What does the US have to gain by supporting Israel?

[gib65]

I'm not an American so I know less about the US's motives for support Israel than actual Americans. Please don't take this as a belligerent question. I'd honestly like to know.

[YT2095]

OR inversely, What does it have to LOSE by Not!?

 

same coin, different side

[Pangloss]

It's a perfectly reasonable question, and contributes to the board, so don't feel bad about asking.

 

Wearing my moderator hat for a moment, I'll just inject a couple of talking points without answering the question, leaving that up to the others:

 

- There are almost as many Jews in the US as there are in Israel (6.5 million versus 7.1 million)

 

- Israel has frequently been an ally to the United States in a region that is frequently opposed to US policy (but our goals are certainly not always in alignment)

 

(Edit: I cross-posted with YT above, but he has an interesting talking point there as well.)

[geoguy]

It depends on one's definition of the U.S. If you mean the people then the millions of Jews in the USA have an interest to promote something they believe in...the state of Israel. Most american jews would fund, lobby and vote one way or the other on a single issue such as American-Israeli relations if the Dems and Reps were far apart on their positions towards Israel. This isn't necessarily a negative as much as the representatives listening to their contituents.

 

 

In the broader U.S. interest, Israel is the trump card militarily in the region. When the chips are down, Israel can and has squashed the Arab nations. Israel is capable of escalating to a level of violence necessary to control the region.

 

There is a perspective of foreign policy that is seen through the eyes of various age groups and what one has experienced in life. Those of us growing up in the Cold War perhaps have broader (i don't mean better)view of potential happenings. The Iraq situation is an important issue but not on the same scale of that of imminent thermo nuclear war we experienced. The same for some of our parents or grandparents who lived through WW2...bad stuff on a grand scale can happen and isn't just in movies. Israel is a powerful ally to be able to count upon if 'big stuff' ever happens.

 

Not to go of on a tangent but the same might be said of Blair's suport for the Iraq invasion. Blair isn't a dummy but I also don't think he cared that much about Sadam. Blair, however, is a child of the Cold War and understood the value to the UK for standing by the USA. Regardless of what a swamp Iraq has become, the UK need not doubt that the USA would stand firmly beside it if some crisis happened tomorrow. The USA and Israel would also be on the same page in the Middle East if some unforseen crisis reared its head.

[gib65]

Okay, I can understand that the US might benefit from having a foothold, even an ally, in the middle east just in case "something happens", but at what cost? There's tons of American-targeted animosity in the middle east and one of the main motives for it is the support the US gives to Israel. Isn't it at least thinkable that it's causing the US more menace than trategic advantage?

[Pangloss]

First of all, the people of the Middle East are wrong to target their animosity on the United States. They're just flat-out wrong. Note I didn't say they don't have more than a few valid reasons. But they're still wrong. And the fact that they haven't figured out just how wrong they are is the ultimate cause of unrest in that region. Not the actions of the United States.

 

And we would be wrong to do what we're told even when it's morally and logically the wrong thing to do, just because they're angry. Should we support the government of Sudan because it's mad at us, and help them wipe out their enemies? Of course not. But what do you think would happen to the citizens of Israel if we were to renounce our support?

 

Not that your question wasn't a good one. It should be asked, often and loudly. But the answer should also be heard, and right now it is not.

[gib65]

First of all, the people of the Middle East are wrong to target their animosity on the United States. They're just flat-out wrong. Note I didn't say they don't have more than a few valid reasons. But they're still wrong. And the fact that they haven't figured out just how wrong they are is the ultimate cause of unrest in that region. Not the actions of the United States.

 

And we would be wrong to do what we're told even when it's morally and logically the wrong thing to do, just because they're angry. Should we support the government of Sudan because it's mad at us, and help them wipe out their enemies? Of course not. But what do you think would happen to the citizens of Israel if we were to renounce our support?

 

Not that your question wasn't a good one. It should be asked, often and loudly. But the answer should also be heard, and right now it is not.

 

I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong either. I'm just saying it's reality. The arab world is angry at the US for supporting Israel. If the US was to pull out of the region completely (not just in terms of pulling troops out of Iraq, but in terms of any involvement whatsoever), then it would curtail a lot of the animosity you guys are experiencing. You wouldn't be doing what they say, you would just be doing what's in the best interests of your own nation.

[Pangloss]

What you're saying is that we should invite a second Holocaust because supporting Israel is unpopular with a certain group of people. Are you sure that's really going to make us more popular in the long run?

 

Even if you're right (and I don't think you are), I don't think that's an "in crowd" that I want to be popular with.

[ecoli]

There's another possibility here, guys.

