moves he might make.

[MalaspinaGold]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

What are you talking about?  What did Obama do that was out of line?  If Netanyahu doesn't like what Obama is doing he should cut Israeli military aid to the US.  Oh wait, we send Israel military aid, so maybe respect is due.

Netanyahu has tried to strong-arm President Obama and flagrantly insulted him with that speech.  And, don't forget, Netanyahu basically endorsed Romney and openly disrespects Obama.  He acts like Israel defends the US, not the other way around.  We are the superpower and we provide for Israel's defense.

Israel is acting like a trust fund kid that gets angry when their parent buys them a BMW in charcoal gray instead of black.  What exactly has Obama done to hurt Israel?  Nothing.  Obama is pro-Israel and has held to the same position on Israel as previous Presidents.  Certainly, Obama is more pro-Israel than George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Do I think Obama should punish Israel because Netanyahu is surly, right-wing egomaniac?  No.  The fundamentals of our relationship with Israel go beyond personality politics.  And, Obama is a bigger man than Bibi.  But, no US President has ever tolerated this kind of disrespect from what is essentially a country on the US trust-fund and no President has ever made our policy unconditional support for settlements in the West Bank. 

They both took their shots at each other. They both missed. Fair play on that front, although Obama went further than simple tacit backing - he aided Herzog through a PAC.

But the election is over now, and if Obama starts to rachet up pressure on Israel solely as a result of their election results, it starts to look a lot like he's actually punishing a US ally for not going along with his orders on their vote. That's not the action of any sort of ally.

Now, Obama hasn't actually taken any sort of punitive action yet, and most of this is just Fox News scaremongering. However, if he does, that's a completely different matter and I expect to see the Democrats step up to keep this President from using his lame duck period to permanently destroy US foreign relations with an ally.

As to your last point, no, no President has ever backed West Bank settlements - but no President declared Jewish areas of eastern Jerusalem to be settlements either, especially since they're likely to remain with Israel in a land swap. That's really where all this tension began, with Obama picking  a fight he thought he could win at the start of his term and losing handily. Both sides have been escalating the tension since, but at this point it's a battle of personalities between two temporary leaders. The things discussed in this thread would cause permanent consequences long after they're gone.

Obama aided Herzog through a PAC?  Plz substantiate.  BTW, American political operatives have consulted in Israeli politics for years so it would be no surprise if the Israeli Labor party hired consultants who had previously worked for Obama.

Also, when have Democrats been anti-Israel?  I live in one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country.  We had a primary race between pro-Israel and anti-Israel candidates and the anti-Israel guy got smoked like a fine gouda cheese.  Is anti-Israel sentiment a growing problem on the left globally?  For sure.  But, in the US most Jews are Democrats and we're still solid on Israel. 

And another thing, supporting Israel right or wrong is contrary to Jewish values.  If Israel does something wrong, Jews should call them out.  If Obama disagrees with Bibi on specific details, that's normal and fine.  Bibi should show respect, because he's the junior partner in this relationship.  I'm a Zionist and I support Israel, but if that means I have to subscribe to anything that fanatical, crazy settlers want, you've lost me and most reasonable people.  And, ultimately, Israel needs people like me on their side.

V15 has so many ties to the Obama administration that I'd be shocked if it wasn't going on with at least his tacit approval. But like I said, they took their shots at each other, and ideally they would move on like grownups. I don't really have any grudge over that.

And you're right, Democrats are not anti-Israel. Actually, the party by and large has been incredibly supportive, even in the face of this specific administration's periodic hostility. The crisis in 2010 would have escalated far worse if it wasn't for guys from Obama's own party letting him know they weren't supporting the diplomatic offensive further. The idea that either party is "Anti-Israel" is incredibly wrong. I would even hesitate to say Obama truly is, as right now it seems like he just hates Netanyahu - however, that would change if he was to take the actions being cheered on in this thread.

Your obsession with V15 is incredibly ironic, especially in light of this:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/1.647891

[Indy Texas]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

So you don't think the United States should evaluate its relationship with a given country based on  how that country's government behaves toward the United States?

Elections have consequences. Your apologism for Netanyahu is yet more proof that you need to get rid of your New Jersey avatar because you clearly care more about Israel than you do about the United States.

Do you accuse all Israel-supporters of having dual loyalty, or just the Jews? In case you didn't notice, the majority of its supporters are Christians - and Israel has a far higher approval rating with the country than this President.

You didn't answer my question - probably because you think the United States should support Israel no matter how Israel behaves towards the US. that's why I think you put Israel before America.

As US and Israeli diplomats often exasperatedly say to the media, friends can have disagreements. But you don't think the US should be allowed to disagree with Israel. And I think it's really pathetic that you're once again crying wolf about anti-Semitism because someone called you out.

You have a long history of playing the dual loyalty card with American supporters of Israel. You've been called out for it before, with Dead0man among others.

Also, you're misrepresenting my statements. Nowhere am I saying that the US has no right to disagree with Israel. What I am saying is that a US President - who was rebuked by the American public in the last election - has no right to unilaterally destroy a long-standing relationship with an ally by surrendering it to the whims of the UN in a fit of anger over a foreign election going against his wishes. If he tries that - and I am skeptical about the fear mongering - he will be rebuffed by Congress and will likely cause Israel to knuckle down and embrace the far right even more.

So the US is obligated to put its thumb on the scale every time the other 100+ countries in the world want to vote a different way regarding Israel-related matters?

Please stop with the "rebuking" nonsense. The guy won both his elections; your party lost them. Get over it. Congratulations for winning one of the lowest-turnout midterm elections in history. I seem to recall Reagan and Bush getting "rebuked" in their final midterms as well.

I don't even know what people like you mean when you say you "support" Israel. Do you "support" Germany, Britain and our other allies? What makes Israel so special? I would never speak of countries like the UK or Canada the way people like you and dead0man and Vosem speak of Israel. That's what bothers me and that's what makes me believe you aren't really "one of us." You are more concerned about Israel's strategic interests in the region than you are about America's. If you weren't, you'd accept the necessity of rapprochement with Iran so that we can defeat the real threat to the Middle East. It's not Iran. It's not Hamas or Hezbollah. It's ISIS.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

Also, an Israel that didn't give a guarantee of a refuge to any Jew would have been an Israel without a point, given the timing. Calling it "racist" is absurd.

Since it is coupled with a complete refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return home to Israeli territory ever since the 1948-9, it is hardly absurd.  Jews are allowed to return to the land their ancestors lived in, Arabs weren't allowed to even return to the land they themselves lived in, let alone the land their ancestors lived in.

[MalaspinaGold]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

Also, an Israel that didn't give a guarantee of a refuge to any Jew would have been an Israel without a point, given the timing. Calling it "racist" is absurd.

Since it is coupled with a complete refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return home to Israeli territory ever since the 1948-9, it is hardly absurd.  Jews are allowed to return to the land their ancestors lived in, Arabs weren't allowed to even return to the land they themselves lived in, let alone the land their ancestors lived in.

This is also far from unique. See Cyprus.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is also far from unique. See Cyprus.

True, but since when is racism unique to any one group?

[Citizen Hats]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

The Law of Return applies to all Jews regardless of race.

Why should "area they control" be the relevant criteria? Britons were a minority in the British Empire in 1930 and it was still a democracy. The occupied territories are a sort of colonies, not the country itself.

I don't think I ever expected 'British Imperialism did it'  to be used as a justification for anything today.