USA & Israel relations - USA and its foreign policy shift

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

TheIronRuler:

dmase:

-snip-

.
Thanks of answering that.

I would like to note that the latest Gaza incursion had the backing of Israel's allies both from the USA and Europe. Why should they have condemned it when they allowed Israel to do it? Days before the attack Netanyahu met with dozens of foreign ambassadors and had calls with nation leaders talking about this and preparing them for this incursion. Israel's allies agreed with Israel that action had to be taken and they backed it up against Hamas. I don't understand what reality you're seeing or what condemnations should have been sent this time around. Furthermore, Israel was held on a leash. Its allies insisted that it could not do a ground invasion (Obama, for example), and so they reiterated to the world many times. This Gaza operation was green-lighted by Israel's allies as long as such a ground invasion will not happen, or perhaps the conditions set to allow it weren't met.

I'm sorry I'm having trouble figuring out which one your talking about if we're talking about full incursion in 2008-2009 I'd say false. And this almost one... I don't know if you where watching the public talks of several global leaders but all said give time for peace to work and didn't want another war. Also please don't make me explain American politics when you give me a quote from Obama.

And I also find it funny that you bring up how the USA was on the side of Israel in this incursion yet you say in your OP that Obama doesn't support Israel. It just has me dumb founded, I don't know what side of the fence your playing on.

dmase:

TheIronRuler:

dmase:

-snip-

.
Thanks of answering that.

I would like to note that the latest Gaza incursion had the backing of Israel's allies both from the USA and Europe. Why should they have condemned it when they allowed Israel to do it? Days before the attack Netanyahu met with dozens of foreign ambassadors and had calls with nation leaders talking about this and preparing them for this incursion. Israel's allies agreed with Israel that action had to be taken and they backed it up against Hamas. I don't understand what reality you're seeing or what condemnations should have been sent this time around. Furthermore, Israel was held on a leash. Its allies insisted that it could not do a ground invasion (Obama, for example), and so they reiterated to the world many times. This Gaza operation was green-lighted by Israel's allies as long as such a ground invasion will not happen, or perhaps the conditions set to allow it weren't met.

I'm sorry I'm having trouble figuring out which one your talking about if we're talking about full incursion in 2008-2009 I'd say false. And this almost one... I don't know if you where watching the public talks of several global leaders but all said give time for peace to work and didn't want another war. Also please don't make me explain American politics when you give me a quote from Obama.

And I also find it funny that you bring up how the USA was on the side of Israel in this incursion yet you say in your OP that Obama doesn't support Israel. It just has me dumb founded, I don't know what side of the fence your playing on.

.
I was talking about the recent excursion because:
1. Netanyahu wasn't the PM in 2008 (in Israel)
2. There was no ground incursion

They all talked about "peace" etc. but they sided with Israel. However they kept it on a leash and they denied it from entering Gaza in a ground invasion.

TheIronRuler:
snipped

Any comment on whether Obama really is the anti-Israel person you think he is. Some proof besides disagreement with Israeli leadership on how to handle situations similar to the Iran nukes?

TheIronRuler:

.
Notice both links lead to the same place. that's because I'm a moron and I accidentally linked the same article twice.
This is the second one:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/03/obama-makes-the-case-of-an-isr.php
I fixed the OP too.

Okay.

In his commentary in Maariv's Friday news supplement, the paper's senior diplomatic commentator Ben Caspit laid out a hypothetical lecture that Obama might give Netanyahu when the two leaders meet alone in the Oval Office this afternoon. In Caspit's scenario, Obama used the one-on-one to set out the law to the Israeli premier. If you bomb Iran's nuclear installations before the November elections, in my second term Israel will no longer be able to buy spare parts for its weapons systems from the US. So too, Caspit's Obama said, the US will end its support for Israel at the UN Security Council if Israel dares to take it upon itself to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold before the US elections.

Perhaps Caspit wrote his article after hearing about a meeting between American Jews and Vice President Joe Biden's National Security Advisor Anthony Blinken. According to Commentary's Omri Ceren, Blinken told the assembled Jews that if Israel's supporters discuss Obama's hostile treatment of Israel in the context of the election, they can expect to suffer consequences if Obama is reelected.

It is important to keep Blinken's threats and Caspit's scenario in mind when considering Obama's speech to AIPAC on Sunday morning.

It's important to note that none of this was shown to have happened.

Obama's speech was notable for a number of reasons. First, this was the first speech on an Israel-related theme that Obama has given since the 2008 campaign in which he did not pick a fight with Israel. And it is due to the absence of open hostility in his address that Obama's supporters are touting it as a pro-Israel speech.

He's never picked a fight with Israel through one of his speeches. This is hyperbolic.

From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program will reportedly become unstoppable as soon as the Iranians move a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium and/or centrifuges to the Fordow nuclear installation by Qom. Since Israel reportedly lacks the ability to destroy the facility, Israel's timeline for attacking Iran will likely end within weeks. The US reportedly has the capacity to successfully bomb Fordow and so its timeline for attacking Iran is longer than Israel's.

The reason this is important is because it tells us the true nature of Obama's demand that Israel give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work. When one recognizes Israel's short timeline for attacking, one realizes that when Obama demands that Israel give several more months for sanctions to work, what he is actually demanding is for Israel to place its survival in his hands. Again, once Iran's nuclear project is immune from an Israeli strike Obama will effectively hold the key to Israel's survival. Israel will be completely at his mercy.

To understand just how dangerous this would be it is worth considering the other issues Obama covered in his speech. Obama's speech essentially boiled down to three assertions, which he argued prove that he is the best friend Israel has ever had and therefore can be trusted to ensure its survival.

Israel shouldn't have the right to make the first strike in a war with Iran when they are allied with America. America is going to be the main player in such a war and will be putting the most resources into fighting it. If anyone makes the decision to begin strikes against Iran it should be America. It's pretty disappointing when Obama has to do something like this to Protect the Israeli people from it's own government.

First, Obama asserted that military cooperation between Israel and the US has grown to unprecedented levels under his leadership. Second he claimed that his administration has served as Israel's stalwart defender in the UN and generally when it comes to the Palestinian issue. Finally, he argued that he can be trusted to defend Israel from a nuclear armed Iran because of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by the US and the international community since he entered office.

All these things are true. First, increase in cooperation is apparent and has never been classified. Israel has been supported greatly by the US in the UN and he never opposed the sanctions, they went through him directly from congress.

Aside from these rather uncooperative comments, under Obama the US has adopted policies and taken actions that have endangered Israel militarily on all fronts and in fundamental ways. With Obama at the helm the US not only stood back and allowed Hezbollah and Iran to take over Lebanon. The US has continued to supply the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese military with sophisticated US arms.

Yeah, America has their own problems. None of the arms provided to the Lebanese government have been used in a conflict with Israel.

Under Obama, the US intervened in Egypt's internal politics to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and overthrow Hosni Mubarak. The transformation of Israel's border with Egypt from a peaceful border to a hostile one is the direct consequence of the US-supported overthrow of Mubarak and the US-supported rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. These are indisputable facts. Their military repercussions are enormous and entirely negative.

They 'intervened' the moment the tide moved in favor of the protestors. That is, as soon as they were certain the protestors were going to overthrow Mubarak. They were hesitant before then because the dictator Mubarak was a valuable ally. If it turned out that he was going to come out on top and stay in power the US would have supported him but they weren't going to burn bridges with either side in a conflict that easily could have gone either way. He was weak for not taking a side until one side had basically won but he was never a strong supporter of the protestors.

Then there is Syria. For more than six months, Obama effectively sided with Bashar Assad against his own people who rose up against him. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer. Now, as Assad butchers his people by the thousands, the US has still failed to send even humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. Almost unbelievably, Clinton said that Assad would have to agree to any US assistance to the people who seek his overthrow.

