So why does Georgie, the Christian, side with the Jews?

[MysteryMeat]

Not trying to be derogative or inflammitory, it's an honest question. Someone enlighten me.

I figure the obvious answers are money and oil but I'd like to imagine that the White House's PR reps could put a better spin on it than that.

I've always assumed a few reasons -

1) we have a policy of supporting democracy

2) the jewish lobby groups are important power brokers

3) Israel buys a lot of our weapons - they're great customers

4) "my enemy's enemy" makes them our friend - even if Saudi Arabia is officially our friend too.

[johnny861]

The two most powerful interest groups in America: The AARP and the AIPAC...

the American Association of Retired People and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee...

so yea, basically old people and jews are the most influencial groups in Washington...


AIPAC contributions:

TOTAL for 1999-2000 Election Cycle $2,044,606
TOTAL 1978-2000 Funds to Congressional Candidates $34,607,182
TOTAL No. of Recipient Candidates, 1978-2000 1,732

[USAcommitteeX]

The U.S.-Israel relationship is based on the twin pillars of shared values and shared interests. Given this commonality of interests and beliefs, it should not be surprising that support for Israel is one of the most pronounced and consistent foreign policy values of the American people. the United States-Israeli special relationship is the product of a complex mixture of causal factors and incorporates historical memory, religious values, societal ties, considerations of regional stability and American national interest

[DJPePe]

Originally posted by xiannaix
I've always assumed a few reasons -

1) we have a policy of supporting democracy

Bullshit! What a load of crap!

If we do have a policy of supporting democracy, then why the hell did we stifle democracy in so many 3rd world countries?

You want me to bring up what we did in Chile? Are you that blind to think that?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
The U.S.-Israel relationship is based on the twin pillars of shared values and shared interests. Given this commonality of interests and beliefs, it should not be surprising that support for Israel is one of the most pronounced and consistent foreign policy values of the American people. the United States-Israeli special relationship is the product of a complex mixture of causal factors and incorporates historical memory, religious values, societal ties, considerations of regional stability and American national interest

That's not really true at all.


For the first 20 years of Israel's existence the US refused to get involved. Many foreign policy advisors and decisionmakers were completely against the US taking any position at all, and were very suspect at taking the likely pro-Israel position because it would put the US at odds with the rest of the Middle East and the oil reserves. There was also a fear that if the US became involved on Israel's side that the US would end up in the situation of having to support Israel indefidently.

Israel wasn't a strategic point during the 1950s and early 1960s because the US had other critical allies in the region, such as Iran and Iraq. So Israel wasn't much of an issue. In the late 1960s, conflict escalated, and Israel began to lobby very, very hard for US support, which finally came. The US has kept relations partly because of the massive lobby campaign by pro-Israeli groups, but there are more important issues that maintain the relationship.

For one, as policy planners early on feared, the US ended up in a position of having to continually support Israel in the region because the initial support angered many of our allies in the immediate reason. This was compounded by the eventual loss of control of several other critical allies, such as Iran. Israel proved to be exactly what the US needed. A strategic base to offset Soviet interests in the region, a military outpost in the region, and most importantly of all, a place to funnel tremendous amounts of military aid to which returns to the US to defense contractors that with Israel alone sends hundreds of millions of dollars annually into the military-industrial complex. Not to mention the other economic and political values of the US-Israeli relationship provide further benefit to the US. But with that in mind, the military industry also heavily lobbies the federal government to keep such a strong relationship with Israel.

Wow. What a fun topic.

While we're at it, would somebody explain to me why we're still allowing Israel to be the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons that can apparently kick out weapons inspectors or purposely hinder investiations and not get their asses kicked?

Iraq's WMD? I KNOW, I KNOW! THEY MOVED 'EM TO ISRAEL! THAT'S WHAT THAT GIANT NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANT IS FROM! It's not actually Israeli at all.

[USAcommitteeX]

While we're at it, would somebody explain to me why we're still allowing Israel to be the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons that can apparently kick out weapons inspectors or purposely hinder investiations and not get their asses kicked?

