SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by Sulla
I am not a fan of the traditional American policy when it comes to ultimate defense and support of Israel. Can someone who agrees with it please detail why it is beneficial to the US? Just went through my uncle and inlaws argue about this for several hours and as a libertarian I don't see why I would want my (and my kids) blood and treasure spilled over a foreign nation, in this case Israel. Not looking for "palestine/arabs/muslims literally hitler" or "israel supporters are evil" I just want reasoned points for our support (or lack of support) for either side.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
ANN JILLIAN'S HAIR makes LONI ANDERSON'S HAIR look like RICARDO
MONTALBAN'S HAIR!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:05AM (1 child)
Nobody? Really? I know a more incendiary question would be hard to come by but nobody wants to lay their balls on the table for his enjoyment?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:49PM
I had a lengthy response which was killed by my browser. I thought that Sulla had deleted the journal for a second.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday December 27 2017, @01:06PM (1 child)
Having said that, I'm part of the group dominated by apathy. I don't like the expenditures you mention, but I'm not interested in overcoming the Israeli lobby. That's a battle I'm not bothering with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @06:26PM
Having said that, I'm part of the group dominated by apathy. I don't like the expenditures you mention, but I'm not interested in overcoming the Israeli lobby. That's a battle I'm not bothering with.
I agree with the entire sentiment. But... apathy is corruption's greatest asset. Believe me, I know the feeling, when income is secure I care a little less about high shipping charges and being being overcharged by the plumber. I can buy my way out of a ticket now. I'm rich! I'm just voting to keep that income secured. But in the big picture this is a problem of great magnitude, because like plaque, it builds up. And the last election is the result, more decay. We need a dentist!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 27 2017, @03:07PM (1 child)
There are THREE traditional sources of support for Israel.
1. Is all but forgotten - the Ottoman. The US/UK wanted the Ottoman removed as a competitor, and Israel was and is a tool to help ensure that the Ottoman doesn't regain power.
2. Traditional Christian support for Zionism. Althought the belief is not held universally among Christians, it is widely believed that the establishment of Zion heralds the return of Jesus.
3. The Soviet. The offspring of the broken Ottoman were quite ready to become client states of the Soviet. Israel stood staunchly against the Soviet and communism.
Some might call this fourth reason "traditional" - speak up Ethanol - but it is actually a recent development in historical terms. Israel is a close partner of our Military Industrial Complex. We enable Israel to make money, while at the same time, they enrich our military machine.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @07:54PM
I'll give a fourth reason: Jewish immigrants from around the world coming to the US. Many may not have a religious attachment to Israel, but they would like it to be around in case the US becomes as fucked up as Germany (previous liberal home to many Jews) had become in the 1930s. Plus it could be a decent place to retire, just have to kick the Palestinians out that are living there now.
They became citizens, bought media outlets and encouraged the rest of the US to think of Israel as religious and social kin in a remote, tribal part of the world.
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:33PM (11 children)
So, the traditional American policy, as I understand it, is that the US won't let Israel be overrun by their neighbors.
Israel as a country exists because:
1 - The Ottomans lost WWI.
2 - The British could.
3 - The British, and more broadly Europe, felt spectacularly guilty about events in the 1930s and 40s.
4 - The US in particular wanted a western outpost in what was otherwise 'crazy land' in the '40s.
5 - The US in particular had/has abandoned the isolationist policies of the '20s and '30s and chose this a place to be/stay involved.
1 - The outpost...
2 - It really is the most stable part of that region.
3 - The cost in both (USA) blood and treasure has been fairly limited so far.
1 - As a libertarian, you struggle with anything that benefits someone else, even potentially, more than you. Everything for any collective good has to be taken from you nearly by force.
2 - As a libertarian, isolationism sounds just great.
US isolationism in the 20s and 30s is often seen as one of the causes or WWII. The US post-war policy has been driven in part by a refusal to become fully dis-involved. Perhaps this is a result of some institutional guilt in the US...
One of the accusations often leveled at politicians advocating a less active US role in US foreign policy is that they are isolationist. Take this [theatlantic.com] example. The US, or at least certain circles in the US, expect leaders to NOT be isolationist and is invested in rooting out and discrediting any who seem to be.
So, the opposite of isolation is involvement, and to be involved, one has to be involved somewhere and choose allies and partners in that place. To be meaningfully involved, we need allies in crazy land...
Back to your question... So if one takes as fact that US isolationism was a key contributing factor to WWII, one can then reasonably infer that US involvement has prevented WWIII, WWIV, etc. So... the benefit to the Israel policy... or maybe more fairly, to having an Israel policy at all, is ~billions of lives saved. Including yours and your kids.
And as a libertarian, you should support that because it's all about you...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:43PM (7 children)
Non-interventionism is not isolationism. If you trade with countless countries across the world, then you're simply not isolationist, even if you don't constantly wage offensive wars or play games in the middle east. Israel can defend themselves if they want that land so badly.
When you call non-interventionism isolationism, then you are falling prey to the obvious propaganda of warmongers.
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:59PM (6 children)
Let's not argue about the language. The US traded with other nations in the 20's and 30's and was still considered isolationist. Or, if you will, [word for incompletely engaged]. So, if you want, US [incomplete engagement] is considered a cause of WWII. So now, the US tries to be [more completely engaged]. Whatever.
And, if you want to quibble, there's only about 200 countries. And even if I've missed by a fair bit, they are by no means countless.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:30PM (5 children)
Language is important here. "Isolationist" is used as a propaganda term by the media to try to discredit people who don't want to constantly go to war. It is important that you not fall victim to such tricks.
It wasn't isolationist to any significant degree. That trick has been around for a long time.
War is only justified in self-defense. The US's involvement in WWII was justified, but that was because it was attacked and also because Germany declared war on it. So, it doesn't matter what the cause was, though I have serious doubts that that was the reason.
And now trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives have been wasted. I hope you understand the immense harm that can result if people buy into this 'non-interventionism is isolationism' propaganda.
Okay.
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday December 27 2017, @07:19PM (4 children)
How about mutual defense? If a future evil USA were to invade Mexico (and only Mexico) is there any scenario where Guatemala would be justified in declaring / going to war and aiding Mexico's defense as a result? How about France?
If you answer yes, there might be some scenario, then you will need to adjust your statement... war being justified in self defense and in other scenarios that you might specify. If you answer yes, I think you'll find that eventually the scope will creep somewhat and you'll end up with something like 'Guatemala can make war if it *feels* threatened'.
If you answer is no then any big country can invade/conquer/depopulate/slaughter/exterminate any smaller country with effectively zero fear of repercussion. If you're big enough that 'sanctions' and harsh words can be mitigated by growing the empire, what have you to fear?
Mr. Putin, I didn't realize that you posted AC on this system. !!
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:05PM (3 children)
Self-defense. Preemptive warfare like you mention later ('I feel threatened!') is never justified. Going to war to help allies is sketchy, since it allows warmongers plenty of leeway to start unjustifiable wars, at least if the bar is set too low. Any such war should probably be done with widespread international consensus, if it is to be done at all. Other methods should be tried first. Oh, and the war should actually be declared by Congress, which does not reflect the current situation where we're militarily involved in 7+ countries and none of those wars were even properly declared or justified.
I didn't realize Putin was a non-interventionist. I have no idea what would possess someone to support the US's current military adventures, outside of insanity.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:08AM (2 children)
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-evans31-2008aug31-story.html [latimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @01:15AM
And that's why I strongly hesitate to support anything beyond pure and obvious self-defense.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 31 2017, @12:57PM
How many, if any, dead Russians in Osetia, S. Ossetia, and/or Georgia would have justified Russia taking control of the situation?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:25PM (1 child)
The US backing of the Treaty of Versailles is hardly isolationist, the intense punitive actions that came out of that process directly led to WWII. Rather than give terms that the Germans could afford the allied moved forward with "woe the the vanquished" and forced the Germans into a corner. Aggression of the west in the period between the wars gave radical political parties in Germany the chance to unite the people against a common enemy, in this case the "jewish west" and the bolsheviks. While reparations are not necessarily bad and were pretty commonplace after wars in Europe, the combination of harsh requirements placed on Germany and the great depression pushed the people over a cliff.
What more intervening could we have done to stop this? I suppose the US could have re-invaded Germany in 1935 when they violated the terms and started conscripting troops, but all that is is starting WW2 early. The only other option would have been a permanent occupation of Germany starting with the end of WW1 as we did with WW2. I did some quick googling and from various sources it looks like our cost for foreign bases starts at around 1.5B/year and we currently have 36, so at least 54B/year just on Germany. After adjusting for differences over time that would have been about 3.8B/year in 1930..
http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/32/1930 [insidegov.com]
Total spending by the US government in 1930 was 34.9B
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday December 27 2017, @07:35PM
And you and your children have not been drafted to fight in WWIII against Germany. Or been nuked by them. My question is could we have accomplished the same thing last year with 35 bases.
So not maintaining bases in Germany meant that a (re)invasion would be more expensive. Because it was expensive, nobody did it until later. And then we got WWII right on schedule with the historic wonderful results. Seems like the non-interventionism advocated by Putin in the other thread might have failed to yield peace in our (well, their) time.
We'll get back to Israel eventually.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @06:55PM
the opposite of isolation is involvement
You misspelled 'occupation'. Let's cut the bullshit. It is occupation that keeps Europe and Japan at peace. Just Like occupation kept the former Soviet client states at peace. One was softer than the other, a bit of a *honey vs. vinegar* thing, but it's more a matter of degree, not character, as our middle eastern/western Asian friends fully understand, I'm sure.
Yes, if we were to withdraw, Europe would descend right back into the abyss of Nazi feudalism. Obama is right, we are indeed the *indispensable* nation. There should be no doubt. With our fall, so goes the world, until another irresistible force emerges from the ashes. We pretty much have to keep up the bullshit just to stay alive [youtube.com] (anybody notice anything peculiar, almost bizarre, about that link?).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:25PM
Israel is a mostly reliable [newsweek.com] ally in the region although we have Arab allies there too.
Israel is always [haaretz.com] willing [wikipedia.org] to do the dirty [wikipedia.org] work [newsweek.com].
Obama was criticized for not being supportive of Israel, even though he gave them more ca$h than ever [reuters.com].
Every recent President [huffingtonpost.com] including Ronald [theintercept.com] Reagan [haaretz.com], Bush [huffingtonpost.com], and Trump [theguardian.com] has criticized the settlement policy to some extent. Although he is ultimately keeping his promise on moving the embassy and any criticism may just be noise [theintercept.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:52AM (5 children)
I'm not going to go into all of the reasons but I'll give you this one: They're the only nuclear power on the planet that's genuinely got our back even though we don't always have theirs very well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:44AM (3 children)
Why don't you go into the reasons why France and the UK don't have our back, but Israel does? Israel hasn't declared that they have any nuclear weapons, and spy on us [newsweek.com] more than other allies. Just this thing alone [wikipedia.org] shows we are close-knit with the UK.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @09:13AM (1 child)
France is a quarter Muslim, and the UK isn't very far behind. It's much more so with younger people, so in a generation or two we'll be looking at a couple Muslim-majority countries in Europe... with nukes and UN vetoes.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:53PM
France is 8.8% Muslim, UK isn't very far behind at 6.3%:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/ [pewresearch.org]
Maybe you meant a quarter of young French? Well, no. [quora.com]
Battlefront Hardline Muslim [politico.eu] with their share of the population increasing in the future? Yeah, probably.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:31AM
The last time France actually had our back was the Revolutionary War. Britain's been a lot better but they're not a reliable ally going forward because of their strong communist and totalitarian tendencies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday December 28 2017, @03:48PM
Selling our military tech and secrets to the Chinese doesn't exactly sound like "genuinely got our back"
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/12/world/israel-selling-china-military-technology-cia-chief-asserts.html [nytimes.com]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday January 04 2018, @09:56AM
Your daughter marries a Jew, she becomes Jewish, what do you do? What can you do? You support Israel.