The US, through executive order, was the first to place sanctions on Assad which would freeze his assets and halt all US aid going to Syria. They've supported all other sanctions as well. They haven't sided with Assad. Also, the last part is false.

http://www.canada.com/news/Clinton+says+Russia+agree+back+mediation+Syria+Assad+must+step+down/7666320/story.html

There have been reports that the US has warned Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia about the possibility that Assad's ballistic missiles and chemical and biological arsenals may be transferred to terrorists. Such a prospect constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security - as well as Israel's national security. Indeed, the threat of proliferation of WMD is so dangerous that the administration could be expected to take preemptive steps to destroy or commandeer those arsenals. Certainly it could be expected to support an Israeli operation to do so. But according to reports, Obama has sufficed with empty warnings to the Arabs - not Israel - that this could perhaps be a problem.

By failing to act against Assad, the Obama administration is effectively acting as the guardian of Iran's most important regional ally. That is, far from enhancing Israel's military posture, Obama's behavior towards Syria is enhancing Iran's military posture. He is acting in a manner one would expect Iran's ally to behave, not in the manner that one would expect Israel's ally to behave.

This sounds like a lot of baseless crying. Not taking direct military action against Assad is not the same as supporting them.

As to Iran, while Obama touts the new anti-Iran sanctions that have been imposed since he took office as proof that he can be trusted to take action against Iran, the fact is that Obama has been forced to implement sanctions against his will by the US Congress and Europe. So too, Obama still refuses to implement the sanctions against Iran's Central Bank that Congress passed against his strong objections earlier in the year. As with the case of Syria - and Hezbollah in Lebanon - on the issue of sanctions, Obama's behavior has served to help rather than hinder Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

Nope. If Obama didn't support sanctions they wouldn't have gone through. Also, Executive order to issue sanctions on Iran's central bank. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16914690

Beyond Israel's immediate borders, and beyond Iran, Obama's behavior towards Turkey has had a destructive impact on Israel's military position and strategic posture. Obama has said that Turkey's Islamist, anti-Semitic Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is one of the five foreign leaders he is closest to. He reportedly speaks to Erdogan at least once a week. The Turkish leader is the Middle Eastern leader that Obama trusts the most.

Turkey, America and Israel have been exceptional allies. Whatever strain there has been to the relationship is mostly to do with Israel's Inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people, which is valid criticism that deserves to be leveled on Israel. When the chips drop, Turkey is still an ally to America in the middle east and that means they are an indirect ally to Israel.

Obama's self-congratulatory statements about US assistance to the development of Israel's missile defense systems ring depressingly hollow for two main reasons. First, the military cooperation agreement between Israel and the US for the development of the Iron Dome anti-mortar and rocket shield was concluded and financed under President George W. Bush due to the peripatetic actions of Senator Mark Kirk. Obama inherited the program. And in his 2012 budget, Obama reduced US funding of the project.

Both false. Bush denied funding to Iron dome. Obama was the one who made it possible through funding and the most important point is that Iron dome was completed.

The second reason his statements ring hollow is because his actions as President have increased Israel's need to defend itself from Palestinian mortars and rockets from Gaza. Obama has empowered the Palestinians to attack Israel at will and pressured Israel to take no offensive steps to reduce the Palestinians' ability to attack it.

that is Conjecture.

This brings us to Obama's statements about his support for Israel at the UN and towards the Palestinians. The fact is that it is Obama's hostile position towards Israel that fuelled the Palestinians' rejection of negotiations with Israel. As Mahmoud Abbas told the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl, Obama's demand for a Jewish building freeze convinced him that he has no reason to hold talks with Israel.

Talks with Israel have never been effective, that is why they have no reason. There's also no citation on when or where exactly he said this.

Then there is his "support" for Israel at the UN. The fact is that the Palestinians only sought a UN Security Council resolution condemning Jewish construction in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria because Obama made them think that he would support it. It was Obama after all who called Israeli settlements "illegitimate," and demanded an abrogation of Jewish building rights outside the armistice lines.

They never believed Obama and the US would support them, they had no reason to. The US's mediation in this issue has always favored Israel and the Obama administration has always had the position that the issue should not be handled through the UN but through direct talks.

The same is the case with the Palestinian decision to have the UN accept "Palestine" as a member. In his September 2010 address to the UN General Assembly Obama called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within a year. It was his statement that made the Palestinians think the US would back their decision to abandon negotiations with Israel and turn their cause over to the UN.

here's the reality. Obama's appeal to the UN in this case was to attempt to convince the members that a deal was in the works and that the issue was going to be solved outside of the UN so that they would not believe intervention necessary when Palestine inevitably seeks state-ship from the UN. His words didn't call for the establishment of a Palestinian state, he said that it could happen and when he said it could happen he meant it was going to be through direct negotiations between Palestine and Israel.

So in both cases where Obama was compelled to defend Israel at the UN, Obama created the crisis that Israel was them compelled to beg him to defuse. And in both cases, he made Israel pay dearly for his protection.

The fact is that Obama's actions and his words have made clear that Israel cannot trust him, not on Iran and not on anything. The only thing that has been consistent about his Israel policy has been its hostility. As a consequence, the only messages emanating from his administration we can trust are those telling us that if Obama is reelected, he will no longer feel constrained to hide his hatred for Israel.

What these messages make clear is that if our leaders are too weak to stand up to Obama today, we will pay a steep price for their cowardice if he wins the elections in November.

So here's the thing. He won the election and he has not unshackled any sort of hatred towards Israel. His words have at best been moderate and promising but his actions have historically been in support of Israel. The writer of this opinion piece seems very paranoid. The majority of it was conjecture or is now plainly false since it was written before November, all of the assumptions made have turned up inaccurate and false as actual events unfolded. The only people criticizing him are those with a political agenda and those who think that a healthy relationship with Israel means bowing down to every order. Here's the bottom line to put everything in context, Obama is President of the United States, not prime minister of Israel; America's interests need to come first and foremost but despite that, he has in most cases come out in support of Israel.

dmase:

TheIronRuler:
snipped

Any comment on whether Obama really is the anti-Israel person you think he is. Some proof besides disagreement with Israeli leadership on how to handle situations similar to the Iran nukes?

.
The source I posted should give you some reading material.
.

Notsomuch:

TheIronRuler:

.
Notice both links lead to the same place. that's because I'm a moron and I accidentally linked the same article twice.
This is the second one:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/03/obama-makes-the-case-of-an-isr.php
I fixed the OP too.

Okay.

In his commentary in Maariv's Friday news supplement, the paper's senior diplomatic commentator Ben Caspit laid out a hypothetical lecture that Obama might give Netanyahu when the two leaders meet alone in the Oval Office this afternoon. In Caspit's scenario, Obama used the one-on-one to set out the law to the Israeli premier. If you bomb Iran's nuclear installations before the November elections, in my second term Israel will no longer be able to buy spare parts for its weapons systems from the US. So too, Caspit's Obama said, the US will end its support for Israel at the UN Security Council if Israel dares to take it upon itself to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold before the US elections.

Perhaps Caspit wrote his article after hearing about a meeting between American Jews and Vice President Joe Biden's National Security Advisor Anthony Blinken. According to Commentary's Omri Ceren, Blinken told the assembled Jews that if Israel's supporters discuss Obama's hostile treatment of Israel in the context of the election, they can expect to suffer consequences if Obama is reelected.

It is important to keep Blinken's threats and Caspit's scenario in mind when considering Obama's speech to AIPAC on Sunday morning.

It's important to note that none of this was shown to have happened.

.
The meeting between American Jews and Vice President Joe Biden didn't happen?
.

Obama's speech was notable for a number of reasons. First, this was the first speech on an Israel-related theme that Obama has given since the 2008 campaign in which he did not pick a fight with Israel. And it is due to the absence of open hostility in his address that Obama's supporters are touting it as a pro-Israel speech.

He's never picked a fight with Israel through one of his speeches. This is hyperbolic.

.
The rest of the article doesn't count?
.

From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program will reportedly become unstoppable as soon as the Iranians move a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium and/or centrifuges to the Fordow nuclear installation by Qom. Since Israel reportedly lacks the ability to destroy the facility, Israel's timeline for attacking Iran will likely end within weeks. The US reportedly has the capacity to successfully bomb Fordow and so its timeline for attacking Iran is longer than Israel's.

The reason this is important is because it tells us the true nature of Obama's demand that Israel give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work. When one recognizes Israel's short timeline for attacking, one realizes that when Obama demands that Israel give several more months for sanctions to work, what he is actually demanding is for Israel to place its survival in his hands. Again, once Iran's nuclear project is immune from an Israeli strike Obama will effectively hold the key to Israel's survival. Israel will be completely at his mercy.