You don't see the Arab League sticking their nose in Israel business like in the past, Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968-1970, 1973, 1982, "unofficially" Israel having the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world is serving its purpose as a deterent, Israel could obliterate the entire middle east and the Arabs/Persians know this, Syria doesn't have any nukes but they do have chemical weapons. In 1990, the DIA reported that Syria had developed the nerve agent Sarin for use in 500kg aerial bombs and Scud B missile warheads. And in 1993, the DIA reported that Syria had developed aerial bombs and missile warheads for chemical agents and that there were two known chemical weapon depots: The Khan Abu Shamat Depot and the Furqlus Depot. There is that double standard, regarding Israels wmd, but until Israels security can be guranteed then they will hang on to them and continue to serve as a deterent.

For one, as policy planners early on feared, the US ended up in a position of having to continually support Israel in the region because the initial support angered many of our allies in the immediate reason.

Israel doesn't need the United States to protect them, they can do it with no problem, they have proven that since 1948.

[Krash]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
Israel doesn't need the United States to protect them, they can do it with no problem, they have proven that since 1948.

hahahahaha, rubbish.

If the US withdrew support, Israel would be at war within a few years. They would also be crippled from the UN, because it would be the end of the US veto over pretty much everything that concerns it.

And afaik Egypt has nuclear weapons, they were given to the eqyptians by the Russians (at the request of the americans) to counterbalance the Israeli nuclear force when it becamse apparent they had them.

Why does the US support Israel? As Adam says, it is for the bases and to have a friendly state in the most volatile region in the world.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
Israel doesn't need the United States to protect them, they can do it with no problem, they have proven that since 1948.

Israel may be able to defend itself from military aggression, but without US support it wouldn't have the funds or the arms to maintain prolonged combat. And if Israel became an aggressor against another state, no doubt it would be the US that would prevent the UN from intervening.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by DJPePe
Bullshit! What a load of crap!

If we do have a policy of supporting democracy, then why the hell did we stifle democracy in so many 3rd world countries?

You want me to bring up what we did in Chile? Are you that blind to think that?

*cough*Cold war*cough*

[psyon]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
The U.S.-Israel relationship is based on the twin pillars of shared values and shared interests. Given this commonality of interests and beliefs, it should not be surprising that support for Israel is one of the most pronounced and consistent foreign policy values of the American people. the United States-Israeli special relationship is the product of a complex mixture of causal factors and incorporates historical memory, religious values, societal ties, considerations of regional stability and American national interest

Instead of saying anything I'll just laugh, plus Adam already answered.

[MysteryMeat]

I'm gathering that Israel is essentially the US representative for those continents; probably a closer safeguard and position for serious attack, should anything more closely threaten the inter-continental US.

I'd assume we only haven't offered statehood is for PR and the guise of being how things appear to be now. Considering Israel as an American territory brings a lot into perspective and explains quite a bit. (Although I know the national pride of the Israelis would never allow statehood, nor would the rest of the world stand for it, but both Israel and the US act together as if this is the case).

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
The U.S.-Israel relationship is based on the twin pillars of shared values and shared interests. Given this commonality of interests and beliefs, it should not be surprising that support for Israel is one of the most pronounced and consistent foreign policy values of the American people. the United States-Israeli special relationship is the product of a complex mixture of causal factors and incorporates historical memory, religious values, societal ties, considerations of regional stability and American national interest

That has to be the most prevaricated and broad statement I've read yet. This could be applied to many countries around the world that do not share US favoritism like Israel.

[MysteryMeat]

I'd assume we only haven't offered statehood is for PR and the guise of being how things appear to be now.

...although the Star of David might look interesting in the starfield on the American flag

Originally posted by DJPePe
Bullshit! What a load of crap!

If we do have a policy of supporting democracy, then why the hell did we stifle democracy in so many 3rd world countries?

You want me to bring up what we did in Chile? Are you that blind to think that?

What 3rd world emerging democracies are you referring to?

Chile was a cold war example - certanly not going to defend support of Pinochet.

I think the Chile example points to a policy of trying to exterminate emerging communism where ever it may have reared its ugly head. But, I'm familiar enough with that issue to discuss and it's gettigng afield of the point of the thread.

To real it back in - we DO have a policy of supporting democracy - opposing communism is supporting democracy - so the line goes.