 

US can be allies with Israel without giving them so many billions of dollars each year. After all, how is this money being used?

 

I've long supported changing the way financial aid is given out. Throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it. I don't understand how throwing money at Israel will help develop it's markets. Does any of this money go towards Israel developing itself.

 

Part of my libertarianism wants to see what happens to Israel's economy (which is already one of the best in the region) if we stop giving it so much money. Won't it have to strengthen internally in order to maintain itself?

[iNow]

What you're saying is that we should invite a second Holocaust because supporting Israel is unpopular with a certain group of people.

 

Where did he say this? Can you tell me next what I'm saying? I feel left out.

[Realitycheck]

He might not have said it, but it is correct. If all of Israel's inhabitants went back to observing their customs, just like most of Islam, then they probably wouldn't have much problem with Israel. I know of one Orthodox Jew who considers Moslems as his brothers. That doesn't count for much, but it just goes to show how much Moslems care about their form of Orthodoxy and how much they value it in the Jews, in light of the prevailing departure from it in the Jewish world.

 

Of course, a million Palestinians still homeless from the Geneva Accord is forever a big factor. Did they ever get any reparations out of the deal, even if the Islamic world bashed on the Jews a lot over the previous century probably because they were starting to see the light about creationism?

 

They should make a law stating that, if you want to live here, you must wear your yamica.

 

Or maybe they all just need a lesson in humility.

 

Oops, I forgot. It already happened. Geez, how could I forget that?

 

I know of this one Jew, who is a Christian. Not Messianic, but an actual Christian preacher. He calls Israel a "modern" country. Now how do we modernize all of Islam without causing a war? Hmmm, deep thoughts.

[gib65]

How about this: if the US is going to support Israel, why not make it conditional instead of just handing Israel anything they want. Make it conditional on seceding to the one most urgently demanding condition the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) want: repatriation. What the Palestinians want is their land back. But this doesn't mean booting the Jews out of Israel either - it means that it's high time they both learned to live together in the same territory. The US can make their support conditional upon this.

 

If at least Israel agrees to this, the US continues lending support. If both agree to this, and a migration of Palestinians into Israel indeed occurs, the US can continue lending support in the form of peace keeping (i.e. making sure violent outbreaks stay at a minimal level). IMHO, this is the most fair way to go about the situation, and faced with the alternative of losing support, Israel would probably go for it, however reluctantly that might likely be.

[Pangloss]

How about this: if the US is going to support Israel, why not make it conditional instead of just handing Israel anything they want. Make it conditional on seceding to the one most urgently demanding condition the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) want: repatriation. What the Palestinians want is their land back. But this doesn't mean booting the Jews out of Israel either - it means that it's high time they both learned to live together in the same territory. The US can make their support conditional upon this.

 

I think this is already the case, isn't it? Some of the more recent agreements have hinged upon that very point, and there's even been "progress" in the form of Israeli withdrawl from Gaza. Of course the idiots immediately started shelling Israel from within Gaza, which just proves the point that the last thing Hamas wants is to get what it asks for. Which begs the question of why we should give it to them in the first place.

 

My personal position on the occupied territories, by the way, is that they should never have been permanently occupied in the first place, and giving them back should have been a matter of course. But I have little sympathy for the palestinian cause.

 

But getting back to the point, you could well make a case for more stringent tying of this requirement to future support for Israel. It's accurate to say that the US could have held a harder line on this, but remember, in the end the only ammunition we have is the withdrawl of support, which has DIRE consequences.

 

We don't have a lot of cards to play here. That's the point I've been trying to get at in the last several posts -- there are no easy answers. (But of course that doesn't mean we should stop speculating, discussing, asking, answering, etc.)

 

 

 

If at least Israel agrees to this, the US continues lending support. If both agree to this, and a migration of Palestinians into Israel indeed occurs, the US can continue lending support in the form of peace keeping (i.e. making sure violent outbreaks stay at a minimal level). IMHO, this is the most fair way to go about the situation, and faced with the alternative of losing support, Israel would probably go for it, however reluctantly that might likely be.

 

Well stated. And, I would say, consistent with the current US policy. If we were to ask a State Department official to stop by, I'm sure he would say something similar.

[Sisyphus]

I mostly agree with the reasons for supporting Israel above. We're trying to stabilize the region. Without American support, a very bad war would be much more likely. It's not fair, I don't like it, and I'm not convinced it does more good than harm, but I would be afraid to test the alternative, so there you have it.

 

As for the "conditional support" proposal. I don't think it's realistic. That's because the problem with Israel, and the hatred so much of the Arab world has for Israel, is not based on this or that military action or checkpoint or exile.

