Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Should The U.S. Scale Back Relations With Israel?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Should The U.S. Scale Back Relations With Israel?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 38, 39, 40 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

carleverson

Joined: 04 Dec 2009

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject:

The real problem are the Jewish-Americans (a very influential and connected constituency) who pledge unwavering support for Israel no matter what the Israeli government chooses to do. The Israeli government always acts in its self-interest which often contradicts the best interest of the American government. At some point you have to ask which country these Jewish-Americans are more loyal too, Israel or the United States?

caniff

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:47 pm Post subject:

carleverson wrote:

At some point you have to ask which country these Jewish-Americans are more loyal too, Israel or the United States?

To be fair, this happens with alot of other ethnic groups as well. Mexican-Americans, for example?

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject:

carleverson wrote:

At some point you have to ask which country these Jewish-Americans are more loyal too, Israel or the United States?

The WWII internment camps for the Japanese are pretty universally recognized today as having been a terrible injustice, and they targeted the ethnicity associated with the nation we were actually at war with. I don't think there's any reasonable course of action you could take against an American ethnic group for being loyal to one of our major allies. I don't even think there's good reason to take action against an entire ethnic group for being generally sympathetic to one of our enemies (something you could argue has been happening unjustly to American Arabs since 9/11 to varying extents), especially so long as no laws are broken and no classified information is compromised (and even then, you respond to the criminals, not their ethnicity).

Campaigning against Israel is one thing, but I don't see what you expect can be done about domestic interest groups campaigning for the other side of the debate. One of the few particularly neat things about America is the degree to which the freedoms of speech and belief are valued. At the very least, the idea of making an exception to these freedoms on the grounds of "disloyalty" shouldn't be taken lightly.

chickenpie

Joined: 24 Dec 2008

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject:

thomas pars wrote:

For a long time NO_ONE seemed to care about the Palestinians. Then came 9/11.

Maybe you are just ignorant but the Palestinian issue has been huge in most of the western world for the last 40 years.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:21 am Post subject:

carleverson wrote:

The real problem are the Jewish-Americans (a very influential and connected constituency) who pledge unwavering support for Israel no matter what the Israeli government chooses to do. The Israeli government always acts in its self-interest which often contradicts the best interest of the American government.

At some point you have to ask which country these Jewish-Americans are more loyal too, Israel or the United States?

A very good treatment of this issue is the Missing Links documentary.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:03 pm Post subject:

chickenpie wrote:

thomas pars wrote:

For a long time NO_ONE seemed to care about the Palestinians. Then came 9/11.

Maybe you are just ignorant but the Palestinian issue has been huge in most of the western world for the last 40 years.

Actually it's only been huge for about half that time.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

chickenpie wrote:

thomas pars wrote:

For a long time NO_ONE seemed to care about the Palestinians. Then came 9/11.

Maybe you are just ignorant but the Palestinian issue has been huge in most of the western world for the last 40 years.

Actually it's only been huge for about half that time.

Eh no. This has been an issue since at least the British Mandate. Even if you were to start from the moment of Israel's creation, you're both wrong. 2010-1948=62 years.

And TUM, 20 years? Really?? REALLY? Oh, so, the creation of the PLO, its terrorist actions, the refugee camps, et al just came onto the scene in 1990? The Camp David Accords were in the USA just because Sadat and Begin thought, "Hey, you know, rural Maryland is a great place to make peace!" And that whole Suez Crisis in 1956 had nothing to do with Palestinians whatsoever. Come on man, anyone who argues that might as well say, "There is no point in discussing this with me because I don't have a great grasp of the facts or history of this situation."

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

chickenpie wrote:

thomas pars wrote:

For a long time NO_ONE seemed to care about the Palestinians. Then came 9/11.

Maybe you are just ignorant but the Palestinian issue has been huge in most of the western world for the last 40 years.

Actually it's only been huge for about half that time.

I never said any of that. What I did say it seems to have become a HUGE issue in the West (among the public not the political elite) in the last twenty years or so. Specifically around the time of the First Intifada which began in 1987 (so about 20 give or take).

Let's look at some of the results as seen in the link (under the heading "Outcome")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

Things that had not occurred prior to the event:

"The Israeli countermeasures (particularly during the earlier years of the Intifada) resulted in international attention to the Palestinians' cause"

I'd say that counts as huge.

"Significantly numerous American media outlets openly criticized Israel in a way they had not previously."

