US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[MalaspinaGold]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0927/What-Netanyahu-s-meddling-in-US-election-means-for-Obama-Romney-and-diplomacy

[MalaspinaGold]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

[MalaspinaGold]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

So you don't think the United States should evaluate its relationship with a given country based on  how that country's government behaves toward the United States?

Elections have consequences. Your apologism for Netanyahu is yet more proof that you need to get rid of your New Jersey avatar because you clearly care more about Israel than you do about the United States.

Do you accuse all Israel-supporters of having dual loyalty, or just the Jews? In case you didn't notice, the majority of its supporters are Christians - and Israel has a far higher approval rating with the country than this President.

You didn't answer my question - probably because you think the United States should support Israel no matter how Israel behaves towards the US. that's why I think you put Israel before America.

As US and Israeli diplomats often exasperatedly say to the media, friends can have disagreements. But you don't think the US should be allowed to disagree with Israel. And I think it's really pathetic that you're once again crying wolf about anti-Semitism because someone called you out.

You have a long history of playing the dual loyalty card with American supporters of Israel. You've been called out for it before, with Dead0man among others.

Also, you're misrepresenting my statements. Nowhere am I saying that the US has no right to disagree with Israel. What I am saying is that a US President - who was rebuked by the American public in the last election - has no right to unilaterally destroy a long-standing relationship with an ally by surrendering it to the whims of the UN in a fit of anger over a foreign election going against his wishes. If he tries that - and I am skeptical about the fear mongering - he will be rebuffed by Congress and will likely cause Israel to knuckle down and embrace the far right even more.

The few times IndyTX has played the dual loyalty card, it's generally been for a good reason. And I say that as someone you would consider an American supporter of Israel.

The president has the right to look over the interests of the American people. If the interests of the American people conflict with those of Israel, he has an obligation to side with the former. Though I would very well argue that in acting in the ways suggested by hnv1 among others, the president may well be acting in the interests of the Israeli people as well.

Keep in mind the president was fairly elected by a majority of the population twice, and there is no will in congress to override any reasonable moves he might make.

[MalaspinaGold]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

What are you talking about?  What did Obama do that was out of line?  If Netanyahu doesn't like what Obama is doing he should cut Israeli military aid to the US.  Oh wait, we send Israel military aid, so maybe respect is due.

Netanyahu has tried to strong-arm President Obama and flagrantly insulted him with that speech.  And, don't forget, Netanyahu basically endorsed Romney and openly disrespects Obama.  He acts like Israel defends the US, not the other way around.  We are the superpower and we provide for Israel's defense.

Israel is acting like a trust fund kid that gets angry when their parent buys them a BMW in charcoal gray instead of black.  What exactly has Obama done to hurt Israel?  Nothing.  Obama is pro-Israel and has held to the same position on Israel as previous Presidents.  Certainly, Obama is more pro-Israel than George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Do I think Obama should punish Israel because Netanyahu is surly, right-wing egomaniac?  No.  The fundamentals of our relationship with Israel go beyond personality politics.  And, Obama is a bigger man than Bibi.  But, no US President has ever tolerated this kind of disrespect from what is essentially a country on the US trust-fund and no President has ever made our policy unconditional support for settlements in the West Bank. 

They both took their shots at each other. They both missed. Fair play on that front, although Obama went further than simple tacit backing - he aided Herzog through a PAC.

But the election is over now, and if Obama starts to rachet up pressure on Israel solely as a result of their election results, it starts to look a lot like he's actually punishing a US ally for not going along with his orders on their vote. That's not the action of any sort of ally.

Now, Obama hasn't actually taken any sort of punitive action yet, and most of this is just Fox News scaremongering. However, if he does, that's a completely different matter and I expect to see the Democrats step up to keep this President from using his lame duck period to permanently destroy US foreign relations with an ally.

As to your last point, no, no President has ever backed West Bank settlements - but no President declared Jewish areas of eastern Jerusalem to be settlements either, especially since they're likely to remain with Israel in a land swap. That's really where all this tension began, with Obama picking  a fight he thought he could win at the start of his term and losing handily. Both sides have been escalating the tension since, but at this point it's a battle of personalities between two temporary leaders. The things discussed in this thread would cause permanent consequences long after they're gone.

Obama aided Herzog through a PAC?  Plz substantiate.  BTW, American political operatives have consulted in Israeli politics for years so it would be no surprise if the Israeli Labor party hired consultants who had previously worked for Obama.

Also, when have Democrats been anti-Israel?  I live in one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country.  We had a primary race between pro-Israel and anti-Israel candidates and the anti-Israel guy got smoked like a fine gouda cheese.  Is anti-Israel sentiment a growing problem on the left globally?  For sure.  But, in the US most Jews are Democrats and we're still solid on Israel. 

And another thing, supporting Israel right or wrong is contrary to Jewish values.  If Israel does something wrong, Jews should call them out.  If Obama disagrees with Bibi on specific details, that's normal and fine.  Bibi should show respect, because he's the junior partner in this relationship.  I'm a Zionist and I support Israel, but if that means I have to subscribe to anything that fanatical, crazy settlers want, you've lost me and most reasonable people.  And, ultimately, Israel needs people like me on their side.

V15 has so many ties to the Obama administration that I'd be shocked if it wasn't going on with at least his tacit approval. But like I said, they took their shots at each other, and ideally they would move on like grownups. I don't really have any grudge over that.

And you're right, Democrats are not anti-Israel. Actually, the party by and large has been incredibly supportive, even in the face of this specific administration's periodic hostility. The crisis in 2010 would have escalated far worse if it wasn't for guys from Obama's own party letting him know they weren't supporting the diplomatic offensive further. The idea that either party is "Anti-Israel" is incredibly wrong. I would even hesitate to say Obama truly is, as right now it seems like he just hates Netanyahu - however, that would change if he was to take the actions being cheered on in this thread.

Your obsession with V15 is incredibly ironic, especially in light of this:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/1.647891

[MalaspinaGold]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Laws allowing automatic citizenship to certain groups of immigrants are hardly uncommon...

Also, an Israel that didn't give a guarantee of a refuge to any Jew would have been an Israel without a point, given the timing. Calling it "racist" is absurd.

Since it is coupled with a complete refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return home to Israeli territory ever since the 1948-9, it is hardly absurd.  Jews are allowed to return to the land their ancestors lived in, Arabs weren't allowed to even return to the land they themselves lived in, let alone the land their ancestors lived in.

This is also far from unique. See Cyprus.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is also far from unique. See Cyprus.

True, but since when is racism unique to any one group?

In addition, nowhere does it say in the Basic Law that Palestinians can never return. Were the Israeli government to change its policy, opponents could not point to the Basic  Law as an argument against such a policy.

[MalaspinaGold]

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it.

YOU may support this. But few Israelis would - and, really, nobody with power on Israeli side has ever proposed it.

The reason, of course, being that this would mean close to 2.5 mln. of additional Arab citizens of the state. That would, of course, imply that a combined state of around 10 mln. people would have around 4 mln. Arabs - that is, 40% of the population (and growing, for demographic reasons). True, many of these would be kids and a small faction would be the Druze, but that is not going to change the long-term calculus much.

Given that even the relatively well-integrated Israeli Arabs are not voting for the Zionist parties anymore, it is extremely likely that the first post-integration Knesset would have, at least, 40 Arab representatives. Within a few decades, their number is likely to grow to, perhaps, 50. At that point, this is either a democracy or a Jewish state - but cannot be both, really. As simple as that.

I myself, would, of course, be absolutely fine with that state being a multi-ethnic democracy. But I am not an Israeli. And few Israeli Jews I know would think that to be fine. But, fortunately or unfortunately, unless a two-state solution happens reasonably soon, the one-state solution may become inevitable.

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable. In the meantime, there are multiple options, including going full Sharon, or even offering settlers to pledge loyalty to a Palestinian state as an alternative to getting Sharoned. Keep in mind that most of the building is taking place in areas that can easily be traded to Israel while maintaining territorial integrity (e.g. the Gush, Modiin/Beitar Illit). Ariel would be a problem, however with the elimination of subsidies to live there, I would assume the majority of secular Israelis/Russian Olim would move back, especially if given a financial incentive.

There are three main reasons why I view a binational one state solution to be undesirable. 1) You can kiss any sort of stable government good bye if you have a Knesset of approximately 50% Jews and Palestinians. 2) Considering the vast economic disparity between Israel and Palestine, I would imagine the nation would drop into a slump reminiscent of Germany following reunification. With the inherent ethnic component, it would likely lead to a backlash amongs Jewish citizens of the state. 3) A two state solution could provide a reasonable solution to Right of Return, namely refugees returning to a Palestinian state. This would be very unlikely to pass in a binational Knesset, considering that Jewish MKs would see it as a plot to weaken their influence. True they could always bargain off the Law of Return to get the other side to renounce the Right of Return, but that doesn't solve the refugee issue either.

[MalaspinaGold]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

[MalaspinaGold]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

Assuming chunks of it do not defect. There many thosands of servicemen resident in the settlements that would have to be evacuated. This might, actually, start a civil war.

No more than a few hundred thousand would have to actually be evacuated. A rebellion possibly (though once again I think the senior officer corps is intelligent enough to know to crack down hard. Junior officers are more likely to be problems though.

[MalaspinaGold]

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

Imagination and reality don't always mesh.  In some future historical tome of The Rise and Fall of the State of Israel this election just past will be a marker where the two-state solution was dealt its final death blow, tho in truth the settlements killed it long ago.  The only question now is how the eventual one-state solution will be reached, and how bloody it will be.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

[MalaspinaGold]

The one-state solution is less acceptable to (most of) Israeli Zionist left than to its right. It is not the matter of "religion", it is the matter of who they are. Basically, Israeli Zionist left is, first and foremost, Zionist, but it also has a strong liberal attachment. The single state cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Furthermore, on many issues the conservative Muslim and Christian segment of the West Bank society will find itself in agreement with the conservative Jewish segment of the Israeli society. There is, really, no place in such a state for the traditional leftish Zionism. In fact, I would be pretty certain that a lot of the current Israeli left will simply not stay in the country, if such a solution were to be implemented. Within a few decades Israel would become just another fundamentalist Mideastern non-democracy.

The Israeli right, in contrast, would be a lot less scared. To begin with, they do not care about things like minority civil rights, etc., so they could feel they would be able to live with a less liberal and less democratic state, in which their dominance is preserved. For that matter, in neighboring Jordan Palestinians are a majority: but they have little power. The more traditionalist Israelis, especially those of Mideastern origin, would, probably, feel that they can, in fact, develop certain links with some Palestinian forces: they are richer, so some sort of clientelistic relationship is possible. In fact, in such a society the Jewish Arabs' ability to deal with Muslim and Christian Arabs would make them particularly important and influential. And they will not be sorry to see the abandonment of the country by its liberal citizens.

So, I can easily see the reason most of Israeli left is dreading the one-state solution: that one state will not be their state. In fact, this is the reason some Israelis I know give for being on the left: the two-state solution for them is the only way to preserve the Israel they belong to.

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.

[MalaspinaGold]

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.

Why do the Arab parties support the two-state solution, you mean? Because, so far, that is the declared objective of the Palestinian movements, including Fatah and PA. If tomorrow they decide to demand citizenship in the common state, I am pretty certain Hadash people would rejoice (and the rest would not have much trouble switching, either).

This is not convincing, especially considering Hadash endorsed the two-state solution at least 15 years before the PLO did. They were among the first to do so, in fact.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

Tell that to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed in the 1930s, and post 1947. Or the 800K Jews cleansed from the Arab world.

As the PLO was not responsible for the expulsion of Sephardi/Mizrachi Jews from their countries of origin, I fail to see what bearing this has on the matter at hand.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

The ultimate objective of Palestinian nationalists prior to the rise of political Islamism in the 1990s was the replacement of the State of Israel with a secular, democratic Palestinian state. Removal of the Jewish population was never on the table - though it was likely assumed that a lot of them would leave on their own because they wouldn't want to live in a state that was not officially Jewish.

Basically, they wanted everyone living under a different national government, with no one being forced out.

Compare that to the mainstream Israeli position at the time, which was the maintenance of the existing national government with the Arab population being removed.

I'm pretty sure we agree on this point (at least post PLO formation).

[MalaspinaGold]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

[MalaspinaGold]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

Works both ways though. Equally easy to spin it as "why does Obama care so much about these terrorists that he is willing to shut down the government?"

What exactly is the WH line here anyway? We know what the GOP line is, which is that Iran can't be trusted, and Khamenei reinforced that pretty directly with his "Death to America" thing this weekend. Granted it lacks an alternative policy on Iran, but the issue here isn't so much the policy, not least because as far as I can tell there isn't one, but the complete and utter lack of anything that resembles messaging. Given how poorly this is being set up, it would be political malpractice not to pick a fight here if the congressional GOP can figure out how.

We're not talking about Iran though.

And quite frankly, Khameini can say what he wants. So long as he doesn't get nuclear weapons, what do we care? Besides he'll be dead in two years anyway.

If you're still pushing for regime change regardless of nukes, then I suspect you will not get American support. This is not 2003.

[MalaspinaGold]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

Evidence?

[MalaspinaGold]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Which is why the Zionist argument is dumb,  Israeli long term security depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  It will take an united Arab consciousness to defeat Israel.

Pretty sure the Arab countries have better things to do than to attack Israel.

Certainly that is the case as long as the Arabs are both fragmented and militarily inferior to Israel.  While the former may always be the case, the latter will not.

Evidence?

No country has ever indefinitely maintained military superiority, especially such a small and outnumbered country.  As it is, Israel only enjoys superiority now because of the assistance it has received from others in the past.  Israel has a extreme numerical inferiority compared to its neighbors in population and it has no particularly desirable natural resources. Imagine if you will if Egypt had military equipment equal to Israel's in quality, but also had a military ten times the size of Israel's to match its population being ten times as great.  Do you really think that Israel would last long if it had to face Egypt in a war in such circumstances without any outside assistance?  Do you really think such circumstances are impossible?  Israel has forgotten the lessons of the Yom Kippur War, and I see no chance of it relearning them before it is too late.

Israel is not in any immediate danger, but it has irrevocably chosen to act in a manner that depends upon it maintaining the unmaintainable.

This presupposes that Israel's surrounding countries have an interest in attacking it. Without an interest action is much less likely. Pan-Arab nationalism is much weaker than it was 50 years ago.

[MalaspinaGold]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Pan-Arabism of the last century was the result of something other than undemocratic leaders of the Arab states being interested in it?