 

The problem with Israel as I see it is in its fundamental concept: as a Jewish state. No, it's not exactly a theocracy, and of course there are plenty of Israeli citizens who aren't Jewish. But it's a Jewish state nonetheless, as nobody can plausibly deny. Symbolically it's obvious: it was founded for that purpose, it has a Star of David on its flag, etc. But there are also real, concrete practical ways in which Jews are the "ruling class." Jews from all over the world have privileges in Israel. They can vote in elections, the government makes it extremely easy for them to move their, etc. Zionism is bigotry. Putting myself in the shoes of a non-Jewish Israeli, it's hard to imagine not being pissed off about all of that. The Israeli government feels very much like a colonial power in its own country, and that is simply unacceptable to a great many people, and understandably so.

 

So what "condition" would make American support just, and take the wind out of the sails of Arab animosity and terrorist recruitment? Basically, Israel would have to no longer be Israel. You can't have a Jewish state in the Middle East and have any hope for lasting peace, because it's very existence is understandably seen as an act of war. Religious war, and cultural war, and colonial oppression. I believe that if the governments of both Israel and the Palestinian territories were to collapse, that land and that population could live in peace, if a truly secular and equable state were founded in their place. Or at least, they could have, if that had been the approach from the beginning. As it is now, a few generations of hatred and violence probably couldn't just disappear overnight.

 

(Please note, I'm not throwing in my lot with the Palestinians here. Overall, they're blinded by hatred, their leaders are murderous thugs, and the entrenched powers really don't want what they ask for, because their power derives from being oppressed. I sympathize with the original, stated cause. That's it. Just want to head off any "but they're terrorists!" garbage before it starts.)

[bascule]

I believe our support of Israel stems for a legacy dating back to the formation of the United Nations.

 

There are mutual benefits, primarily in the development of military technology, however such an arrangement is interventionist in a way is damaging to America's image abroad.

 

We have Osama attesting that our support of Israel was one of the primary motivations for the September 11th attacks, although individuals such as Bush and Giuliani would rather pin it on our freedom (to which David Cross responds: then why aren't they attacking the Netherlands?)

 

I entirely support maintaining friendly relations with Israel. I do not support giving the money. I do not support what they are doing to the Palestinians. While it's hard to apply the label of genocide to a race that was the target of the worst genocidal atrocity in human history, that seems to be what they're doing to the Palestinians, and it's a humanitarian tragedy.

 

I think the US should at least make economic and military support conditional on establishing peaceful relations with the Palestinians and working out a territorial treaty that both parties can agree to.

[ParanoiA]

I entirely support maintaining friendly relations with Israel. I do not support giving the money. I do not support what they are doing to the Palestinians. While it's hard to apply the label of genocide to a race that was the target of the worst genocidal atrocity in human history' date=' that seems to be what they're doing to the Palestinians, and it's a humanitarian tragedy.

 

I think the US should at least make economic and military support conditional on establishing peaceful relations with the Palestinians and working out a territorial treaty that both parties can agree to.[/quote']

 

Aside from your specifics, I agree. Alliances and support should come from merit, not predetermined agreements that promote apathy towards bad behavior.

 

The Israel subject is hard for me because it seems the creation of Israel, the way it was done, is wrong. Not so much the force by Israelis to take land as that's the implication of all territories in the world and I don't fault a people for fighting for a home. But the support of such aggression by the allied powers, the ejection of palistinians and etc...hard to agree with this. Particularly when Arabs and Israelis both share connection to that Holy land, yet Israelis are a ridiculously small minority in that region.

 

Now, I realize this is 60 years later and what's done is done, but it's still paying consequences to us today. So how do you handle a wrong that is too massive to undo and make right? That part of the world isn't rational enough to let it go.

[pioneer]

Isreal is in a tough position in the middle east. It is the neighbor in the neighborhood that is not the same. They sort of cut their grass and plant shrubs to make their house look nice. The rest of the neighbors are more like people living with broken cars parked in the weed garden in the front yard. Isreal is going to be a target since they remind everyone of what they all want but can't have. If it wasn't for the natural resource of oil, the middle east would be a lot more backwoods than they are today. Many have the external trimmers of the 21st century, but live in the past.

 

The US involvement with Isreal sort of looks like the rich neighbor in other town doesn't care about anyone, except that other rich neighbor. But it is sort of a marriage of necessity since without that help, the neighborhood would try to homogenize toward the lowest common demoninator. But the continued presence of Isreal helps set the bar a little higher, so that those who wish to do better for their families, can see one such example. It is already occurring in many of the oil rich countries that are peaceful. The Arabs are smart people they just need a good example to strive toward. Isreal shows that both moderization and traditions can work together.

