Debate: Should the U.S. continue to support Israel?

[Beet]

Should the U.S. continue to support Israel?

On the one hand, opponents argue that Israel violates the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories, costs the U.S. economically, and drags the U.S. into an alliance that hampers our popularity in the Middle East.

On the other hand, proponents argue that Israel is a rare, stable U.S. ally in the region that has been so for a long time, it is valuable as a strong military partner, and its actions only go so far as to ensure its own self-defense.

There are also domestic political considerations, as both parties want to win the support of U.S. Jews, while some Arabs are also getting more politically active.

[angus]

Unconditional or predicated on an arrangement regarding the settlements?  I think those are two different questions.

[Torie]

I am reluctant to spank Israel over the expanding settlements (and it matters where they are), etc., unless and until there is some evidence that the PA is willing to enter into a reasonable peace deal, you know, like the one that Barak proposed and Arafat rejected. Right now, there is no such evidence. And it may be good that the PA gets the message, that their position over time will get worse rather than better, by stonewalling. Arafat I think rejected the peace deal, because he thought time was on his side. He was wrong, very wrong, and thus the ensuing tragic consequences, and they are tragic. Most of the middle class has decamped from the West Bank, among other things, and the place is a basket case.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question is utterly useless without a clear definition of "to support". Obviously the United States should continue to support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself against overt aggression, but beyond that the picture gets vastly more complicated.

[The_Doctor]

The answer is ... obviously.

Israel is the only reliable ally we'll have that shares a cultural and political identity with us. Every other nation in the region is a brand of autocratic dictatorship or dysfunctional government that barely works. And Israel's neighbors hold a sizable contingent of anti-Western and anti-American support. To abandon Israel is to put ourselves at the mercy of these nations, and if they turned against us, our toehold in the Middle East would be lost.

I am not saying antagonize these neighbors but at no point should we cede our alliance with Israel and we should continue to support Israel on a geopolitical basis, like we have Western European allies we'd never abandon. 

Doesn't mean Israel is always right but we need to consider Israel's interests like we consider France's,  Spain, or Germany's.

[Person Man]

The answer is ... obviously.

Israel is the only reliable ally we'll have that shares a cultural and political identity with us. Every other nation in the region is a brand of autocratic dictatorship or dysfunctional government that barely works. And Israel's neighbors hold a sizable contingent of anti-Western and anti-American support. To abandon Israel is to put ourselves at the mercy of these nations, and if they turned against us, our toehold in the Middle East would be lost.

I am not saying antagonize these neighbors but at no point should we cede our alliance with Israel and we should continue to support Israel on a geopolitical basis, like we have Western European allies we'd never abandon. 

Doesn't mean Israel is always right but we need to consider Israel's interests like we consider France's,  Spain, or Germany's.

This. Wanting a two-state solution isn't anti-Semitic but denying Israel the right to exist anywhere inside of its 1967 borders is.

[politicallefty]

Of course I support their right to exist, just as I support any other nation's right to exist. That question is ludicrous in terms of the political debate among First World nations.

What I don't support is being taken for granted like Israel has done with us over recent years, particularly under Netanyahu. The United States owes no amount of deference to Israel. It should be entirely the opposite.

[mencken]

As the only remotely civilized country in the region, Israel ought to have our moral support. However, I do not believe in financial support for foreign countries.

[angus]

the only remotely civilized country in the region

"While the ancestors of George Bush and his little lapdog Tony Blair were crawling around on their stomachs in the caves, we were writing the Law!  We were writing the Book!  God will roast their stomachs in hell!"

        --Mohammed Sa'eed Al-Sahaf, former Iraqi information minister

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think the important question to ask is what role the United States should be playing abroad in general? I would personally prefer that we play far less of one. This should include some level of support for Israel, but my preference would be to begin extricating us from the affairs of other nations, and particularly those of the Middle East.

[mencken]

the only remotely civilized country in the region

"While the ancestors of George Bush and his little lapdog Tony Blair were crawling around on their stomachs in the caves, we were writing the Law!  We were writing the Book!  God will roast their stomachs in hell!"

        --Mohammed Sa'eed Al-Sahaf, former Iraqi information minister

And what has Iraq contributed to civilization in the last millennium? Last I saw they were at or near the bottom of most metrics of human development.

[Murica!]

the only remotely civilized country in the region

"While the ancestors of George Bush and his little lapdog Tony Blair were crawling around on their stomachs in the caves, we were writing the Law!  We were writing the Book!  God will roast their stomachs in hell!"

        --Mohammed Sa'eed Al-Sahaf, former Iraqi information minister

And what has Iraq contributed to civilization in the last millennium? Last I saw they were at or near the bottom of most metrics of human development.