This of course would have resulted in a shift in public opinion...again what I would say contributes to the HUGE factor.

The EU "became an important economic contributor towards the Palestinian Authority"

I'd say that would be pretty HUGE as well.

"The impact on the [Israeli] services sector was notably negative

My argument is that all these occurred after/during the First Intifada (FI) and together made the Palestinian issue a lot bigger (HUGE) then it otherwise would have been in the West. And the FI took place some 20 years ago. I NEVER said it wasn't a issue...I was disagreeing with the size of it prior to the FI.

If you can point to more significant groundswells of public opinion shifting from the Israelis to the Palestinians in the West before that time feel free to do so providing names, dates and links. Thanks.

asylum seeker

Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:34 pm Post subject:

carleverson wrote:

You should read the book Microtrends. There are actually far more 'Armageddon'-believing right-wing Christian supporters of hawkish Israeli policy than Jewish supporters.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:56 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

If you can point to more significant groundswells of public opinion shifting from the Israelis to the Palestinians in the West before that time feel free to do so providing names, dates and links. Thanks.

That isn't what the dude said though. He just said the Palestinian issue has been huge in the West for the last 40 years, not that the Palestinians gained sympathy or support in the west. I'd say he was right. 1967, the Munich hostage crisis, various Palestnian groups hijacking airplanes, etc etc.

But yes, public opinion shifted towards the Palestinians after the intifada. I won't dispute that.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:19 am Post subject:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/why-im-voting-for-eisenhower-over-obama.html

Quote:

Below is a riveting story about Eisenhower and Ben Gurion. But first a comment.

...

The story about President Eisenhower's insistence that Israel withdraw from Egypt, which it had invaded in 1956, comes from The Passionate Attachment (1992) by the late George W. Ball, a former Under Secretary of State, and Douglas Ball. Eisenhower was of course a Republican; which brings up one more point about the discourse on the left: I grew up in a Democratic household, being told that John Foster Dulles was a bastard and maybe an anti-Semite, too. In fact, his position below is a stirring one; but I have had to overcome a lot of cultural/political programming to say as much.

Quote:

Jewish American organizations tried hard to generate congressional resistance to Eisenhower's position. On February 1, [1957] Senator William Knowland, the Republican minority leader, protested to [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles against the administration's stand. Knowland agreed that the policy might be right in theory, but pointed out to Dulles the domestic political implications and threatened to revolt. Dulles answered Knowland by noting, "We cannot have all our policies made in Jerusalem," and he justified the American position on the following grounds:

"First, sanctions would be necessary to compel Israel's withdrawal and a withdrawal was needed to maintain the American position among the Arabs...

"[Second] I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. [Former sec'y of state under Truman George] Marshall and [first Defense Secretary James V.] Forrestal learned that. I am going to try to have one.

"That does not mean I am anti-Jewish, but I believe in what George Washington said in his Farewell Address that an emotional attachment to another country should not interfere."

On February 20, Eisenhower called a meeting of the congressional leadership. When the lawmakers, ever sensitive to the pro-Israeli lobby, refused to help, Eisenhower resorted to television that same night.

Eisenhower did more than talk. He issued an ultimatum to Ben Gurion to pull Israel's forces back to the Israeli border. He also laid plans with Dulles that, if the Israelis did not comply, the United States would cut off the flow of all aid to Israel, including not only development assistance but technical assistance and shipments of agricultural products under Public Law 480. He would also delay the disbursement of an already arranged Export-Import Bank loan and terminate all forms of military assistance, including those in the pipeline. He canceled export licenses for the shipment of munitions or other military goods. Finally, he ordered Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey to draft a change in U.S. tax regulations so that the Jewish American organization benefactors would no longer be entitled to a federal income tax deduction for contributions that benefited Israel.

In spite of further efforts by Israel's supporters to deflect White House pressure from the Jewish state, Eisenhower did not cave in; so, as the Israeli government began to run out of money, Ben Gurion, on March 5, 1957, grudgingly capitulated. On March 16, Israel withdrew from almost all the territory it had occupied in the Suez offensive.

A guide for Obama. Dig in and then dig in deeper. Talk to the people honestly about what's happening. Then dig in again.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:35 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

A guide for Obama. Dig in and then dig in deeper. Talk to the people honestly about what's happening. Then dig in again.

Do you honestly think he'd be able to get away with that?

