US presses Israel to limit settlement-building

[Ritterin Sophia]

I fail to see how an American attack on Israel would be unprovoked when the greatest threat to our security is radical Islamic movements, which Israel seems content to keep fucking with the beehive.

Frankly, nobody likes the U.S. either, when they start bombing people unprovoked.

As I said, it would be a feeling of "a pox 'pon both their houses." Bombing Isreal into the bronze age would nessessarily require bombing the shit out of their military and security forces and their infrastructure, which would be immediately followed by waves of violence against Isreal capitalizing on their weakness. Facing the utter destruction of their state by a supposed ally, you'd have backed them into a corner.

See you seem to think that at the stage the US would turn upon Israel there would be any perception of allegiance towards the other, the US would first have to stop backing Israel and turn their attentions towards Palestine in the hopes that if we help them create an equal nation for the Israelis and the Palestinians it will help foster better relations within the Middle East. One of the primary reasons the US is hated in the Middle East is because the Israelis purposefully instigate and we support them in doing so.

Frankly, at that point, nobody would give a toss if they nuked New York, since the U.S. will have proven itself an utterly unstable psychopath of a country perfectly willing to bomb and invade anybody, even their best friends, if they don't tow the line. If anything, France, Germany, the UK, etcetera, would all start refocusing their MAD strategies on the US instead of Russia.

And that is a change from the current status quo, how? Every single one of our alliances with foreign nations has to deal with a common goal, if those nations don't agree with that common goal we are not aligned. Do you think France would remain part of NATO if they wanted to become a communist nation? Because you're a fucking retard, I'm going to tell you the answer: FUCK NO. The entire point of NATO was to stop the spread of communism. America attacking Israel in order to promote peace in the Middle East is not going to cause America's NATO allies to go running for the hills because at the moment Middle East terror movements are the greatest threat to our collective nations' security. Ergo we have a common goal that Israel is doing it's damnest to instigate radical movements in the region, which is then pointed at us because we support them.

TL,DR: Alliances only last so long as two nations have common goals.

[PeZook]

As I said, it would be a feeling of "a pox 'pon both their houses." Bombing Isreal into the bronze age would nessessarily require bombing the shit out of their military and security forces and their infrastructure, which would be immediately followed by waves of violence against Isreal capitalizing on their weakness. Facing the utter destruction of their state by a supposed ally, you'd have backed them into a corner.

The choices would be as follows:

1) Agree to American terms, renounce conquered territories and do whatever else they demand of you.

2) Keep on fighting until Israel is weakened to the point its neighboring Arab states take it apart with so much glee, and

3) Nuke NYC and expect the entire state of Israel to be annihilated in nuclear hellfire.

I wonder which option a rational nation-state would chose?

Frankly, at that point, nobody would give a toss if they nuked New York, since the U.S. will have proven itself an utterly unstable psychopath of a country perfectly willing to bomb and invade anybody, even their best friends, if they don't tow the line. If anything, France, Germany, the UK, etcetera, would all start refocusing their MAD strategies on the US instead of Russia.

That is probably what would happen, if we assume a completely la-la scenario of the US deciding to attack Israel tomorrow, out of the blue, because Obama woke up with a foul mood. In any case of even a slightly realistic scenario, there'd be tensions first, and a gradual change in US foreign policy. In order for tensions to escalate to the point of military action, Israel would pretty much have to keep pushing the boundaries, breaking negotiations and ultimately refusing an ultimatum - by that point, sympathy and support of the world community would be far from guaranteed. Destroying a major metropolitan area over an international dispute would pretty much guarantee everyone would want to wipe Israel off the map, most of all the European nations who are actually in range of Israeli aircraft.

This is why people keep telling you your worries are ridiculous.

Also, you still haven't answered my question about the Mossad and what makes them so incredibly badass we should all quake in our boots.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Also, you still haven't answered my question about the Mossad and what makes them so incredibly badass we should all quake in our boots.

Well, going by the crap that has spilled out of his mouth, it sounds like he's some high school kid going around stark raving right winger crap...

[Twigler]

Okay, that I understand...but how do they justify keeping it, when it wasn't part of Israel until the annexation? Surely they can't rely on just religious reasons, since the other side also has religious reasons e.g. Jerusalem will be the future capital of the Islamic Caliphate allahu akbar!