To understand just how dangerous this would be it is worth considering the other issues Obama covered in his speech. Obama's speech essentially boiled down to three assertions, which he argued prove that he is the best friend Israel has ever had and therefore can be trusted to ensure its survival.

Israel shouldn't have the right to make the first strike in a war with Iran when they are allied with America. America is going to be the main player in such a war and will be putting the most resources into fighting it. If anyone makes the decision to begin strikes against Iran it should be America. It's pretty disappointing when Obama has to do something like this to Protect the Israeli people from it's own government.

.
What the fuck?
Israel had destroyed Iraq's nuclear facilities on its own in 1981, and Syria's nuclear facilities in 2007? Are those operations that had to wait for the approval of the USA?
Why the hell do you think it would have been a war? Had it not been for internal politics, Israel would have already bombed the shit out of Iran. Now that the cat is out of the bag this is hopeless, so the best scenario now is what we have at the moment.
.

First, Obama asserted that military cooperation between Israel and the US has grown to unprecedented levels under his leadership. Second he claimed that his administration has served as Israel's stalwart defender in the UN and generally when it comes to the Palestinian issue. Finally, he argued that he can be trusted to defend Israel from a nuclear armed Iran because of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by the US and the international community since he entered office.

All these things are true. First, increase in cooperation is apparent and has never been classified. Israel has been supported greatly by the US in the UN and he never opposed the sanctions, they went through him directly from congress.

.
Great, then can you prove that by giving me documents and comparing the cooperation between Israel's army and the US army in the period before and after Obama? What do you mean by "apparent" - do we have to believe you? The documents are classified. There is no way to know that.
.

Aside from these rather uncooperative comments, under Obama the US has adopted policies and taken actions that have endangered Israel militarily on all fronts and in fundamental ways. With Obama at the helm the US not only stood back and allowed Hezbollah and Iran to take over Lebanon. The US has continued to supply the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese military with sophisticated US arms.

Yeah, America has their own problems. None of the arms provided to the Lebanese government have been used in a conflict with Israel.

.
Are you going to ignore what was said in the article? .None of the arms provided to Lebanon had been used in a conflict with Israel yet.

Under Obama, the US intervened in Egypt's internal politics to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and overthrow Hosni Mubarak. The transformation of Israel's border with Egypt from a peaceful border to a hostile one is the direct consequence of the US-supported overthrow of Mubarak and the US-supported rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. These are indisputable facts. Their military repercussions are enormous and entirely negative.

They 'intervened' the moment the tide moved in favor of the protestors. That is, as soon as they were certain the protestors were going to overthrow Mubarak. They were hesitant before then because the dictator Mubarak was a valuable ally. If it turned out that he was going to come out on top and stay in power the US would have supported him but they weren't going to burn bridges with either side in a conflict that easily could have gone either way. He was weak for not taking a side until one side had basically won but he was never a strong supporter of the protestors.

This is the narrative sold to you. It fits well after the fact. First of all, why even take a side? Second of all, why side against your interests? For "democracy"? Even now Egypt can't get back on its feet.
.

Then there is Syria. For more than six months, Obama effectively sided with Bashar Assad against his own people who rose up against him. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer. Now, as Assad butchers his people by the thousands, the US has still failed to send even humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. Almost unbelievably, Clinton said that Assad would have to agree to any US assistance to the people who seek his overthrow.

The US, through executive order, was the first to place sanctions on Assad which would freeze his assets and halt all US aid going to Syria. They've supported all other sanctions as well. They haven't sided with Assad. Also, the last part is false.

http://www.canada.com/news/Clinton+says+Russia+agree+back+mediation+Syria+Assad+must+step+down/7666320/story.html

Hey Genius, look at when the article was written. March. It was true then. Your article is from December.
The USA might have been the first, but the protests started in March 2011. When was that executive order?
Their position on the matter have been neutral at best.
.

There have been reports that the US has warned Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia about the possibility that Assad's ballistic missiles and chemical and biological arsenals may be transferred to terrorists. Such a prospect constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security - as well as Israel's national security. Indeed, the threat of proliferation of WMD is so dangerous that the administration could be expected to take preemptive steps to destroy or commandeer those arsenals. Certainly it could be expected to support an Israeli operation to do so. But according to reports, Obama has sufficed with empty warnings to the Arabs - not Israel - that this could perhaps be a problem.

By failing to act against Assad, the Obama administration is effectively acting as the guardian of Iran's most important regional ally. That is, far from enhancing Israel's military posture, Obama's behavior towards Syria is enhancing Iran's military posture. He is acting in a manner one would expect Iran's ally to behave, not in the manner that one would expect Israel's ally to behave.

This sounds like a lot of baseless crying. Not taking direct military action against Assad is not the same as supporting them.

.
It sounds like baseless crying to you because you are somehow adamant in your believes and you won't back down. You read the article just so you could cut it down and defuse it. Look at it now, you're failing! You can't even counter it.
.

[/quote]

As to Iran, while Obama touts the new anti-Iran sanctions that have been imposed since he took office as proof that he can be trusted to take action against Iran, the fact is that Obama has been forced to implement sanctions against his will by the US Congress and Europe. So too, Obama still refuses to implement the sanctions against Iran's Central Bank that Congress passed against his strong objections earlier in the year. As with the case of Syria - and Hezbollah in Lebanon - on the issue of sanctions, Obama's behavior has served to help rather than hinder Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

Nope. If Obama didn't support sanctions they wouldn't have gone through. Also, Executive order to issue sanctions on Iran's central bank. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16914690
[/quote]
.
Did you read your own article?

A raft of new sanctions were passed by Congress in December 2011 as part of a wide-ranging defence bill, despite warnings from the White House that including sanctions against the Iranian central bank would interfere with the foreign relations of US allies.

While Mr Obama signed the bill he said he reserved the right to treat the provisions as non-binding, angering some hawks on Capitol Hill who questioned his commitment to increasing pressure on Iran, says BBC Persian's Mohammad Manzarpour, in Washington.
...
By issuing this executive order, President Obama seems to be trying to discredit those who claim he is not serious about sanctions, while still exercising some leeway when it comes to the dealings of his key allies with Iran, our correspondent says.

The executive order gives American institutions the powers to freeze assets related to the Central Bank of Iran, instead of just turning them back.

.

Beyond Israel's immediate borders, and beyond Iran, Obama's behavior towards Turkey has had a destructive impact on Israel's military position and strategic posture. Obama has said that Turkey's Islamist, anti-Semitic Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is one of the five foreign leaders he is closest to. He reportedly speaks to Erdogan at least once a week. The Turkish leader is the Middle Eastern leader that Obama trusts the most.

Turkey, America and Israel have been exceptional allies. Whatever strain there has been to the relationship is mostly to do with Israel's Inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people, which is valid criticism that deserves to be leveled on Israel. When the chips drop, Turkey is still an ally to America in the middle east and that means they are an indirect ally to Israel.

.
I keep reading your statements and this is just out of whack. Turkey is not Israel's ally - it had sought to arrest and imprison its former and current brass and politicians that were supposedly responsible for the Flotila fiasco. Turkey and Israel's relations have broken down so hard that Israel now seeks allies in Greece and Cyprus. Turkey had threatened Israel and Cyprus from pursuing their Mediterranean coast drilling since some of it might encroach on their Cyprus colony, northern cyprus.

The relationship had been so shitty that http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.382088-Israel-excluded-from-Counter-terrorism-International-convention happened, and the USA did nothing.

You're saying that now it's about Israel and its "inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people" where have you been living and what propaganda have you been hearing? What about the other three decades of this before the downgrade of Israel's relations? The very fact that Turkey had allowed such a Flotilla to take place and provoke Israel?

"Valid Criticism"? What... what... Are you even aware of how this politics work? Are you even aware of what is happening there? Why it had been leveled NOW? You're justifying the way Turkey's leadership had been treating Israel. Turkey is not an ally of Israel. It's a NATO member and ally of the USA, but it had broken its relationship with Israel now beyond repair as long as Erdogan is at the helm.
.