You are aware that the Islamic world saved nearly all the developments of "Western civilization", right?

[America Needs R'hllor]

the only remotely civilized country in the region

"While the ancestors of George Bush and his little lapdog Tony Blair were crawling around on their stomachs in the caves, we were writing the Law!  We were writing the Book!  God will roast their stomachs in hell!"

        --Mohammed Sa'eed Al-Sahaf, former Iraqi information minister

Thanks for doing things thousands of years ago, Iran. Now stop executing gays and threatening to nuke millions of people.

[mencken]

the only remotely civilized country in the region

"While the ancestors of George Bush and his little lapdog Tony Blair were crawling around on their stomachs in the caves, we were writing the Law!  We were writing the Book!  God will roast their stomachs in hell!"

        --Mohammed Sa'eed Al-Sahaf, former Iraqi information minister

And what has Iraq contributed to civilization in the last millennium? Last I saw they were at or near the bottom of most metrics of human development.

You are aware that the Islamic world saved nearly all the developments of "Western civilization", right?

Emphasis on last millennium. That one has to reach all the way back to before the Crusades for a substantive accomplishment shows how far they have regressed since then.

the only remotely civilized country in the region

"While the ancestors of George Bush and his little lapdog Tony Blair were crawling around on their stomachs in the caves, we were writing the Law!  We were writing the Book!  God will roast their stomachs in hell!"

        --Mohammed Sa'eed Al-Sahaf, former Iraqi information minister

Thanks for doing things thousands of years ago, Iran. Now stop executing gays and threatening to nuke millions of people.

Precisely.

[angus]

They regressed when they became paranoid.  From about AD1100 to 1400 bunch of religious fanatics from Western Europe repeatedly terrorized them and pillaged their lands.  In their fear, they circled the wagons and forgot to think about scientific, cultural, and economic advancement. 

You'd think the West might learn from their history not to be so reactionary in the face of fanaticism.

[mencken]

They regressed when they became paranoid.  From about AD1100 to 1400 bunch of religious fanatics from Western Europe repeatedly terrorized them and pillaged their lands.  In their fear, they circled the wagons and forgot to think about scientific, cultural, and economic advancement. 

You'd think the West might learn from their history not to be so reactionary in the face of fanaticism.

Somehow the West managed to make scientific, cultural, and economic progress despite constant pillaging from various Muslim empires between ~700 and 1914*

*Of course I expect one to respond that Spain and the Balkans are relative cultural backwaters compared to the rest of Europe, to which I would reply why is not the supposed deleterious effects of the Crusades confined to Egypt and Palestine? For that matter, how is Israel so far ahead of their neighbors in scientific, cultural, and economic advancement despite most of their inhabitants being on the receiving end of two millennia of religious and racial persecution?

[America Needs R'hllor]

They regressed when they became paranoid.  From about AD1100 to 1400 bunch of religious fanatics from Western Europe repeatedly terrorized them and pillaged their lands.  In their fear, they circled the wagons and forgot to think about scientific, cultural, and economic advancement. 

You'd think the West might learn from their history not to be so reactionary in the face of fanaticism.

Then why isn't Georgia, for example, a fanatic murderous autocracy? After all, it has been raidedl and invaded for thousands of years by the Empires surrounding it, from Assyria to modern Russia, and that includes poor Persia.
I'm not saying the Iranian people are in some way worse than others- just that I don't think you can blame Europe for all their problems.

[Intell]

The west is ahead, due to various factors, mainly imperalism and the pillaging of third-world countries, which it has enjoyed to this day.

[DavidB.]

The west is ahead, due to various factors, mainly imperalism and the pillaging of third-world countries, which it has enjoyed to this day.

Without the West, the Third World would be much poorer than it is right now.

[Intell]

The west is ahead, due to various factors, mainly imperalism and the pillaging of third-world countries, which it has enjoyed to this day.

Without the West, the Third World would be much poorer than it is right now.

That takes such a self-righteous view of western civilisation, considering wars that impended on progress on such countries, and the exploitation of land in those countries, that caused wide-scale famines in most cases, as well as imperialism that causes that caused a feudalistic social order in most of the third world. Let's not forget the importation of slaves, is what made the west  (and arab world), but specifically the west much richer than the rest of society.

[dead0man]

They regressed when they became paranoid.  From about AD1100 to 1400 bunch of religious fanatics from Western Europe repeatedly terrorized them and pillaged their lands.  In their fear, they circled the wagons and forgot to think about scientific, cultural, and economic advancement. 

You'd think the West might learn from their history not to be so reactionary in the face of fanaticism.

lands that they had just taken, by the sword, from Christians.  They get a little push back and they go into a millennial long decline culturally?  And the west, who just kept on advancing, are the ones that are supposed to learn something from this?  I'm confused.