Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

Ainu said:
Goes without saying he's got his own agenda, I'm just referring back to it because that was what kicked off this discussion.
Click to expand...

Biden's clearly pushing for all those right wingers who haven't made their minds up about voting for Trump yet. He's almost become a parody at this stage - has all but come out wearing his own Make America Great Again hat.
 
padzilla said:
Biden's clearly pushing for all those right wingers who haven't made their minds up about voting for Trump yet. He's almost become a parody at this stage - has all but come out wearing his own Make America Great Again hat.
Click to expand...
And to me this is why I believe the US is the biggest obstacle to peace in the region. You can't hope for a just peace when you have a superpower acting as a mediator, absolving its proxy of any crimes, giving them diplomatic and military protection, and actively looking to silence, doubt and redirect the narrative on the suffering inflicted on the other side. The US could easily tell the Israelis to stop the occupation of the West Bank, cease building settlements and get back to negotiating '67 terms tomorrow if they'd wanted to. Until then, they're just as much to blame for the thousands dead.
 
No idea how anybody can think Biden is doing a bad job here currently. He's doing well.
 
owlo said:
No idea how anybody can think Biden is doing a bad job here currently. He's doing well.
Click to expand...

Looks like he's managed to delay the Israeli invasion to flatten the entire strip, and is trying to at least talk Netanyahu into a more incremental, counterinsurgency. Unfortunately, neither approach will prevent casualties or a humanitarian catastrophe of people simply dying because they don't have adequate food, water, or medical care to sustain themselves.
 
Kaos said:
And to me this is why I believe the US is the biggest obstacle to peace in the region. You can't hope for a just peace when you have a superpower acting as a mediator, absolving its proxy of any crimes, giving them diplomatic and military protection, and actively looking to silence, doubt and redirect the narrative on the suffering inflicted on the other side. The US could easily tell the Israelis to stop the occupation of the West Bank, cease building settlements and get back to negotiating '67 terms tomorrow if they'd wanted to. Until then, they're just as much to blame for the thousands dead.
Click to expand...

Israel is understandably emboldened to commit war crimes and atrocities against civilians because it's backed to the hilt by the US. There's no doubt this could all have been stopped if the US hadn't vetoed the ceasefire proposals at the UN. It's laughable that the US is being praised then for trying to be seen to negotiate and eventually achieve the very thing that was stopped from happening because of them weeks ago.
 
Raoul said:
Looks like he's managed to delay the Israeli invasion to flatten the entire strip, and is trying to at least talk Netanyahu into a more incremental, counterinsurgency. Unfortunately, neither approach will prevent casualties or a humanitarian catastrophe of people simply dying because they don't have adequate food, water, or medical care to sustain themselves.
Click to expand...


Still not convinced there was ever going to be a ground strike.

Could be wrong obviously but general pattern of behaviour from Israel means this is negotiation for more financial packages.

Something that doesn't get mentioned enough imo is that Israel come out of all conflicts considerably better off with financial or weapon packages.


Again could be wrong but Israel doesn't have the stomach or the soldiers for a ground war. And Hamas would relish it. Also think a ground war brings in various factions into play. Isis members, Taliban, even Bosnian and Chechnyan fighters. It becomes more than just a Hamas v Israel. It becomes....well a Jihad for other fighters who say to day wouldn't entertain Hamas.

The only thing that may prove me wrong is if US training the IDF by sending over military guys is true then yeah this time maybe a long ground campaign maybe on the horizon
 
padzilla said:
Israel is understandably emboldened to commit war crimes and atrocities against civilians because it's backed to the hilt by the US. There's no doubt this could all have been stopped if the US hadn't vetoed the ceasefire proposals at the UN. It's laughable that the US is being praised then for trying to be seen to negotiate and eventually achieve the very thing that was stopped from happening because of them weeks ago.
Click to expand...