Obama's self-congratulatory statements about US assistance to the development of Israel's missile defense systems ring depressingly hollow for two main reasons. First, the military cooperation agreement between Israel and the US for the development of the Iron Dome anti-mortar and rocket shield was concluded and financed under President George W. Bush due to the peripatetic actions of Senator Mark Kirk. Obama inherited the program. And in his 2012 budget, Obama reduced US funding of the project.

Both false. Bush denied funding to Iron dome. Obama was the one who made it possible through funding and the most important point is that Iron dome was completed.

.
...Where are you getting this from? The program for Iron Dome started when Olmert was Prime Minister of Israel, Obama wasn't even in office. The funding was already transferred.
.

The second reason his statements ring hollow is because his actions as President have increased Israel's need to defend itself from Palestinian mortars and rockets from Gaza. Obama has empowered the Palestinians to attack Israel at will and pressured Israel to take no offensive steps to reduce the Palestinians' ability to attack it.

that is Conjecture.

.
This is true. When had Obama discouraged Palestinian leadership from doing anything? Right now the PLO is consorting with Hamas to try and form a union between the two. Hamas had been attacking Israel during that time, and nothing was said about that or about the PLO allowing them to be in Judea&Sumeria.
.

This brings us to Obama's statements about his support for Israel at the UN and towards the Palestinians. The fact is that it is Obama's hostile position towards Israel that fuelled the Palestinians' rejection of negotiations with Israel. As Mahmoud Abbas told the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl, Obama's demand for a Jewish building freeze convinced him that he has no reason to hold talks with Israel.

Talks with Israel have never been effective, that is why they have no reason. There's also no citation on when or where exactly he said this.

.
Talks with Israel have never been effective? Then who is to blame here - Israel or the Palestinians? When Israel's government had changed five times and the Palestinian leadership could not strike a deal with any of them? Not a right wing government, not a unity government, not a left wing government, nothing!
Then we blame Israel, because why not? What happened to 1994 Oslo Accords, why can't the USA allow such negotiations or even force the two sides to negotiate with each other and not skirt around with third parties - It is the Palestinian leadership that would not directly meet with Israeli leadership.
.

Then there is his "support" for Israel at the UN. The fact is that the Palestinians only sought a UN Security Council resolution condemning Jewish construction in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria because Obama made them think that he would support it. It was Obama after all who called Israeli settlements "illegitimate," and demanded an abrogation of Jewish building rights outside the armistice lines.

They never believed Obama and the US would support them, they had no reason to. The US's mediation in this issue has always favored Israel and the Obama administration has always had the position that the issue should not be handled through the UN but through direct talks.

.
But what she said was true. He was going in this rhetoric and de-legitimizing Israel's work in Judea&Sumeria.
.

The same is the case with the Palestinian decision to have the UN accept "Palestine" as a member. In his September 2010 address to the UN General Assembly Obama called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within a year. It was his statement that made the Palestinians think the US would back their decision to abandon negotiations with Israel and turn their cause over to the UN.

here's the reality. Obama's appeal to the UN in this case was to attempt to convince the members that a deal was in the works and that the issue was going to be solved outside of the UN so that they would not believe intervention necessary when Palestine inevitably seeks state-ship from the UN. His words didn't call for the establishment of a Palestinian state, he said that it could happen and when he said it could happen he meant it was going to be through direct negotiations between Palestine and Israel.

.
He said that the negotiations will end and it will give birth to a Palestinian state in a year. It was a guarantee that he made.
.

So in both cases where Obama was compelled to defend Israel at the UN, Obama created the crisis that Israel was them compelled to beg him to defuse. And in both cases, he made Israel pay dearly for his protection.

The fact is that Obama's actions and his words have made clear that Israel cannot trust him, not on Iran and not on anything. The only thing that has been consistent about his Israel policy has been its hostility. As a consequence, the only messages emanating from his administration we can trust are those telling us that if Obama is reelected, he will no longer feel constrained to hide his hatred for Israel.

What these messages make clear is that if our leaders are too weak to stand up to Obama today, we will pay a steep price for their cowardice if he wins the elections in November.

So here's the thing. He won the election and he has not unshackled any sort of hatred towards Israel. His words have at best been moderate and promising but his actions have historically been in support of Israel. The writer of this opinion piece seems very paranoid. The majority of it was conjecture or is now plainly false since it was written before November, all of the assumptions made have turned up inaccurate and false as actual events unfolded. The only people criticizing him are those with a political agenda and those who think that a healthy relationship with Israel means bowing down to every order. Here's the bottom line to put everything in context, Obama is President of the United States, not prime minister of Israel; America's interests need to come first and foremost but despite that, he has in most cases come out in support of Israel.

[/quote]
.
Hagel is nothing?
Israel has elections right now. They can't unshackle hatred towards Israel as they're waiting for the new government of Israel to emerge from elections. After January there will be a coalition, and it will continue to fly.

You don't have a political agenda? You seem to believe what you believe because people have been calming voters and repeating the mantra Obama is good for Israel.

Of course he isn't Israel's prime minister. He had been the most antagonistic President of the USA towards Israel in recent decades.

TheIronRuler:
snipped

You use a pro-Israeli blog to prove your point, bias is dripping all over this piece.

The entirety of his presidency president obama has levied harder and harsher sanctions on Israel then any US president has put on any country. Including president Bush on Iran, she is blatantly lieing, it isn't even bending the truth just lieing.

second paragraph, I followed the link provided no where does Blinken threaten Israel he does however say the rhetoric being thrown out accusing Obama of being anti-Israel is destroying positive dialogue. It's funny that how often statements that say lets get past this partisan rhetoric get used for partisan rhetoric.

Also I'd like to know when Obama has picked a fight with Israel? And lets remember disagreeing with Israel isn't the same a threatening them or picking a fight as the journalist calls it.

And I got to the part about gates and panetta's words... what can I say I was wrong about it all. Obviously Obama's administration was so hostile and your words ring true... haha hard to keep a straight face there. This is where I stopped reading because what you've given me a biased piece of garbage, if you wanna know why the administration officials said some not quite so nice things maybe you should see how Netanyahu talked to the president, his staff, and generals DIRECTLY and to the president on live tv. Obama has never done that, and Obama's stance isn't him trying to get back at yahu it's him using judgement calls on what words to use, don't believe me?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/robert-gates-says-israel-is-an-ungrateful-ally-jeffrey-goldberg.html

I'm just tired of this, there isn't a single lick of tangible proof that the US has reduced sanctions on Iran or reduced its aid to Israel in that link you showed me. Give me a good link not someone's blog or a talking point from a jewish newspaper.

I hope you're right. Perhaps distancing themselves from Israel will make Israel realise that they need to shake up their diplomacy.

The funny thing is, the right always hated Obama for speaking bad about Israel. The left dislikes Obama for speaking moderately and keeping aiding Israel in every way his predecessors did.

dmase:
snip

But don't you see it, the divine heroic nation of Holy Israel cannot ever do anything bad. They are 100% correct and completely good and honest in everything they do. So if Obama disagrees on them with even the slightest point, he MUST be one of those vile anti-Israel people, amirite? Because in no way can Israel ever be disliked or chastised or sanctioned for any real reason.

dmase:

TheIronRuler:
snipped

You use a pro-Israeli blog to prove your point, bias is dripping all over this piece.

The entirety of his presidency president obama has levied harder and harsher sanctions on Israel then any US president has put on any country. Including president Bush on Iran, she is blatantly lieing, it isn't even bending the truth just lieing.

second paragraph, I followed the link provided no where does Blinken threaten Israel he does however say the rhetoric being thrown out accusing Obama of being anti-Israel is destroying positive dialogue. It's funny that how often statements that say lets get past this partisan rhetoric get used for partisan rhetoric.

Also I'd like to know when Obama has picked a fight with Israel? And lets remember disagreeing with Israel isn't the same a threatening them or picking a fight as the journalist calls it.