[ecoli]

Isreal is going to be a target since they remind everyone of what they all want but can't have. If it wasn't for the natural resource of oil, the middle east would be a lot more backwoods than they are today.

 

That's oversimplifying things, especially considering your previous statements. Israel doesn't have any oil. They buy from Egypt.

 

Isreal shows that both moderization and traditions can work together.

But again, Israel doesn't have any oil. (So, neither do the Palestinians)

[Pangloss]

I entirely support maintaining friendly relations with Israel. I do not support giving the money. I do not support what they are doing to the Palestinians.

 

I empathize with this sentiment, but I gotta ask the question: Would you continue to sell them arms?

 

If you answer "yes", then they could possibly continue to exist under those circumstances, but the Osama types would still be just as angry with us as they are right now.

 

If you answer "no", then Israel dies, and it dies specifically due to your decision not to support them. Congratulations, says The World, you've selected one race over another. Nice job.

 

As far as US domestic politics are concerned (the subject of the OP), conservatives typically choose options like the former, and liberals typically choose options like the latter. The problem in both cases is that these simple, partisan responses are short-sighted and narrow-minded and simply lead to a continuance, if not a worsening, of the underlying problem. But that's okay as far as the partisans are concerned, because when their suggestion fails it's not THEIR fault, it's the other guy's fault. What's not to like?

[bascule]

I empathize with this sentiment, but I gotta ask the question: Would you continue to sell them arms?

 

If you answer "yes", then they could possibly continue to exist under those circumstances, but the Osama types would still be just as angry with us as they are right now.

 

If you answer "no", then Israel dies, and it dies specifically due to your decision not to support them. Congratulations, says The World, you've selected one race over another. Nice job.

 

False dichotomy

[Pangloss]

False dichotomy

 

Cop-out.

[geoguy]

I empathize with this sentiment, but I gotta ask the question: Would you continue to sell them arms?

 

If you answer "yes", then they could possibly continue to exist under those circumstances, but the Osama types would still be just as angry with us as they are right now.

 

If you answer "no", then Israel dies, and it dies specifically due to your decision not to support them. Congratulations, says The World, you've selected one race over another. Nice job.

 

As far as US domestic politics are concerned (the subject of the OP), conservatives typically choose options like the former, and liberals typically choose options like the latter. The problem in both cases is that these simple, partisan responses are short-sighted and narrow-minded and simply lead to a continuance, if not a worsening, of the underlying problem. But that's okay as far as the partisans are concerned, because when their suggestion fails it's not THEIR fault, it's the other guy's fault. What's not to like?

 

I agree with much of this but not 'Israel dies' without U.S. support. Like most members of the Canadian armed forces I spent a year in Middle East (six months in Egypt and six months on the Israeli-Syrian border). The standing joke about the 'Six Day War' was what did the Israelis need the last 5 days for. The Arab armies and the infrastructure was pathetic. So pathetic that nobody believes the stories unless they have been there themselves.

 

Israel doesn't need the USA or anyone else for survival. The Israelis need the USA if they want to maintain a western standard of living...actually they don't even need the USA as much as the financial support and networking of Jews (mostly American) around the world. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons on delivery systems and these weapons are not 'going away' tomorrow or any time in the future. 'If' the USA wasn't backing Israel militarily then the Israelis would be much more likely to take pre-emptive action before any threat was at a point where it would threaten the state's existence. The USA is a restraint on Israeli action against a country like Iran.

 

Israel is a fixture and isn't going away....and the USA isn't going to give Texas back to Mexico... and here in Canada Europeans aren't returning to the Old World and turning the land over to the natives....and the Celts aren't heading back to France abandoning Wales to the Picts. The morality can be argued about but the reality is that Israel is controlled by the Jewish population and will be for a long time.

[Pangloss]

Israel doesn't need the USA or anyone else for survival.

 

I can rebut that in five words: "Airplanes fly on spare parts."

[geoguy]

I can rebut that in five words: "Airplanes fly on spare parts."

 

 

wow. what an intelligent reply. Right up there with George W. Bush

[Sisyphus]

The Israelis need the USA if they want to maintain a western standard of living

 

Perhaps they also need it to maintain Western values. Even now they're a highly militarized society, criss-crossed with defended walls and dotted with army checkpoints. They are a tiny nation surrounded by larger... if not enemies, then not really not enemies, either. The threat of violence is everywhere and at all times, and it makes them quite understandably paranoid and often brutal. What would they become if they had to stand alone, forced to carry the whole burden themselves and with no allies to moderate their actions?