The UN is useless because of the security council and shouldn't be relied on as part of any realistic solution. This is strictly a US, Israeli, and regional nation game.
 
Roane said:
Still not convinced there was ever going to be a ground strike.

Could be wrong obviously but general pattern of behaviour from Israel means this is negotiation for more financial packages.

Something that doesn't get mentioned enough imo is that Israel come out of all conflicts considerably better off with financial or weapon packages.


Again could be wrong but Israel doesn't have the stomach or the soldiers for a ground war. And Hamas would relish it. Also think a ground war brings in various factions into play. Isis members, Taliban, even Bosnian and Chechnyan fighters. It becomes more than just a Hamas v Israel. It becomes....well a Jihad for other fighters who say to day wouldn't entertain Hamas.

The only thing that may prove me wrong is if US training the IDF by sending over military guys is true then yeah this time maybe a long ground campaign maybe on the horizon
Click to expand...

I think they would've gone in by now if not for the US stalling them, using the excuse of needing to bring more troops into the region to protect US embassies and bases once an Israeli invasion of Gaza begins. I can't see the Israelis waiting much longer as they don't have the resources to keep 300k plus troops mobilized on Gaza and Lebanon borders indefinitely.
 
adexkola said:
Our evangelical nutters who think there's some link between Israel apartheid and Jesus coming again

Defense contractors making bank

AIPAC lobbyists
Click to expand...

Only the first one has any meaningful clout, alongside the reality that a lot of establishment Dems are also pro-Israel. Most American Jews also happen to vote Dem, which makes support for Israel largely bipartisan.
 
Raoul said:
Only the first one has any meaningful clout, alongside the reality that a lot of establishment Dems are also pro-Israel. Most American Jews also happen to vote Dem, which makes support for Israel largely bipartisan.
Click to expand...
American Jews aren't a homogenised voting bloc though.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/

Interestingly the majority of Jewish dems seem to disapprove of Netanyahu, and believe Israel aren't doing enough to pursue a lasting peace, which would put them at odds with Biden's blessing on how Netanyahu's government has handled all this, in particular the backdrop to these events.
 
owlo said:
No idea how anybody can think Biden is doing a bad job here currently. He's doing well.
Click to expand...

I agree, it has surprised me (not usually a Biden fan) but on this issue almost every word he now utters in public is a subtle strategic signal or warning to those outside the present conflict, not to get involved. The US can possibly stay Israel's hand at the moment, but if others get involved, any 'soft' control the US exercises over Israel will be depleted considerably. Biden recognises that in certain quarters of the Israeli's higher echelon they believe that the Hamas attack, especially with its ferocity and the aftermath with hostages, has pushed Israel into entering the 'end game'.
Although its neighbours are better armed themselves than in the latter part of the 20th century, when Israel fought on three fronts simultaneously, its victories then still ended with them returning the land they took to the countries concerned. This will not happen now, history suggests that land belongs to those who can hold it, not to lines on a piece of paper. Biden (and many others) fear this will be the 'decider' if others join in.
Hamas must have known how Israel would react, so their intention seems to be to 'light the blue paper', but not withdraw, fight to the death and hope that other Arab countries will join in. Biden must have taken this into account in his reckoning of what comes next, he has to stand on the bridge with his hand firmly on the wheel, and the world has to hope that his health and strength remain with him.
 
Kaos said:
American Jews aren't a homogenised voting bloc though.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/

Interestingly the majority of Jewish dems seem to disapprove of Netanyahu, and believe Israel aren't doing enough to pursue a lasting peace, which would put them at odds with Biden's blessing on how Netanyahu's government has handled all this, in particular the backdrop to these events.
Click to expand...

Nor are Israelis themselves one. American Jews will however mostly come down on the side the Israeli position, especially in times of emergency. Just look at establishment Jewish members of Congress and their voting patterns. You're not going to find much in the way of anti-Israel policies among them. Only fringe members like the squad are anti-Israel.
 