Firstly they don't care much what the other side claims. Secondly you need to understand that when the state was founded in 1948 it wasn't exactly negotiating from a point of strength. I'm pretty sure the original plan the Jews had always involved Jerusalem being the capital. They settled in '48 for it to be run by the UN, but the Arab population didn't want this. So after the war Jordan ended up with East Jerusalem in '50 and didn't allow any Jews to visit the holy sites, which didn't go down too well. When they had a chance to take the whole of the city in the '67 war, they went for it and decided to keep it. So far I can't really blame them, with pretty hostile neighbours the whole city is far easier to defend than half a city. Same happened to the Golan heights.

Of course now the situation is completely different and they should really revisit the plans for the city and country to create at some point stable, viable countries for both parties, but opinions tend to be still pretty entrenched and aggressively defensive.

tl;dr version: The mentality I encounter over there is pretty much summed up in: "Fuck them, they had a chance in '48 to get about half of what now is Israel and they decided to attack instead."

You know much more about this than me, but does Israel allow Arab settlements to be built in West Jerusalem too?

Not sure if it does or doesn't, but none have ever been build. Neighbourhoods have grown bigger, and the Arab villages in the North have grown considerably as well to the extend that some Israelis are worried that the Arabs might take over the north by outgrowing them. But no new Arab settlements were ever build except where Israel build them themselves (the Negev has a few for the Bedouins for example), and they're pretty rare.

[hongi]

Firstly they don't care much what the other side claims.

I gather that much, but for them to justify their hold over Jerusalem to the international community, they need more than 'our holy sites are there and God gave it to us'.

Secondly you need to understand that when the state was founded in 1948 it wasn't exactly negotiating from a point of strength. I'm pretty sure the original plan the Jews had always involved Jerusalem being the capital. They settled in '48 for it to be run by the UN, but the Arab population didn't want this. So after the war Jordan ended up with East Jerusalem in '50 and didn't allow any Jews to visit the holy sites, which didn't go down too well. When they had a chance to take the whole of the city in the '67 war, they went for it and decided to keep it. So far I can't really blame them, with pretty hostile neighbours the whole city is far easier to defend than half a city. Same happened to the Golan heights.

Thanks for the nice summation.

Of course now the situation is completely different and they should really revisit the plans for the city and country to create at some point stable, viable countries for both parties, but opinions tend to be still pretty entrenched and aggressively defensive.

tl;dr version: The mentality I encounter over there is pretty much summed up in: "Fuck them, they had a chance in '48 to get about half of what now is Israel and they decided to attack instead."

Interesting. Ideally, I'd like to give a giant finger to both parties and make Jerusalem an international city...

Not sure if it does or doesn't, but none have ever been build. Neighbourhoods have grown bigger, and the Arab villages in the North have grown considerably as well to the extend that some Israelis are worried that the Arabs might take over the north by outgrowing them. But no new Arab settlements were ever build except where Israel build them themselves (the Negev has a few for the Bedouins for example), and they're pretty rare.

Huh. One would think that if the Arabs wanted to give Israel a fright, they'd start gobbling up territory in Israel as well.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Don't be ridiculous. You can't bomb ethnicities which have not been designated as evil by American TV. Even white apartheid South Africa never faced the threat of military attack from the West.

The US could hypothetically stop sending them billions of dollars in aid every year, but that will never happen either, for four reasons:

1) The hard-line fundamentalist "Amen Chorus" in America will crucify any politician who tries to stop it, because Israel is necessary for the Rapture.

2) The hard-line Zionist Jewish lobby in America will crucify any politician who tries to stop it, because that's all they care about. Other issues fall by the wayside.

3) The "Mindless Middle" in America will be easily swayed to vote against any politician who tries to stop it, because it's the status quo, and the Mindless Middle is always inclined to support the status quo.

4) Israeli military aid is a dual-purpose program: it also serves to funnel taxpayer dollars to US military equipment suppliers. The government uses taxpayer money to pay the suppliers who profit handsomely, the equipment gets sent to Israel, and everyone is happy except for the taxpayers and the Palestinians. Any attempt to stop this process would bring about the usual resistance from regional corporate interests.

