Would Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan have supported Assad in the mid-2010s?

[darklordoftech]

Because Assad was anti-ISIS and those Presidents supported anti-communist dictators.

[Jingizu]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

Ike made Israel, France, and the UK stop attacking Egypt though.

[Jingizu]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

Ike made Israel, France, and the UK stop attacking Egypt though.

Yes, despite what lots of propaganda from the Second and Third Worlds would have you believe, the U.S. wasn’t close to Israel until the LBJ Administration. The U.S.S.R. was actually the biggest sponsor of their independence, and I believe France was their biggest arms supplier for some time. Yet no one mentions this.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

Ike made Israel, France, and the UK stop attacking Egypt though.

Yes, despite what lots of propaganda from the Second and Third Worlds would have you believe, the U.S. wasn’t close to Israel until the LBJ Administration. The U.S.S.R. was actually the biggest sponsor of their independence, and I believe France was their biggest arms supplier for some time. Yet no one mentions this.

To be fair, the USSR quickly changed its tune on Israel when they realized that the new country wouldn't be pliant and that their efforts would be better spent cultivating Arab nationalists and socialists who were themselves explicitly anti-British, anti-French, and obviously anti-Zionist. Stalin being a massive anti-Semite also factored into this. And it's not like the French are popular in the so-called Global South---Vietnam, Algeria, etc., or the way that Muslims have not been assimilated into "Frenchness" and the obvious controversies and problems arising from that.

But as far as US support for Israel goes: 1967 changed everything. Even so, between Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, Reagan) and the first Bush you had a lot of significant disagreements and very real tensions between the US and Israel. Bill Clinton and especially George W. Bush made it more of a point to be consistently supportive of Israel, though Clinton was obviously more involved in the peace process between Israel and the PLO, and Bush is partly responsible for Hamas seizing power in Gaza both in terms of pushing hard for new elections but also covertly helping Fatah with a failed attack on Hamas in Gaza.

Obama and Netanyahu personally hating each other and Obama's attempts at detente with Iran made even an otherwise "normal" relationship that much more strained. Of course, Netanyahu being so close to the Republican Party and literally giving an anti-Obama speech to Congressional Republicans was pretty infuriating for a lot of Democratic voters, and the politics of Israel itself have changed in a way that a lot of Democrats are very much not on board with. The politicization of an important relationship along domestic partisan lines is a Bad development.

Trump, being his usual hot and cold self, has gone from being Israel's most explicit (and crassest) defender to talking a bunch of sh-t because Bibi was one of the first foreign leaders to congratulate President-elect Biden lmao. And Biden has been pretty consistently pro-Israel throughout his career, even if like Obama and a lot of other Democrats he can't stand Bibi--he's obviously looking past that.

[Jingizu]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

Ike made Israel, France, and the UK stop attacking Egypt though.

Yes, despite what lots of propaganda from the Second and Third Worlds would have you believe, the U.S. wasn’t close to Israel until the LBJ Administration. The U.S.S.R. was actually the biggest sponsor of their independence, and I believe France was their biggest arms supplier for some time. Yet no one mentions this.

To be fair, the USSR quickly changed its tune on Israel when they realized that the new country wouldn't be pliant and that their efforts would be better spent cultivating Arab nationalists and socialists who were themselves explicitly anti-British, anti-French, and obviously anti-Zionist. Stalin being a massive anti-Semite also factored into this. And it's not like the French are popular in the so-called Global South---Vietnam, Algeria, etc., or the way that Muslims have not been assimilated into "Frenchness" and the obvious controversies and problems arising from that.

But as far as US support for Israel goes: 1967 changed everything. Even so, between Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, Reagan) and the first Bush you had a lot of significant disagreements and very real tensions between the US and Israel. Bill Clinton and especially George W. Bush made it more of a point to be consistently supportive of Israel, though Clinton was obviously more involved in the peace process between Israel and the PLO, and Bush is partly responsible for Hamas seizing power in Gaza both in terms of pushing hard for new elections but also covertly helping Fatah with a failed attack on Hamas in Gaza.

Obama and Netanyahu personally hating each other and Obama's attempts at detente with Iran made even an otherwise "normal" relationship that much more strained. Of course, Netanyahu being so close to the Republican Party and literally giving an anti-Obama speech to Congressional Republicans was pretty infuriating for a lot of Democratic voters, and the politics of Israel itself have changed in a way that a lot of Democrats are very much not on board with. The politicization of an important relationship along domestic partisan lines is a Bad development.

Trump, being his usual hot and cold self, has gone from being Israel's most explicit (and crassest) defender to talking a bunch of sh-t because Bibi was one of the first foreign leaders to congratulate President-elect Biden lmao. And Biden has been pretty consistently pro-Israel throughout his career, even if like Obama and a lot of other Democrats he can't stand Bibi--he's obviously looking past that.

Seems like the Ford-to-Bush I tensions started when Israel first elected Likud. Under both Menachem Begin and especially Yitzhak Shamir, there were many sharp disagreements. And of course later under Bibi Netanyahu. But I suspect the confluence of Bill Clinton’s presidency with the return of Labor governments in Israel is why support was stronger then: there were far more shared interests. However, many horrible attacks committed by Hamas backed by Iran helped Netanyahu to come to power. Let’s not forget that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran did everything they could to sabotage peace efforts during the 1990s. That is some context for what you said above.

While I have no doubt Bush II f’d things up - kinda their hallmark, actually - and can see how their electoral and anti-electoral pushes screwed things up, what exactly was to be done with Hamas? When Arafat torpedoed the peace process and the deal that Ehud Barak (who had beaten Bibi Netanyahu) and Bill Clinton were offering and launched the Second Intifada - guess who came to power? Ariel Sharon, who ironically turned out to be a moderate in Likud terms, then Ehud Olmert, who pushed one last peace plan that got torpedoed because of Hezbollah and another peace effort got ruined by Hamas. This all led to Bibi Netanyahu’s return to power in 2009, and everything has deteriorated further since then.

Which makes the soft-pedaling on Hamas presently by certain elements insane: they’ve never, ever, been anything but a pack of fanatical extremists determined to ruin any chance of peace. Of course Biden will side with Israel against them. Why would any U.S. politician ever do otherwise?

[darklordoftech]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

Yet Reagan supported Saddam Hussein.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

Yet Reagan supported Saddam Hussein.

Ally of convenience. And FWIW, Hafez al-Assad supported Iran (as has his son, or rather it is Iran along w/Russia who have endured the Assad regime’s survival).

[All Along The Watchtower]

Seems like the Ford-to-Bush I tensions started when Israel first elected Likud. Under both Menachem Begin and especially Yitzhak Shamir, there were many sharp disagreements. And of course later under Bibi Netanyahu. But I suspect the confluence of Bill Clinton’s presidency with the return of Labor governments in Israel is why support was stronger then: there were far more shared interests. However, many horrible attacks committed by Hamas backed by Iran helped Netanyahu to come to power. Let’s not forget that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran did everything they could to sabotage peace efforts during the 1990s. That is some context for what you said above.

While I have no doubt Bush II f’d things up - kinda their hallmark, actually - and can see how their electoral and anti-electoral pushes screwed things up, what exactly was to be done with Hamas? When Arafat torpedoed the peace process and the deal that Ehud Barak (who had beaten Bibi Netanyahu) and Bill Clinton were offering and launched the Second Intifada - guess who came to power? Ariel Sharon, who ironically turned out to be a moderate in Likud terms, then Ehud Olmert, who pushed one last peace plan that got torpedoed because of Hezbollah and another peace effort got ruined by Hamas. This all led to Bibi Netanyahu’s return to power in 2009, and everything has deteriorated further since then.

Which makes the soft-pedaling on Hamas presently by certain elements insane: they’ve never, ever, been anything but a pack of fanatical extremists determined to ruin any chance of peace. Of course Biden will side with Israel against them. Why would any U.S. politician ever do otherwise?

While I agree with many of your points, I don’t think Arafat would ever have been able to sell that deal to the Palestinians, especially with the rise of Hamas throughout the 90s as you noted. And remember that just two months after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, which I imagine would have been interpreted by many Palestinians (and others) as vindication of a violent strategy against Israel, in this case by Hezbollah—the same Iran-backed organization that had helped train Hamas and Islamic Jihad in tactics that included suicide bombings. Yes, I know that’s it was not the same situation, but what matters is how Palestinians, including their leaders, perceived it at the time.

[Jingizu]

Syrian Baathists have always been pro-Soviet/Russian so if anything these Presidents would’ve happily done everything they could to make both sides lose

Yet Reagan supported Saddam Hussein.

…and, infamously, sometimes Iran too. Pretty sure we really wanted both sides to lose despite public proclamations.

[Jingizu]

Seems like the Ford-to-Bush I tensions started when Israel first elected Likud. Under both Menachem Begin and especially Yitzhak Shamir, there were many sharp disagreements. And of course later under Bibi Netanyahu. But I suspect the confluence of Bill Clinton’s presidency with the return of Labor governments in Israel is why support was stronger then: there were far more shared interests. However, many horrible attacks committed by Hamas backed by Iran helped Netanyahu to come to power. Let’s not forget that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran did everything they could to sabotage peace efforts during the 1990s. That is some context for what you said above.

While I have no doubt Bush II f’d things up - kinda their hallmark, actually - and can see how their electoral and anti-electoral pushes screwed things up, what exactly was to be done with Hamas? When Arafat torpedoed the peace process and the deal that Ehud Barak (who had beaten Bibi Netanyahu) and Bill Clinton were offering and launched the Second Intifada - guess who came to power? Ariel Sharon, who ironically turned out to be a moderate in Likud terms, then Ehud Olmert, who pushed one last peace plan that got torpedoed because of Hezbollah and another peace effort got ruined by Hamas. This all led to Bibi Netanyahu’s return to power in 2009, and everything has deteriorated further since then.

Which makes the soft-pedaling on Hamas presently by certain elements insane: they’ve never, ever, been anything but a pack of fanatical extremists determined to ruin any chance of peace. Of course Biden will side with Israel against them. Why would any U.S. politician ever do otherwise?

While I agree with many of your points, I don’t think Arafat would ever have been able to sell that deal to the Palestinians, especially with the rise of Hamas throughout the 90s as you noted. And remember that just two months after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, which I imagine would have been interpreted by many Palestinians (and others) as vindication of a violent strategy against Israel, in this case by Hezbollah—the same Iran-backed organization that had helped train Hamas and Islamic Jihad in tactics that included suicide bombings. Yes, I know that’s it was not the same situation, but what matters is how Palestinians, including their leaders, perceived it at the time.

Well, that’s depressing. It seems that peace was never a possibility then. 

Which is doubly sad, because that deal would’ve given the Palestinians quite a lot. Down the line maybe they could negotiate for more. Ever heard of the salami slicing way of gaining territory? 

[Reactionary Libertarian]

No because they were happy to back religious fundamentalists to fight communism. Nevertheless Obama should have supported Assad. Obviously he's better than the "moderate rebels" AKA moderate ISIS.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, because they were realpolitik people, especially in regards to dictators.  Carter's "Human Rights" approach was not the norm.