Raoul said:
Only the first one has any meaningful clout, alongside the reality that a lot of establishment Dems are also pro-Israel. Most American Jews also happen to vote Dem, which makes support for Israel largely bipartisan.
Click to expand...

A lot of establishment Democratic politicians are pro-Israel precisely because of the power AIPAC has. They got a Jewish congressman out of office because he wasn't pro-Israel enough which should tell you everything.

American Jews are more moderate on the issue. They may support Israel but most (bar the Orthodox Jews in places like Brooklyn and Boca Raton) aren't willing to write Israel a blank check on their atrocities. As a bloc they're closer to the middle/left than evangelical Christians.

And defense lobbyists support blank checks to Israel, because some of that money goes into their company's pocket. Look at RTX's CEO's comments for example. Less of a factor but still a factor.
 
adexkola said:
A lot of establishment Democratic politicians are pro-Israel precisely because of the power AIPAC has. They got a Jewish congressman out of office because he wasn't pro-Israel enough which should tell you everything.

American Jews are more moderate on the issue. They may support Israel but most (bar the Orthodox Jews in places like Brooklyn and Boca Raton) aren't willing to write Israel a blank check on their atrocities. As a bloc they're closer to the middle/left than evangelical Christians.

And defense lobbyists support blank checks to Israel, because some of that money goes into their company's pocket. Look at RTX's CEO's comments for example. Less of a factor but still a factor.
Click to expand...

AIPAC are the usual pantomime villian in these discussions but the politicians themselves ultimately have to listen to their voting constituents, most of which will always side with Israel. And they don't do it because AIPAC holds a couple of conferences a year promoting Israel. Its just deeply woven into US culture at both a religious and cultural familiarity level.
 
Raoul said:
I think they would've gone in by now if not for the US stalling them, using the excuse of needing to bring more troops into the region to protect US embassies and bases once an Israeli invasion of Gaza begins. I can't see the Israelis waiting much longer as they don't have the resources to keep 300k plus troops mobilized on Gaza and Lebanon borders indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Not sure how to phrase this but it's a game I've seen many times.

Each time it's America stalling, then come the financial packages and Israel withdraws.

With regards to the troops I'm not convinced there is 300k plus at the "borders" as such. Obviously there troops on borders but the number is something that is potential with reservists etc rather than cold hard numbers all ready waiting, of that makes sense.

Could it be different this time? Sure but historically it's all been played out too many times
 
Raoul said:
AIPAC are the usual pantomime villian in these discussions but the politicians themselves ultimately have to listen to their voting constituents, most of which will always side with Israel. And they don't do it because AIPAC holds a couple of conferences a year promoting Israel. Its just deeply woven into US culture at both a religious and cultural familiarity level.
Click to expand...

This level of support isn't organic.

Even amongst Americans that are pro-Israel, a good amount want an end to the conflict and a 2 state solution (ignoring the evangelicals and Orthodox Jews).

That moderation does not show in the ranks of US politicians.

I'm certain the views of the congressional district I live in are not correlated to the extreme carte-blanche support for Israel my congressman has displayed. There's a gap. Blame it on AIPAC or his personal beliefs or whatever, but it's a valid question to raise.
 
Roane said:
Not sure how to phrase this but it's a game I've seen many times.

Each time it's America stalling, then come the financial packages and Israel withdraws.

With regards to the troops I'm not convinced there is 300k plus at the "borders" as such. Obviously there troops on borders but the number is something that is potential with reservists etc rather than cold hard numbers all ready waiting, of that makes sense.

Could it be different this time? Sure but historically it's all been played out too many times
Click to expand...

They've mobilized something like 360k troops from reserves and from Israelis living abroad. The point was that they can't keep them sitting around at one of the borders for a long time, so Netanyahu will be incentivized to make decision sooner rather than later; and knowing him, he's quite likely to proceed with the ground invasion as planned.
 
Raoul said:
Nor are Israelis themselves one. American Jews will however mostly come down on the side the Israeli position, especially in times of emergency. Just look at establishment Jewish members of Congress and their voting patterns. You're not going to find much in the way of anti-Israel policies among them. Only fringe members like the squad are anti-Israel.
Click to expand...
The 'Israeli position' is a bit of a blanket generalisation though, and it isn't as binary as it seems. You can be supportive of Israel in an existential sense (affirming their right to exist), but also be deeply critical of their government's policies and stance towards peace (or lack thereof) as well as the settlement terror, which is what the data suggests is where the majority of Jewish Dems are at. This measured support doesn't seem to be reflected with the POTUS though curiously, who tends to hold a more uncompromised and unwavering support of the hardliner government in Israel. The only POTUS in recent history who held some form of balanced support, not being afraid to criticise and call out when the Israelis were out of line was Obama, but even that was mostly muted.
 
Raoul said:
Most American Jews also happen to vote Dem, which makes support for Israel largely bipartisan.
Click to expand...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/472070/democrats-sympathies-middle-east-shift-palestinians.aspx
Times change. The Democrat voter base, if not their leadership (yet) is not pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian any more. In the present crisis I would have expected sentiment to swing to Israel following the Palestinian incursion, but also expect it to swing very much the other way in future, given the severity of the Israeli response.

US demographics change too, the increasing proportion of hispanics and asians have little reason to favour Israel over Palestine.

It is not hard to imagine a future, not far away, with Democrats in power in the US that do not offer the effectively unconditional support for Israel that we have seen in the past.
 
adexkola said:
This level of support isn't organic.

Even amongst Americans that are pro-Israel, a good amount want an end to the conflict and a 2 state solution (ignoring the evangelicals and Orthodox Jews).

That moderation does not show in the ranks of US politicians.

I'm certain the views of the congressional district I live in are not correlated to the extreme carte-blanche support for Israel my congressman has displayed. There's a gap. Blame it on AIPAC or his personal beliefs or whatever, but it's a valid question to raise.
Click to expand...

This should give you a good barometer for where the Dem party is on Israel. Among 212 Democrats in the House of Representatives, only 10 voted no.

 
711 said:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/472070/democrats-sympathies-middle-east-shift-palestinians.aspx
Times change. The Democrat voter base, if not their leadership (yet) is not pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian any more. In the present crisis I would have expected sentiment to swing to Israel following the Palestinian incursion, but also expect it to swing very much the other way in future, given the severity of the Israeli response.

US demographics change too, the increasing proportion of hispanics and asians have little reason to favour Israel over Palestine.

It is not hard to imagine a future, not far away, with Democrats in power in the US that do not offer the effectively unconditional support for Israel that we have seen in the past.
Click to expand...

They're not rabidly pro-Isreal like their messianic fanatic colleagues on the right, but they are going to side with Israel on most issues involving terrorism. See the tweet I just posted above as an example. Only about 10% of Democrats are vocally anti-Israel.
 
Kaos said:
The 'Israeli position' is a bit of a blanket generalisation though, and it isn't as binary as it seems. You can be supportive of Israel in an existential sense (affirming their right to exist), but also be deeply critical of their government's policies and stance towards peace (or lack thereof) as well as the settlement terror, which is what the data suggests is where the majority of Jewish Dems are at. This measured support doesn't seem to be reflected with the POTUS though curiously, who tends to hold a more uncompromised and unwavering support of the hardliner government in Israel. The only POTUS in recent history who held some form of balanced support, not being afraid to criticise and call out when the Israelis were out of line was Obama, but even that was mostly muted.
Click to expand...

Obama and Clinton only "spoke out" towards the end of their tenures.

Carter is very critical of Israel after his terms

Just a shame they can't be that way during the early parts of their tenures or if it's only their first term.

Probably get accused of antisemitism but the Jewish vote and press is key for potential presidents.
 
Ainu said:
Really struggling to see what point you're trying to make here.
Click to expand...

The usual one when there is criticism of Israel's actions or support for the people of Palestine. Imply there's antisemitism at play, somewhere, somehow.
 
Raoul said:
They've mobilized something like 360k troops from reserves and from Israelis living abroad. The point was that they can't keep them sitting around at one of the borders for a long time, so Netanyahu will be incentivized to make decision sooner rather than later; and knowing him, he's quite likely to proceed with the ground invasion as planned.
Click to expand...

I thought the 360k figure was reservists summoned.

The Israel army consists of 35k ful time army and 430k reservist plus some conscripts about 140k


Source news channels
 
Roane said:
Obama and Clinton only "spoke out" towards the end of their tenures.

Carter is very critical of Israel after his terms

Just a shame they can't be that way during the early parts of their tenures or if it's only their first term.

Probably get accused of antisemitism but the Jewish vote and press is key for potential presidents.
Click to expand...
Well if they did, I don't think their Jewish base would necessarily consider it a betrayal considering they too share reservations and concerns with how the government in Israel chooses to deal with the Palestinians. It feels like the apprehension sources from fear of upsetting the media and AIPAC, who as much as they'd like to believe they are, are in fact not the objective voice of the US Jewish community.
 
marktan said:
The real question is why does the US back Israel so much?
Click to expand...

There are several aspects to it.

Israel has proven itself historically to be a major strategic asset to the US in the Levant, essentially winning the Cold War for the West in that part of the Middle East by defeating the Soviet-backed pan-Arab regimes and ultimately flipping the most important Arab state, Egypt, into the Western camp. They did this without getting US troops involved on the ground in the region, in contrast to, for example, East Asia (a couple of brief episodes in Lebanon excepted).

Culturally, the story of a beleaguered religious minority settling heathen lands and bringing the light of Western civilization to supposedly barbarous peoples is one that has, for very obvious reasons, resonated with Americans.

Throw in the oft-mentioned religious/evangelical angle, and the fact that the Jews have, by-and-large, been a success story in modern America with a visible and familiar presence in mainstream American society. Contrast with the Arabs and Islam, which in mainstream circles have tended to be mysticized and denigrated.

These factors provide extremely fertile grounds for the pro-Israel lobby for work on. However, the source of the lobby’s power should not be mystified and obscured, and the lobby itself should be conceived of as a collection of diverse groups with sometimes contradicting agendas (e.g. evangelical Christians and liberal Jews) and not as a monolithic entity with a distinct HQ directing action.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
This should give you a good barometer for where the Dem party is on Israel. Among 212 Democrats in the House of Representatives, only 10 voted no.

Click to expand...


No, that's where politicians stand on Israel. Speaking about the carte-blanche support to any Israel activity, not just the basic right of Israel to exist.

Assuming Engel was still the rep instead of Bowman in the NY district, the count would have been 213-9. Regardless of what the base in that district thought.
 
Raoul said:
AIPAC are the usual pantomime villian in these discussions but the politicians themselves ultimately have to listen to their voting constituents, most of which will always side with Israel. And they don't do it because AIPAC holds a couple of conferences a year promoting Israel.
Click to expand...

They do it because of the amount of money and resources that AIPAC drops on races.



 
Ritchie Torres has a 90+% Black and Hispanic constituency, and is one of the strongest Israel supporters in congress. I doubt that's his constituents doing.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
They do it because of the amount of money and resources that AIPAC drops on races.



Click to expand...


They're no different than most PACs and advocacy groups who donate to their preferred political causes. Sheldon Adelson, when he was still alive, gave a lot of money to pro-Israel causes, as do various other wealthy donors. If the public truly had any issue with any of it, they would vote the representatives out. The fact that they don't is evidence that Americans are generally on the pro-Israel side of the debate, or else sufficiently agnostic to where its a non-issue to them in contrast to normal economic issues most voters care about.
 
adexkola said:
No, that's where politicians stand on Israel. Speaking about the carte-blanche support to any Israel activity, not just the basic right of Israel to exist.

Assuming Engel was still the rep instead of Bowman in the NY district, the count would have been 213-9. Regardless of what the base in that district thought.
Click to expand...

That's right. Now that we know where Dem politicians stand on the issue, it also tells us where party and much of the American voting electorate stand. 412-10 is pretty overwhelming.
 
Roane said:
I thought the 360k figure was reservists summoned.

The Israel army consists of 35k ful time army and 430k reservist plus some conscripts about 140k


Source news channels
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. The 360k number is for reservists called up after 7 Oct. They can't keep them mobilized indefinitely, so they will either need to proceed with the invasion plans or else eventually demobilize part of their overall military.
 
Raoul said:
They're not rabidly pro-Isreal like their messianic fanatic colleagues on the right, but they are going to side with Israel on most issues involving terrorism. See the tweet I just posted above as an example. Only about 10% of Democrats are vocally anti-Israel.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's any need to bring being 'rabidly pro-Israel' into it. US governments have supported Israel in many ways, it might be a mistake to assume that will always continue. Many
will simply ask 'Why support Israel and not the Palestinians?' , and that will affect US funding and policy.
Raoul said:
AIPAC are the usual pantomime villian in these discussions but the politicians themselves ultimately have to listen to their voting constituents, most of which will always side with Israel. And they don't do it because AIPAC holds a couple of conferences a year promoting Israel. Its just deeply woven into US culture at both a religious and cultural familiarity level.
Click to expand...
Up to now yes, but as the the Gallup poll I posted earlier shows, not necessarily in the future.
 
2cents said:
There are several aspects to it.

Israel has proven itself historically to be a major strategic asset to the US in the Levant, essentially winning the Cold War for the West in that part of the Middle East by defeating the Soviet-backed pan-Arab regimes and ultimately flipping the most important Arab state, Egypt, into the Western camp. They did this without getting US troops involved on the ground in the region, in contrast to, for example, East Asia (a couple of brief episodes in Lebanon excepted).

Culturally, the story of a beleaguered religious minority settling heathen lands and bringing the light of Western civilization to supposedly barbarous peoples is one that has, for very obvious reasons, resonated with Americans.

Throw in the oft-mentioned religious/evangelical angle, and the fact that the Jews have, by-and-large, been a success story in modern America with a visible and familiar presence in mainstream American society. Contrast with the Arabs and Islam, which in mainstream circles have tended to be mysticized and denigrated.
Click to expand...
I think another (smaller) reason is they simply engineered it and can’t go back on that decision. The US was sending brown envelopes to South America and strong arming Africa to get them to vote yes in the UN vote. There’s no way they’d want to admit that it’s been nothing but misery in the region for both sides, because they’d have to admit they were wrong.
 
padzilla said:
Biden's clearly pushing for all those right wingers who haven't made their minds up about voting for Trump yet. He's almost become a parody at this stage - has all but come out wearing his own Make America Great Again hat.
Click to expand...

Naw, that doesn't make sense for the vast majority. Any center-right voter who doesn't have their minds made up isn't going to make a decision based on Israel unless they also happen to be Israeli. Anyone on the fence is weighing a choice between what they want financially (lower taxes) vs. culturally (can they stomach Trump's crazy MAGA ideas).
 
padzilla said:
Biden's clearly pushing for all those right wingers who haven't made their minds up about voting for Trump yet. He's almost become a parody at this stage - has all but come out wearing his own Make America Great Again hat.
Click to expand...

Those voters are mostly not winnable. He has a sincere ideological commitment to Israel.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-...ond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/



When he was chosen as Obama's VP, one of the reasons was that AIPAC, etc, weren't sure about Obama, so having Biden solidified his bonafides.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/0...uot-why-they-must-be-talking-about-joe-biden/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.