Embattled and besieged Israel is also much more amenable as a U.S. client, and can function as a mercenary directly (such as the attack against U.S. enemies in the Middle East throughout its wars - the Iraq nuclear reactor strike in particular comes to mind, and the virtually masturbatory anticipatory discussion and speculation from the neoconservative far-right militarist sector for proxy war on Iran) and as an armorer for our proxy armies be they in Afghanistan or Nicaragua. A secure two-state solution would eliminate Israel's need to depend on the U.S. and serve its elite's interests.

[Eframepilot]

Okay, point one. Any talk of the U.S. attacking Israel is insane. We are not light-years but rather megaparsecs from such a thing ever happening. Anyone who leaps at the idea of bombing a country which we have no real quarrel with is crazier than the neocons. We might as well bomb Canada for beating us in the Olympics hockey.

Point two. The U.S. is indeed Israel's bitch and will probably roll over and accept this latest slap in the end... but there is greater hope that the U.S. will grow a spine and finally stand up to them now than ever before. Obama already caved on the settlement freeze in Jerusalem issue last year and so really doesn't want to avoid losing face now, which could irreparably damage the U.S.'s image. Also, there have been leaks that the military sees Israel's conflict with the Palestinians as a liability, to the point where Israel's behavior endangers our troops. If anything could counter the U.S.'s kneejerk support of Israel, it's the U.S.'s kneejerk "support the troops!" mentality (which of course does not prevent sending them into multiple intractable wars simultaneously...). Finally, the Obama administration really hates Netanyahu and his current coalition, so they may stick things out if only to attempt to bring him down or at least force him to partner with Livni instead of Avigdor Lieberman. Netanyahu's foreign policy has been ghastly, deliberately insulting Turkey's ambassador, pulling an assassination in Dubai, and now humiliating Biden on his visit that was supposed to emphasize how much the U.S. loves Israel.

So there is some small reason for hope that this could be the beginning of some change in the unbalanced nature of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Israel needs the U.S. far far more than the U.S. needs Israel, especially now.

[Galvatron]

Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone, but...

Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received warm applause at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Monday night when he bluntly dismissed U.S. demands to end housing construction in the disputed part of Jerusalem. He was greeted as a hero when he visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Source: WaPo

[Simon_Jester]

No one is scared by UN resolutions as 9 times out of ten the UN doesn't bother to enforce them.

This is more a fault of the UN's constituents, meaning the various countries who make up the UN: unless they are willing to give troops and material, the UN has nothing.

Very true, but kind of pointless. If UN resolutions are not enforced, no one will fear them, even if it isn't the UN's fault that it has no enforcement capability.

I wonder what the US is going to do if Israel continues with these settlements? I fear that the pressure we're placing on them may not be enough to get them to stop. Honestly, I think we may have to threaten military force or something similarly serious against these guys. They won't listen to reason.

Hey, V. Rex? A question:

Do we actually care about Israeli settlements enough to threaten military force against Israel? I mean, ignore all questions about whether or not it's even politically possible for us to threaten to stop handing them huge sacks of money for no good reason, let alone to shoot at them. Would it even make sense to make that threat?

It's not a good idea to threaten people just because you'd kind of like them to stop doing something that is indirectly making you some trouble.

[Lonestar]

Well, going by the crap that has spilled out of his mouth, it sounds like he's some high school kid going around stark raving right winger crap...

Indeed. His hilarious "The nukes we gave them" line makes me think he just read Sum of All Fears(which, incidently, did have the USA using our military aid as leverage to secure a reasonable agreement) without really understanding the history of nuclear power in Israel.

Hint: It wasn't us that "gave" them nukes. At worst some material was stolen from us.

[MKSheppard]

Actually, the material wasn't stolen. Seems when we dismantled the facility in question after the cold war; 99% of the material that was "lost/stolen" was found under the floorboards, air ducts, nooks and crannis etc.

[MKSheppard]

Also, we're required to send the billions of dollars in aid each year to both Egypt and Israel, as a result of Jimmy Carter's boneheaded treaty.