And I got to the part about gates and panetta's words... what can I say I was wrong about it all. Obviously Obama's administration was so hostile and your words ring true... haha hard to keep a straight face there. This is where I stopped reading because what you've given me a biased piece of garbage, if you wanna know why the administration officials said some not quite so nice things maybe you should see how Netanyahu talked to the president, his staff, and generals DIRECTLY and to the president on live tv. Obama has never done that, and Obama's stance isn't him trying to get back at yahu it's him using judgement calls on what words to use, don't believe me?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/robert-gates-says-israel-is-an-ungrateful-ally-jeffrey-goldberg.html

I'm just tired of this, there isn't a single lick of tangible proof that the US has reduced sanctions on Iran or reduced its aid to Israel in that link you showed me. Give me a good link not someone's blog or a talking point from a jewish newspaper.

.
First of all, look at the date of the article. It's outdated by some months.

You're right, disagreeing with Israel isn't "picking a fight" with it. Israel's leaders can and had made bad decisions in the past, the USA's (Or any other ally's) advice can help persuade the Israeli leadership to change their mind and not do X,Y,Z.

It is biased. She's an Israeli journalist. There is a movement to try and toss Netanyahu out of office. People like Ehud Olmert and Shimon Perez are speaking against him in public, which is fine, I guess. I won't be voting for him anyway, I prefer a Labor government.

Reducing aid to Israel or reducing sanctions to Iran are not the only ways the USA can show its displeasure for Israel and its current government's policies.

EDIT: Hopefully we will see a different leadership for Israel after the next elections. I think that after January is over we will see a lot of reactions from Europe and the USA to Israel, depending on its next leaders.

TheIronRuler:

.

Gorfias:

Overhead:
Iran is not working towards creating nukes.

Wasn't the USA taken by surprise when India and Pakistan joined the nuclear weapons club?

I do think the USA is shifting is allegiances in the mid east. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, but real politic. If Israel is going to be destroyed within the next 10 years, regardless of what the USA does, and I think it will, then the USA does need to get its ducks in a row. And I hope the good people of Israel have time to bug out, get the hell out of there to the safety of more welcoming peoples.

.
Can I just say that your doom-saying is seriously disturbing me?

I think that is normal and healthy. I find it disturbing that people post youtube videos of Roger Waters saying, yeah, the Palestinian's are intentionally rocketing civilian populations, but that's not important. What's important is that Rachel Corrie died at Israeli hands while simply trying to ensure terrorists could kill more Israeli civilians and the posters think that is cool. I do not.

.

people really haven't the foggiest of the stakes here and what Israel faces. Take this guy for instance:

Samus Aran but a man:
I hope you're right. Perhaps distancing themselves from Israel will make Israel realise that they need to shake up their diplomacy.

Israel doesn't need to "shake up their diplomacy". They need to not be murdered on the land they were born upon and developed at that hands of the murderous who would kill them and steal their property. To Israel, this is not in intellectual debate, it is life and death to many people the world has already tried to snuff out more than once. And they have tried to create a peace. Their efforts slapped down:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031802747.html

" Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)

Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.

In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel."

Sadly, I think the USA is seeing Israel as a loser in this battle and is ready not only to sell them out, but feel good about it, deluding itself that Jews that simply want to live in their own state, as Arab Muslims do in a dozen of their own, are the bad guys in this. You see, seeing them as the unqualified good guys means we might actually have to go against the tide.

TheIronRuler:
snipped

First of the article I gave you was to refute the article you said would give me lots of information about how the US is turning it's back on Israel. You posted the article from the jewish journalist and are now saying well duh she's biased... how does that make any sense? I ask for physical proof that Obama or any of his advisers is not going to fulfill any obligations to Israel and I still don't have jack shit in regards to proof.

"Reducing aid to Israel or reducing sanctions to Iran are not the only ways the USA can show its displeasure for Israel and its current government's policies."

Well guess what no where has Obama said he would do these things and I'm pretty sure the whole point of this thread was that the US is supporting Israel less. So your OP is blatantly false and from your recent posts you see that now. And don't move the topic to who Israel's leadership is, no where in your OP does it mention that. So I'm gonna ask again is there tangible proof that obama is supporting Israel any less?

dmase:

TheIronRuler:
snipped

First of the article I gave you was to refute the article you said would give me lots of information about how the US is turning it's back on Israel. You posted the article from the jewish journalist and are now saying well duh she's biased... how does that make any sense? I ask for physical proof that Obama or any of his advisers is not going to fulfill any obligations to Israel and I still don't have jack shit in regards to proof.

"Reducing aid to Israel or reducing sanctions to Iran are not the only ways the USA can show its displeasure for Israel and its current government's policies."

Well guess what no where has Obama said he would do these things and I'm pretty sure the whole point of this thread was that the US is supporting Israel less. So your OP is blatantly false and from your recent posts you see that now. And don't move the topic to who Israel's leadership is, no where in your OP does it mention that. So I'm gonna ask again is there tangible proof that obama is supporting Israel any less?

.
Damn that's a hostile post.

Being biased is not something that disqualifies an opinion or an article completely. You said yourself that you stopped reading it at some point because you couldn't stomach it (You said it was a bunch of lie, right?). I think you accidentally forgot when the article was written.

I said that the USA is slowly changing its foreign policy. A part of that is disengaging from Israel. Note Obama's pick is Hagel. The examples in the article also include (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.382088-Israel-excluded-from-Counter-terrorism-International-convention). The leadership in Egypt is changing, and the USA later supported the opposition to Mubarak. The Turkish leadership have been prodding the situation, and it escalated quickly after the Gaza Flotilla.

You can't go cold turkey at once. Congress still has a pro-Israel view. The American public mostly supports it. There are still obligations and agreements with Israel, and it has to do something drastic (and completely retarded) to make the USA disengage just like that. This isn't some overarching conspiracy - it's just how (I think) Obama sees it at the moment. Who knows what the next President in office would do, or who s/he will be.

"And don't move the topic to who Israel's leadership is, no where in your OP does it mention that. "
-I was addressing the article you sent (I wasn't clear), which pretty much said "It's all Netanyahu's fault, he's a jackass", to which I replied that he could be replaced soon enough. It's also why you don't see much response from Europe and the USA at the moment - they don't want to tilt the elections (It can be unpredictable and might even help Likud) and they're waiting to see who will win.

TheIronRuler:
snipped

Being biased does disqualify an article especially a blog of all things. I countered the entire first fourth of the blog plost and found it lacking in facts. Tell me would you continue to read an article after being lied to in the first fourth of it? Now if it was matter of a difference of opinion I'd continue to read but no she blatantly lies and I show where she lies and why it is a lie.

Hagel, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/chuck-hagel-and-israel-in-context-a-guide-to-his-controversial-statements/2013/01/07/be1cc3f8-591c-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html

The most controversial thing he has said was about the jewish lobby the rest are disagreements with Israeli foreign policy something our previous defense secretary did as well.(that was actually in the article I posted about Netanyahu)

The USA supported the opposition to Mubarak because he dedcided to claim sweeping powers, if he had not done that after he helped broker the cease-fire between Israel and Palestine he would still be in the good graces of the west.

Disagreeing with a blockade that's considered illegal by some and still highly controversial by many others once again isn't going against Israel.

Personally I do see how we could use aid and support for israeli forces as leverage on peace negotiations and I think we should more than likely after something has been done about Iran(most likely within the next 5 years, and I don't mean a war). However that is not what Obama has done and you give me more stuff where he disagrees with Israel, give me physical evidence or do you think you've fulfilled the burden of proof?

dmase:

TheIronRuler:
snipped

Being biased does disqualify an article especially a blog of all things. I countered the entire first fourth of the blog plost and found it lacking in facts. Tell me would you continue to read an article after being lied to in the first fourth of it? Now if it was matter of a difference of opinion I'd continue to read but no she blatantly lies and I show where she lies and why it is a lie.

Hagel, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/chuck-hagel-and-israel-in-context-a-guide-to-his-controversial-statements/2013/01/07/be1cc3f8-591c-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html

The most controversial thing he has said was about the jewish lobby the rest are disagreements with Israeli foreign policy something our previous defense secretary did as well.(that was actually in the article I posted about Netanyahu)

The USA supported the opposition to Mubarak because he dedcided to claim sweeping powers, if he had not done that after he helped broker the cease-fire between Israel and Palestine he would still be in the good graces of the west.

Disagreeing with a blockade that's considered illegal by some and still highly controversial by many others once again isn't going against Israel.

Personally I do see how we could use aid and support for israeli forces as leverage on peace negotiations and I think we should more than likely after something has been done about Iran(most likely within the next 5 years, and I don't mean a war). However that is not what Obama has done and you give me more stuff where he disagrees with Israel, give me physical evidence or do you think you've fulfilled the burden of proof?

.
"she blatantly lies and I show where she lies and why it is a lie." - I told you those aren't lies because of when the article was written.

Hagel saying these things is nothing to me. Calling it the Jewish lobby or saying he's a representative of the USA not Israel is fine in my book. This is nothing I complain about, it's oerfectly fine by me. It's what I expect his policy to be that worries me. I have read that he is adamant in his belief that a military operation in Iran would be the last, last resort after all options are exhausted. He wants to scale back on the USA's involvement in the world stage, leaning towards more isolationism. This is what worries me, not those silly remarks people are riling up against.

The blockade should not be considered illegal, even a damned UN sanctioned committee declared it was legal after this whole fiasco. The legality of the blockade was brought up because it was Israel who did the deed, not because any laws were broken.

Lets calm down. I'm saying that Obama is slowly changing his foreign policy and the USA's foreign policy. I showed you how it was done through his first tour through the middle east and how he talked about the plight of the Palestinians, effectively cementing the Palestinian view of the situation. He demanded a 10-month settlement freeze (which is fine as a demand to start negotiations) and when a committee in the city of Jerusalem worked on planning new housing in East Jerusalem (which was not a part of the deal that was given to Israel. They were supposed to freeze settlements in the west bank, and Jerusalem was a part of Israel, not included in the settlement freeze) they used that to bash Israel so hard it started bleeding a river. Hell, this opened a Pandora's box and signaled the whole damned world that they can beat on Israel if the USA does it. There was no reason to do that besides bashing Israel on the world stage. This showed the Palestinians that there was no need for negotiations with Israel, and they went to the UN.

There was the Flotilla incident, that lead to Israel and Turkey's relationships getting worsened and later broken beyond repair. I showed you earlier the counter terrorism summit, and Israel withdrew because had it showed up Turkey and Egypt were prepared to condemn it publicly, and the USA did nothing. Lebanon, which has Hezbollah as the main (and largest) player at its helm still gets military aid from the USA even though it is Israel's enemy and they are preparing themselves for a war ever since 2008.

This looks more like the USA isolating Israel and then later being its only pal offering it to take the deal or die.

TheIronRuler:
snipped

Military action in Iran should be the last last resort, that is common thought among many in Washington and around the globe.

"Lets calm down. I'm saying that Obama is slowly changing his foreign policy and the USA's foreign policy. I showed you how it was done through his first tour through the middle east and how he talked about the plight of the Palestinians, effectively cementing the Palestinian view of the situation. He demanded a 10-month settlement freeze (which is fine as a demand to start negotiations) and when a committee in the city of Jerusalem worked on planning new housing in East Jerusalem (which was not a part of the deal that was given to Israel. They were supposed to freeze settlements in the west bank, and Jerusalem was a part of Israel, not included in the settlement freeze) they used that to bash Israel so hard it started bleeding a river. Hell, this opened a Pandora's box and signaled the whole damned world that they can beat on Israel if the USA does it. There was no reason to do that besides bashing Israel on the world stage. This showed the Palestinians that there was no need for negotiations with Israel, and they went to the UN."

Citation needed, this is all subjective opinion and isn't based in reality. And nobody bashes on Israel, Israel might as well ask for universal contempt though.(edited)

"There was the Flotilla incident, that lead to Israel and Turkey's relationships getting worsened and later broken beyond repair. I showed you earlier the counter terrorism summit, and Israel withdrew because had it showed up Turkey and Egypt were prepared to condemn it publicly, and the USA did nothing."

Subjective and I don't know if you noticed but Egypt brokered a cease fire instead of supporting palestine and Turkey just wants the blockade gone and is still a supporter of Israel.

". Lebanon, which has Hezbollah as the main (and largest) player at its helm still gets military aid from the USA even though it is Israel's enemy and they are preparing themselves for a war ever since 2008."

All deals regarding aid and weapons put anywhere in the middle east is run through the Israeli high command, that was in the article i posted.

Right now Israel's only friend is the US... now you can continue the victim charade where the west hates ISRAEL or you can accept Israel invited the hate it gets from first world nations. I mean what do you think that the entire western community is either anti-sematic or blinded by the "hidden" agenda of the countries surrounding Israel. Both are conspiracy theories just to be clear and both are obviously false.

TheIronRuler:

The meeting between American Jews and Vice President Joe Biden didn't happen?

They were talking about a hypothetical lecture within the meeting. They were just guessing as to what he would say, not quoting him.

The rest of the article doesn't count?

The rest of the article is mostly conjecture without any citation. I still answered it all aptly. It's been discredited.

What the fuck?
Israel had destroyed Iraq's nuclear facilities on its own in 1981, and Syria's nuclear facilities in 2007? Are those operations that had to wait for the approval of the USA?
Why the hell do you think it would have been a war? Had it not been for internal politics, Israel would have already bombed the shit out of Iran. Now that the cat is out of the bag this is hopeless, so the best scenario now is what we have at the moment.

The fact is, an attack now would lead to war that the united states would have to be involved in due to the current political climate. Israel seems a bit out of control, I don't think the best scenario is another war in the middle east.

Great, then can you prove that by giving me documents and comparing the cooperation between Israel's army and the US army in the period before and after Obama? What do you mean by "apparent" - do we have to believe you? The documents are classified. There is no way to know that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/133/provide-30-billion-over-10-years-to-israel/
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israeli_bunker-busters_cause_Mideast_alarm_999.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/10/2012102195738284839.html
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15140
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15146

You can look through it if you want. All aid to Israel has been either better or on par with previous presidents and he has made up for just being on par by increasing military cooperation between the US and Israel.

Are you going to ignore what was said in the article? .None of the arms provided to Lebanon had been used in a conflict with Israel yet.

I repeated what was said in the article. None of the weapons have ever been used against Israel and as far as you know, never will be.

This is the narrative sold to you. It fits well after the fact. First of all, why even take a side? Second of all, why side against your interests? For "democracy"? Even now Egypt can't get back on its feet.

It wasn't sold to me, it's how it happened. It's not even in Obama's favor. He takes a side because the people coming into power are going to be in control the country and that is important when it comes to a country that has been a major ally. It's irrelevant whether the protestors were for or against his interests. If Mubarak was going to be deposed for sure, siding with him, with American interests would have burnt all bridges with the party coming to power. Not for democracy, obviously, he would have sided with Mubarak if it looked like he was going to stay in power. It's damage control.

.

Hey Genius, look at when the article was written. March. It was true then. Your article is from December.
The USA might have been the first, but the protests started in March 2011. When was that executive order?
Their position on the matter have been neutral at best.

Don't get snippy. Your article is false, now. It is out of date.

.
It sounds like baseless crying to you because you are somehow adamant in your believes and you won't back down. You read the article just so you could cut it down and defuse it. Look at it now, you're failing! You can't even counter it.

Control your emotions friend, this is an internet debate. Not taking direct military action is still not the same as supporting Assad, by the way.

Did you read your own article?

Yeah. It says what I said it did but he's also just looking out for his own interests as well which is logical.

I keep reading your statements and this is just out of whack. Turkey is not Israel's ally - it had sought to arrest and imprison its former and current brass and politicians that were supposedly responsible for the Flotila fiasco. Turkey and Israel's relations have broken down so hard that Israel now seeks allies in Greece and Cyprus. Turkey had threatened Israel and Cyprus from pursuing their Mediterranean coast drilling since some of it might encroach on their Cyprus colony, northern cyprus.

The relationship had been so shitty that http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.382088-Israel-excluded-from-Counter-terrorism-International-convention happened, and the USA did nothing.

They have a right to request people they believe violated the law. I don't see a problem here since I'm assuming Israel refused and nothing has been done. I like how they were excluded, though; Israel's best friend, America wanted him to come to the party but it was at Turkey's house and Turkey thought he was a dick and refused. Everyone's being a child in that situation. It was more to do with the meet up being in Turkey and Israel having strained their relationship with Turkey. The only thing America could have done was boycott the forum which would have been ridiculous considering their presence in the middle east.

You're saying that now it's about Israel and its "inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people" where have you been living and what propaganda have you been hearing? What about the other three decades of this before the downgrade of Israel's relations? The very fact that Turkey had allowed such a Flotilla to take place and provoke Israel?

a peaceful protest isn't a provocation.

"Valid Criticism"? What... what... Are you even aware of how this politics work? Are you even aware of what is happening there? Why it had been leveled NOW? You're justifying the way Turkey's leadership had been treating Israel. Turkey is not an ally of Israel. It's a NATO member and ally of the USA, but it had broken its relationship with Israel now beyond repair as long as Erdogan is at the helm.

What has Israel done to repair the relationship that they strained? An alliance is a two-way street.

...Where are you getting this from? The program for Iron Dome started when Olmert was Prime Minister of Israel, Obama wasn't even in office. The funding was already transferred.

No, you don't seem to understand. Olmert went through with the project, while the funding was denied by bush. Israel can have their own projects. Then in 2010, Obama gave the project a boost with 312 million in support which helped to complete it. That was the first time the US government had provided any any aid to the project.

This is true. When had Obama discouraged Palestinian leadership from doing anything? Right now the PLO is consorting with Hamas to try and form a union between the two. Hamas had been attacking Israel during that time, and nothing was said about that or about the PLO allowing them to be in Judea&Sumeria.

They've denounced the rocket attacks like everyone else. What are they supposed to threaten Hamas with when deals they moderate are already in Israels favor? "We'll even more unbalanced for you." It's indicative of a much larger problem with talks between Israel and Hamas and the united states, not really the US's fault.

Talks with Israel have never been effective? Then who is to blame here - Israel or the Palestinians? When Israel's government had changed five times and the Palestinian leadership could not strike a deal with any of them? Not a right wing government, not a unity government, not a left wing government, nothing!
Then we blame Israel, because why not? What happened to 1994 Oslo Accords, why can't the USA allow such negotiations or even force the two sides to negotiate with each other and not skirt around with third parties - It is the Palestinian leadership that would not directly meet with Israeli leadership.

Just because the government changes doesn't mean the terms of the deal changes to a great extent. I don't think that there was any sort of vast difference between what the different parties offered. When we talk about forcing the two sides to talk to each-other, what are we really talking about? Is it bringing both sides to the table with conditions from each one, conditions from Israel or Palestine or just talks? Neither side is particularly sensible but Israel hasn't been the fairest of negotiators.

.
But what she said was true. He was going in this rhetoric and de-legitimizing Israel's work in Judea&Sumeria.

But his administrations actions still support Israel in the UN. Again, he's just talking the talk.
.

.
He said that the negotiations will end and it will give birth to a Palestinian state in a year. It was a guarantee that he made.
.

What I said still holds true in that case, even though he still didn't guarantee it.

Hagel is nothing?
Israel has elections right now. They can't unshackle hatred towards Israel as they're waiting for the new government of Israel to emerge from elections. After January there will be a coalition, and it will continue to fly.

Hagel was never anti-Israel, just pragmatic. He doesn't want to start another war and he isn't likely to go against Obama's opinion once he joins the admin.

You don't have a political agenda? You seem to believe what you believe because people have been calming voters and repeating the mantra Obama is good for Israel.

Of course he isn't Israel's prime minister. He had been the most antagonistic President of the USA towards Israel in recent decades.

I don't like Obama and I'm not particularly supportive of Israel. If America is moving away from supporting Israel that is fine by me, that just doesn't line up with the facts.

dmase:

TheIronRuler:
snipped

Military action in Iran should be the last last resort, that is common thought among many in Washington and around the globe.

"Lets calm down. I'm saying that Obama is slowly changing his foreign policy and the USA's foreign policy. I showed you how it was done through his first tour through the middle east and how he talked about the plight of the Palestinians, effectively cementing the Palestinian view of the situation. He demanded a 10-month settlement freeze (which is fine as a demand to start negotiations) and when a committee in the city of Jerusalem worked on planning new housing in East Jerusalem (which was not a part of the deal that was given to Israel. They were supposed to freeze settlements in the west bank, and Jerusalem was a part of Israel, not included in the settlement freeze) they used that to bash Israel so hard it started bleeding a river. Hell, this opened a Pandora's box and signaled the whole damned world that they can beat on Israel if the USA does it. There was no reason to do that besides bashing Israel on the world stage. This showed the Palestinians that there was no need for negotiations with Israel, and they went to the UN."

Citation needed, this is all subjective opinion and isn't based in reality. And nobody bashes on Israel, Israel might as well ask for the bashing.

"There was the Flotilla incident, that lead to Israel and Turkey's relationships getting worsened and later broken beyond repair. I showed you earlier the counter terrorism summit, and Israel withdrew because had it showed up Turkey and Egypt were prepared to condemn it publicly, and the USA did nothing."

Subjective and I don't know if you noticed but Egypt brokered a cease fire instead of supporting palestine and Turkey just wants the blockade gone and is still a supporter of Israel.

". Lebanon, which has Hezbollah as the main (and largest) player at its helm still gets military aid from the USA even though it is Israel's enemy and they are preparing themselves for a war ever since 2008."

All deals regarding aid and weapons put anywhere in the middle east is run through the Israeli high command, that was in the article i posted.

Right now Israel's only friend is the US... now you can continue the victim charade where the west hates ISRAEL or you can accept Israel invited the hate it gets from first world nations. I mean what do you think that the entire western community is either anti-sematic or blinded by the "hidden" agenda of the countries surrounding Israel. Both are conspiracy theories just to be clear and both are obviously false.

.
You just ignored all of what I said and demanded citations. FINE. I will do that.
Then you have to address it.

Tour through the middle east!


.
Ten month settlement freeze!

The reactions to Israel building in east Jerusalem!

.
"Subjective and I don't know if you noticed but Egypt brokered a cease fire instead of supporting palestine and Turkey just wants the blockade gone and is still a supporter of Israel. " - What is subjective? You yourself said this - "Egypt brokered a cease fire instead of supporting palestine and Turkey just wants the blockade gone and is still a supporter of Israel", isn't this in of itself subjective? Oh, but you know better than I do, right?
Turkey doesn't want the blockade gone, it prodded Israel to see its response after. This is a way to screw with Israel and get on better relations with other associates (and internal fame).
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.382088-Israel-excluded-from-Counter-terrorism-International-convention
There, see? Turkey isn't remotely on friendly terms with Israel.

The US blocked Israel's participation in the Global Counterterrorism Forum's (GCTF) first meeting in Istanbul on Friday, even though Israel has one of the most extensive experiences in counterterrorism in the world. A pro-Israeli source in Washington told "Globes" that Israel was excluded from the meeting because of fierce objections by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
...
Pro-Israeli sources say that the Obama administration decided to ignore the fact that Turkey, which has a key role in the GCTF, opposes calling Hamas a terrorist organization, even though Hamas is included on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. In an interview with the US media last May, Erdogan said that he did not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, but as a resistance movement trying to protect its country from occupation. He said that Hamas won elections in the Gaza Strip in 2006, and that, therefore, calling it a terrorist organization was an insult to the Palestinian people.

.
"All deals regarding aid and weapons put anywhere in the middle east is run through the Israeli high command, that was in the article i posted."
-Is it this article?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/chuck-hagel-and-israel-in-context-a-guide-to-his-controversial-statements/2013/01/07/be1cc3f8-591c-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html
I couldn't find it here.

Notsomuch:
a peaceful protest isn't a provocation.

Calling the gaza flotilla a 'peacefull protest' is ridiculous. There were almost a thousand extremists, armed to the teeth with metal rods and knives. Prominent Hamas members were on board, as well as members of Pallywood to provide propaganda footage, and the sole purpose was to purposely break a blockade and cause a violent border incident.

Turkey letting them go is a very provocative act. The Turkish faux outrage over that, while they do a lot worse to the Kurds and other minorities than how Palestinians live in Israel, and Israel helps them with fighting terrorism, is also more than a little ridiculous.

TheIronRuler:

Did you read what I wrote in the OP?