It would be like setting himself up for his own assassination. (Perhaps he is afflicted with autassassinophilia, a paraphilia of the sacrificial/expiatory type in which sexual gratification is achieved via the stage-managing of one's own death. Then maybe there'd be some hope.)

asylum seeker

Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:47 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

The U.S should only scale back relations with Israel if they get something in return.

Foolish to trade something for nothing...particularly if that something is good relations with a reliable ally which has one of the best (if not the best) intelligence gathering agencies in existence.

If they curtailed military aid they would save about 2.5 billion US dollars a year which could be used elsewhere.

http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:52 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

mises wrote:

A guide for Obama. Dig in and then dig in deeper. Talk to the people honestly about what's happening. Then dig in again.

Yes. I think he would get away with it. I do not think he will do it. He is not the center of power. The people around him are the power.

Did you know that Rahm Emanuel's father was a member of a terrorist organization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Emanuel#Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing

I am not so naive to think that a guy who puts Rahm in charge of his administration is going to ever so slightly talk back to Israel.

That said, I think that there is evidence that the super-wealthy Zionist American establishment is not going to support Obama going forward.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/02/mort-zuckerman-obama-is-barely-treading-water.html

If that is the case, he has a great opportunity to drive a wedge between the Israel-firsters and people who want the US to have a foreign policy that serves the US. That would be nice to see. Throw the cards on the table. Where does everybody stand. David Petraeus? He's with Israel. Admiral Mullen? He's with America.

http://blogs.alternet.org/michaelcollinsdc/2010/07/08/ray-mcgovern-and-robert-parry-on-truth-unflinching-and-the-price-of-integrity/

Quote:

McGovern also reported frank talks between the current head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, and Israeli leaders during which Mullen made a point clearly on an Israeli attack on Iran � don�t even think of it!. McGovern said that Mullen added emphasis by noting that he was old enough to recall the unprovoked and uninvestigated attack on the U.S.S. Liberty by Israeli fighters in the 1967 Israeli-Arab war.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/petraeus-fed-his-pro-israel-bona-fides-to-a-neocon-writer-including-pathetic-recitation-of-meeting-wiesel.html

Quote:

Four minutes later, at 2:31, Boot responded to Petraeus. No need to say Sir:

Oh brother. Luckily it's only media matters which has no credibility but
think I will do another short item pointing people to what you actually
said as opposed to what's in the posture statement.

Six minutes pass.

From: Petraeus, David H GEN MIL USA USCENTCOM CCCC/CCCC
2:37

Thx, Max. (Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his
wife at our quarters last Sun night?! And that I will be the speaker at
the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in
mid-Apr at the Capitol Dome...)

2:45, Boot:

No don't think that's relevant because you're not being accused of being anti-Semitic.

2:57, Petraeus:

Roger! Smile

Look at that. Petraeus, Mr. Big Bad Military Man, groveling to a damn neo-con from Commentary with emoticons.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:58 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Jesus. Maybe AIPAC should drop the first A. Wow.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/09/aipac-letter-to-congress-members/

Do they forget who is the superpower and who is the client? Wait. Who is the superpower and who is the client?

AIPAC should be registered as a foreign lobby group. It was founded by Isaiah Kennen who worked for the Israeli Government at one point. He had worked for the American Zionist Council and the American Zionist Public Affairs Committee. Robert F. Kennedy rightly went after him to have the AZC labeled as a foreign agent. So what does Kennen do? He turns the AZPC into AIPAC.

America is not the superpower when it comes to Israel. It's like a big dog that can confront most countries except Israel. It has as hard of a time confronting Israel as confronting a superpower like Russia, but not because Israel is such a militarily powerful country. It's because of groups like AIPAC and their allies in the media like Rupert Murdoch, Zuckerman of US News, the Council of Presidents. They work together on this. They are Americans, but they have such a focus on Israel that it draws into question as to whether they can be objective. Unlike many young Jews who refer to
Israelis as they and not us, many of these older Jews in these groups view Israel as us and America as us. That can be a problem. America isn't Israel. However, when Netanyahu visited Obama acted as if Israel and the US were the same.

Israelis have a right to security, but demolishing homes, building settlements and, thus, angering a billion Muslims, upsetting the European street and Latin American street makes America look like a joke to so many countries. It makes America also not credible in the region. I feel sad that America can't assert itself and consistently demand Israel follow international law.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 38, 39, 40 Next
Page 7 of 40

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe