Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Should The U.S. Scale Back Relations With Israel?
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:46 am    Post subject: Should The U.S. Scale Back Relations With Israel? Reply with quote

Since we're on an Israel kick lately:

Quote:
The special relationship between the United States and Israel is based on a history of shared intelligence, military cooperation and a reverence for the Holy Land held by many in the United States.

But does America's close relationship with Israel come at too high a cost in the Muslim world? Should the U.S. consider stepping back from that relationship?

A group of experts tackled that thorny question in an Oxford-style debate, part of the Intelligence Squared U.S. series. Two argued for the motion, "The U.S. Should Step Back From Its Special Relationship With Israel," and two argued against.

In a vote before the debate, the audience at New York University's Skirball Center for the Performing Arts voted 33 percent for the motion and 42 percent against; 25 percent were undecided. After the debate, the audience was split almost evenly: 49 percent agreed that "The U.S. Should Step Back From Its Special Relationship With Israel," while 47 percent voted against the motion and 4 percent remained undecided.

The debate, held Feb. 9, was moderated by John Donvan, correspondent for ABC News' Nightline. Those debating were:


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123627144

Full debate here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=123627144&m=123853370
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm cool with Israel being our friend - and one should stand by their friends. Still, let's not have the tail wagging the dog.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I watched it. Good debate. 3/4 of those undecided at the beginning were won over to vote in favor of the resolution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Happy Warrior



Joined: 10 Feb 2010

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aid to Israel should be radically decreased. But it won't because it doubles as corporate welfare to US arms companies. Also, Israel can't be trusted, but that goes for pretty much any gov't.

And let's not be naive. Significant steps to lessen US support for Israel will not lead to significant gains in Middle Eastern public opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Reggie



Joined: 21 Sep 2009

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm for the USA to recognize Israel as a legitimate state and to be on good terms with it and have good trade relations.

However, I'm not for the government to provide Israel with money and weapons at the expense of the American people. As bad as the $500 toilet seat was, the $3 billion a year America gives Israel would be the equivalent of 6,000,000 $500 toilet seats a year, except no Americans have been killed or threatened over our toilet seats, even by the Muslims who use squat toilets or poop in a hole in the ground.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story
Quote:
The Petraeus briefing: Bidenís embarrassment is not the whole story

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding."

..

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama administration decided it would redouble its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message.

Israel didn't. When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, the administration reacted. But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.


Is the relationship changing? The public conversation seems to be shifting:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/15/israel/index.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it creepy that a chunk of the right wing support for Israel is tied up with their hope to trigger Armaggedon. I suppose if they get their nuclear war they can claim the dead were Raptured up...or something. It's all just too weird.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thomas pars



Joined: 29 Jan 2009

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose that America could continue to support Israel with the complete understanding that they are funding apartheid against the Palestinians. For a long time NO_ONE seemed to care about the Palestinians. Then came 9/11.
Americans are starting to see that it isn't really making us any safer. Add to that that America is broke and an increasingly disobiediant Israel makes it hard for the average america to rationalize.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thomas pars wrote:
I suppose that America could continue to support Israel with the complete understanding that they are funding apartheid against the Palestinians. For a long time NO_ONE seemed to care about the Palestinians. Then came 9/11.
.


What exactly did 9/11 have to do with the Palestinians?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

caniff wrote:
I'm cool with Israel being our friend - and one should stand by their friends. Still, let's not have the tail wagging the dog.


Agreed. I find the relationship bizarre.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
thomas pars wrote:
I suppose that America could continue to support Israel with the complete understanding that they are funding apartheid against the Palestinians. For a long time NO_ONE seemed to care about the Palestinians. Then came 9/11.
.


What exactly did 9/11 have to do with the Palestinians?


mohammad atta signed his last will and testament on April 11th, 1996, the day Israel attacked Lebanon in operation grapes of wrath. Atta's radicalization was a direct consequence of Israeli policy towards the muslims in the Middle East, the failure of the Olso Accords and America's gulf war. Israel's attack on Lebanon was the spark that inspired his intense hatred for the United States and eventual participation in the terrorist attacks in 2001.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Reggie



Joined: 21 Sep 2009

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We just need to officially change our name to Israel's Bitch of America.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thomas pars



Joined: 29 Jan 2009

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

9/11 happened because of our military bases in Saudi Arabia and our unquestioned support to Israel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thomas pars wrote:
9/11 happened because of our military bases in Saudi Arabia and our unquestioned support to Israel.


It would have happened regardless of our support for Israel.

OBL wanted us out of Saudi Arabia...and if it hadn't been that it would have been something else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
Page 1 of 40

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International