I framed the first wave of protests - the ones made in September 11th in a few places as ones that were coordinated attacks, and that the reason for those protests being the film is a farce and a smokescreen. The same ones that stormed American embassies and killed local security and American citizens (and an American ambassador). I did not treat the other protests that followed it the same way. Here is the difference between what I wrote and what you read.

I read it, I just disagree with it. If you're going to stick to it I'd like you to explain how you know that the people protesting where there were violent action were all actually acting in unison with the people committing violence and having a cohesive plan to kill embassy staff (as happened in some countries)/tear down some flags at the embassy and then go home (as happened in others).

Gorfias:

Overhead:
Iran is not working towards creating nukes.

Wasn't the USA taken by surprise when India and Pakistan joined the nuclear weapons club?

Probably for India although who knows what the USA covertly allows, but not for Pakistan. They were pretty clear about pursing a bomb before it happened in the event that India got one, which it did. Even if the USA didn't know exactly when and what was happening, I think everyone knew it was on the cards.

The thing is, they're not really comparable. At the time the USA and other organisations only had whatever information covert espionage can afford them. That in itself is much more advanced now (satellite surveillance, namely) but the key point is that Iran is getting inspected in a way that India and Pakistan (never NPT signatories) aren't. The IAEA inspects Iran's nuclear sites regularly, places seals on radioactive material so it can't be used for illicit purposes without the IAEA catching wind of it, has security cameras mounted inside the nuclear sites to check on activity, etc.

TheIronRuler:
snipped

Let me explain some things

" first tour through the middle east " -factual statement by you, but your opinion that it's somehow wrong that he talked about the Palestinian problems. That does no indicate he is anti Israel because he admits palestinians are having problems in their own country. Looking at your highlighted quotes, the fucking settlements are ridiculous and meant to thumb their nose at Palestinians, it's guaranteed that there will be violence and controversy surrounding them, Israel knows this. Obama says that Israel must stop building the settlements, but no where does he threaten Israel for building settlements. Now the article, what you took from that article is that obama is for Palestine and against Israel, what he is saying and what most people read and understand is he has expectations from both Palestine and Israel to progress the peace process. You have it set in your head that Israel does no wrong when things like the settlements are obvious warmongering.

Now the 10 month settlement freeze, praised by Obama then, and then all the talks of renewals of the freeze have been met warmly by the president. http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/president-obama-praises-west-bank-settlement-freeze-20101114

So Obama asks Israel to give into some of Palestine's demands for peace talks they did, an important demand echoed by much of the world mind you. He also chides Palestine for not relenting more to Israeli demands. This to me sounds fair, I don't see this supposed injustice you seem to see. Are Obama's words not fair?

Now from your article regarding east jersulem.
""Recalling that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, the Quartet underscores that the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties, and condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem.""

The international community does not agree with the settlements and it is contradictory to the peace talks. So Obama is siding his OPINION with the international community, now as you stated already this decision could have been the governments decision a government you don't support but is Obama at fault or forcing Israel? No, they are Palestinian demands for peace talks it's not like someone is imposing sanctions on Israel. It's like you think Obama can wave his magic wand and say well that Palestinian requirement doesn't count now let the peace process begin!

"The reality is that most of the countries that serve as breeding grounds for terrorists -- and thus the most crucial countries for the U.S. to coordinate with on counter-terrorism -- also have hostile relations with Israel. Those who advocate for Israel are better served by recognizing this reality and finding tangible ways to improve Israel's security."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/the-politics-of-counter-terrorism-the-us-and-leaving-out-israel/260441/

Half of it is just background but halfway down the article is the explanation of how Israel's inclusion in the group would be a bad idea. And it also includes statements from officials in the organization that talked to Israeli officials and decided it was best for counter terrorism efforts to not include Israel at the beginning.

"reminded him that the sales were organized in consultation with Israel and pro-Israel members of Congress"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/robert-gates-says-israel-is-an-ungrateful-ally-jeffrey-goldberg.html

Robert Gates was the one that said it, Gates being the secretary of defense from 2006 to 2011 meaning he was secretary of defense for both Bush and Obama.

TheIronRuler:
Even stopping the building of all settlements over the green line except for Jerusalem (for ten months), as was requested from the USA, a one sided concession from Israel was met with no actual response from Palestinian leadership.

I'm not sure if stopping something you shouldn't be doing, which is further exacerbating the conflict, counts as a "Concession". It may not be the only cause, but it is a cause.

It's like saying that the US Republicans were making "Concessions" by making any deviation from their batshit-crazy fundamentalist economic party line, because they were in the position of power there.

Sure, it's a concession in the sense that you're in the position of power here, and from your own PoV in a general position of self-defence, so restraining yourself in a military action or things related to it is 'being nice' from your PoV.

But it hardly seems like the concession of a party that genuinely seeks structural stability beneficial to both parties.

But you see what I mean, right?

~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally, although not many of these interest me, I like the threads you're making. They reflect a more high-minded and/or academic approach to politics which this forum has been lacking for a long time. I mean, it used to be the case that posts like this (Although I didn't finish that one because people got pissy) weren't unusual, and I wasn't the only one to do them. So props to you.

I don't see it happening. Obama doesn't have the needed support for one, like most recent presidents he was pretty much elected by a tiny margin (3%), liberals seem to think they have some kind of supermajority both in politics and in popular (what people think) support, but they do not.

People hate long wars, but the bottom line is we have some very valid reasons for being in the regions we're in, it wasn't like these people didn't hate us or cause problems before Dubbya invaded.

Right now I kind of expect a political delaying action, that is to say that Obama is likely to keep the current policies going, but make a lot of statements and token gestures in the other direction.. or pretty much more of the same we've been getting for the last 4 years. Even Obama realizes we are actually not being aggressive enough, but his platform is one where he can't really increase what he's doing without eroding his support (small as it is), and is actually committed to going the other way.

As far as foreign policy goes what the US needs is a warrior, and people are increasingly realizing it. Someone who can unite the people under a more aggressive stance to secure it's interests. Obama is more of a figurehead, based around an alliance of people who want domestic social reforms. Bush was more of a businessman whose own war efforts were derailed by his supporters who had less concern about national security and US interests as much as how to make money off of the wars, creating a military climate rife for personal profit that doesn't directly benefit the goverment or society.

In short I expect little in the way of radical change here, and at most the internal political divide to get more extreme as Obama focuses on domestic issues like gun control, health care, and other similar issues.

To be honest I suspect come 2016 we might very well see our cantidates coming from strong military backrounds (generals or former generals) as I think there is a slow realization that statesmen simply aren't going to be able to deal with the military situations abroad. I could be wrong about this, it might take until 2020 or 2024.

That's my theories.

Danny Ocean:

TheIronRuler:
Even stopping the building of all settlements over the green line except for Jerusalem (for ten months), as was requested from the USA, a one sided concession from Israel was met with no actual response from Palestinian leadership.

I'm not sure if stopping something you shouldn't be doing, which is further exacerbating the conflict, counts as a "Concession". It may not be the only cause, but it is a cause.

It's like saying that the US Republicans were making "Concessions" by making any deviation from their batshit-crazy fundamentalist economic party line, because they were in the position of power there.

Sure, it's a concession in the sense that you're in the position of power here, and from your own PoV in a general position of self-defence, so restraining yourself in a military action or things related to it is 'being nice' from your PoV.

But it hardly seems like the concession of a party that genuinely seeks structural stability beneficial to both parties.

But you see what I mean, right?

~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally, although not many of these interest me, I like the threads you're making. They reflect a more high-minded and/or academic approach to politics which this forum has been lacking for a long time. I mean, it used to be the case that posts like this (Although I didn't finish that one because people got pissy) weren't unusual, and I wasn't the only one to do them. So props to you.

.
The international community doesn't recognize a lot of things, what can I say? Oil is delicious.

It was a concession the Israeli government made while the Palestinians had none (but as you said, they are in a position of power). Had the negotiations went through it wouldn't have been an issue because permanent borders would have been drawn already and this whole disaster could have been behind us. It looked to me like they were looking for an excuse out (the Palestinians), and then Obama just beat the crap out of Israel on the world stage for lulz.

Thanks for the compliment.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here