Seems that apparently the Egyptians and Israelis were well ahead to their own treaty that would result in Egypt ceding the Sinai to Israel (which makes sense, since Egypt just couldn't defend the damn place); when Carter butted in and began walking around like he owned the place, resulting in the current treaty that was signed.

[Coyote]

Well, here we have a US Administration that is actually, finally, willing to press Israel on the Settlements instead of look the other way or rubber-stamp them; so at least spend time thinking about what sort of things the US can realistically do to exert pressure rather than "bomb them damn dirty Israelis!" fapping. (Odd that Bush-style belligerent militarism is back in style when directed against Israel. Huh.)

I do recall that during the Clinton Administration there was talk of cutting back or suspending key points of military aid (this was after the Chinese Phalcon deal)... the Israelis began looking into buying from Russia instead, trading in Apaches for that attack helicopter that I forget the name of (a Kamov design), but the Israelis helped the Turks modify theirs into the "Erdogan".

The US cutting off military aid would require Israel to turn elsewhere; I wonder if the Russians or Chinese would be willing to adopt Israel in exchange for their technical know-how in upgrading their weapons systems into new & improved versions. Russia is a more likely contender than China (and China seems to have adopted the Arabs & Iranians instead) but even Russia doesn't have too strong of a "Jewish lobby" as compared to America.

The "Jewish lobby" in America is losing ground, demographically speaking, though. Arab/Muslim population is growing and with demographics comes votes, which in turn means influence. The Zionist lobby in America has long turned to Christian lunatics who support the notion of Israel being used as a tool to bring the Rapture ( ), though, and if we know anything at all it's that there are a lot of Christian lunatics in the US, so the Zionism vote isn't completely going away but rather just changing complexions and motivations.

[Elfdart]

Also, we're required to send the billions of dollars in aid each year to both Egypt and Israel, as a result of Jimmy Carter's boneheaded treaty.

Fuck you, you lying cocksucker.

How many times are you going to repeat the same fucking lie after being called on it?

Those who wish to read the text of the deal can read it here and see what a lying fucktard Yellow Rain Man really is:

See. I told you he was bullshitting.

Seems that apparently the Egyptians and Israelis were well ahead to their own treaty that would result in Egypt ceding the Sinai to Israel (which makes sense, since Egypt just couldn't defend the damn place); when Carter butted in and began walking around like he owned the place, resulting in the current treaty that was signed.

You will of course provide evidence that Egypt would have ever renounced its claim to the Sinai Peninsula. Considering that Egypt launched the 1973 war for the express purpose of getting Sinai back, and that Sadat was killed in 1981 because Egyptian fanatics thought getting Sinai back wasn't good enough, and your track record of lying and bullshitting on this subject, I want to see a link from a real source.

[[R_H]]

The US cutting off military aid would require Israel to turn elsewhere; I wonder if the Russians or Chinese would be willing to adopt Israel in exchange for their technical know-how in upgrading their weapons systems into new & improved versions. Russia is a more likely contender than China (and China seems to have adopted the Arabs & Iranians instead) but even Russia doesn't have too strong of a "Jewish lobby" as compared to America.

How dependant is the Israeli military even on American military aid? All I can really think of was the decent number of Small Diameter Bombs they got (bought?) before Cast Lead.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, for one thing, American exports made them use M16s predominantly rather than the indigenously-made Israeli Galil rifles. There's also the fact that their Air Force uses a lot of American gear.

[Ace Pace]

The US cutting off military aid would require Israel to turn elsewhere; I wonder if the Russians or Chinese would be willing to adopt Israel in exchange for their technical know-how in upgrading their weapons systems into new & improved versions. Russia is a more likely contender than China (and China seems to have adopted the Arabs & Iranians instead) but even Russia doesn't have too strong of a "Jewish lobby" as compared to America.

How dependant is the Israeli military even on American military aid? All I can really think of was the decent number of Small Diameter Bombs they got (bought?) before Cast Lead.

Massively? In all sorts of fashions. Most of the rifles are discarded american rifles, or bought with american military aid. Multiple bases over the years have been built with direct U.S. military cash and engineering knowhow. The majority of tactical weapons Israel uses are bought and supported using american aid.