US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Netanyahu has just sent the message that Israel does not want peace and does not want to negotiate.

He's just given the Palestinians an opening to throw up their hands once and for all and act unilaterally. The US response to Palestine's push for greater international recognition is that their statehood should come through negotiations with Israel. But Israel will not negotiate.

I'd expect more EU countries will go the way of Sweden and establish full diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine. You may see a push for economic sanctions on Israel, similar to the ones imposed on South Africa in the 1980s. Israel will continue down the path of right wing identity politics and insist that they are only defending themselves against "terrorists" - not unlike South Africa's fever paranoia about how the blacks were going to turn the place into a Soviet satellite.

Things will get worse for Israel's Arab population. As the Orthodox community and the settler community grow in political power, Netanyahu and whoever succeeds him will likely keep doubling down on current policies.

Israel's future as a fortified, isolated pariah state was already foreshadowed with Netanyahu's rhetoric. His nonsensical ramblings about "foreign influence" seeking to undermine him during the election sounded more like something a Third World despot would say before a ceremonial sham election than anything you'd hear from the leader of a country that likes to think it's a Western democracy.

Obama should instruct Samantha Power to abstain from any UN Security Council votes relating to Israel for the rest of his term. If the Israeli people want to reelect a man who comes to America, embarrasses our president and rhetorically spits in our face, they no longer deserve any protection from the heaping of scorn and retribution that the international community has been wanting to unleash on them.

Elections have consequences. Israel voted for it and now they deserve to get it good and hard.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Israel $3.1B
Afghanistan $1.59B
Egypt $1.51B
Pakistan $880M
Nigeria $720M
Jordan $670M

Countries that do as we tell them and deserve their allowance:
Egypt
Nigeria
Jordan

Countries that disobey us and don't deserve their allowance:
Israel
Afghanistan
Pakistan

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Israel $3.1B
Afghanistan $1.59B
Egypt $1.51B
Pakistan $880M
Nigeria $720M
Jordan $670M

Countries that do as we tell them and deserve their allowance:
Egypt
Nigeria
Jordan

Egypt should have been cut off long ago. It is a horrid dictatorship.

But it's a dictatorship that does things we want/need them to do. It's only when they outlive their usefulness that they become a problem. Example: 1980s Saddam Hussein versus 2003 Saddam Hussein

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

It would have been less offensive if they hadn't done everything they could to push out the non-Jewish people who were already living there at the time, Ray.

Please don't compare it to the settling of the United States in the 1700s. Forced population transfers aren't acceptable in the modern era. If Israel had done what it did to the Palestinians a century or two earlier, it would have been a fait accompli akin to the tragic fates of many indigenous peoples. But they didn't - they waited too long.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

So the US is obligated to put its thumb on the scale every time the other 100+ countries in the world want to vote a different way regarding Israel-related matters?

Please stop with the "rebuking" nonsense. The guy won both his elections; your party lost them. Get over it. Congratulations for winning one of the lowest-turnout midterm elections in history. I seem to recall Reagan and Bush getting "rebuked" in their final midterms as well.

I don't even know what people like you mean when you say you "support" Israel. Do you "support" Germany, Britain and our other allies? What makes Israel so special? I would never speak of countries like the UK or Canada the way people like you and dead0man and Vosem speak of Israel. That's what bothers me and that's what makes me believe you aren't really "one of us." You are more concerned about Israel's strategic interests in the region than you are about America's. If you weren't, you'd accept the necessity of rapprochement with Iran so that we can defeat the real threat to the Middle East. It's not Iran. It's not Hamas or Hezbollah. It's ISIS.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

Granted the Law of Return is problematic by liberal democracy standards, but it correlates do the idea of Jewish nationality at basis of Zionist ideology and the nation-state based on its values. So if you accept a Jewish nation exists, a law of return is logical considering the diasporic state of that nation, if you don't than the Law of Return would inherently be racist in that view.

Also, I would say we need to differ between a democracy in ethnic sense (which is more common outside western world) and a liberal democracy who so far seems like an undesired concept in most non European countries. I say this as an Israeli who is for a liberal democracy with a harsh view on the Law of Return.

Israel inside the 1967 border is an ethnic democracy (with some liberal traits), this naturally creates tension with liberal values. I wouldn't call it an apartheid (as opposed to what's happening in the West Bank) but the institutionalized discrimination of Arabs in land ownership will be considered racist by liberal standards.

Except that European nation-states still acknowledge ethnic/linguistic minorities within their borders and consider them an integral part of the national identity. Israel does not do this for its non-Jewish, Arabic-speaking community.

Even the PLO defines a "Palestinian" as anyone who resided in Mandatory Palestine prior to 1948 (or the direct descendant of someone who did) - regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or linguistic community. In other words, this would include not only all Palestinians and all Israeli Arabs but probably about half of all Israeli Jews. (The bulk of those who would be excluded would be Jews from Arab countries or from Iran, and Jews of Russian/Soviet origin.) This is a far more generous criteria for citizenship than the criteria Israel uses (where someone who was living in Israel prior to 1948 could be ineligible for citizenship but someone who has never lived there in their life could be eligible).

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

1930s ethnic cleansing: the Germans' fault
Post-1947 expulsions: the Moroccans', Iraqis', Egyptians', Syrians', Iranians' and Yemenis' fault

Please explain why you think the Palestinian people "owe" these Jews from other parts of the world anything or why their expulsion, regrettable and inappropriate as it was, is in any way their fault.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

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.

Of course they are not. But while this is a dispute over land ownership rights, I reject the idea that the land in question creates a nationality where none existed, anymore than Hungarians in Romania or Germans in Silesia were independent nations, rather than Germans or Hungarians who happened to live outside of Germany's borders. I also reject the idea on the Israeli side of any sort of biblical or historical claim - where Israel is happens to be incidental to the fact that it is where it currently is located and has the borders which it has. The question is how to make that situation as functional as possible.

I understand completely why people do not want to live in someone else's national state, as well as why people want to live in their own national state. But the solution to that is not to deny Jews their national state, and there would only be an argument for that if there were not plenty of Arab national states around. But I find the fixation on the West Bank as some sort of sacred "national" land incomprehensible. It is first and foremost territory. If the issue is wanting to live in an Arab state, then it is possible to move. If the issue is compensation, it can be provided on an individual basis as it was for decades in Israel, or in the form of compensation. But the insistence that Palestinians want an Arab national state, that they want it to encompass territory they do not control, and that they want to set the conditions on which those who actually control the territory can remain and live there under is delusional lunacy given the reality on the ground and makes any rational solution impossible. The Copts were in Egypt before the Arabs, but for them to demand a Coptic state encompassing  Egyptian territory in which Judaism would be treated at best as a tolerated minority, and in exchange they might allow a third or so of Egypt's Arab population to remain they would be laughed at.

You don't really...get Arabs, do you? I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the entire swath of people who can be described as "Arab" have about as much in common with one another as the people from the Americas to Iberia who are called "Hispanic."

Pan-Arabism was more a reaction to the end of colonialism and a sense of insecurity at being surrounded by European liberal capitalists on one side and Russo-Chinese communists on the other, than the result of any cohesive Arab identity that could rise above regionalism and sectarianism.

Jews, apparently, have no problem moving across the world and living with other people who happen to be Jewish but speak different languages, have different cultural traditions and come from a different political reality. That's all well and good. But you can't get Arabs not to view even the people who live in a town a few miles away with suspicion and derision. They're overcome with parochialism and the vanity of tiny differences.