4% of Israeli Jews see Obama as Pro-Israel

[commanding]

hope not a repost:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1251145138121

this does not surprise me, as I "read" Mr. Obama's rhetoric early in his campaign as being anti Israel, ...and I could NOT understand why heavily pro Israeli US states, like Florida, voted for Obama.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I don't think he is anti-Israel either after all he is still signing the loan guarantees and putting up the military aid. So the guy is just not falling over himself to be Israel’s best friend ever, big deal. Israel get over yourself.

I better watch when I post on Israel threads I feel that all the Israel Strong Krew watch me like they were Jane Goodall and I was the Goy In The Mist. :)

[SiEMpre_Leal]

I don't think he is anti-Israel either after all he is still signing the loan guarantees and putting up the military aid. So the guy is just not falling over himself to be Israel’s best friend ever, big deal. Israel get over yourself.

I better watch when I post on Israel threads I feel that all the Israel Strong Krew watch me like they were Jane Goodall and I was the Goy In The Mist. :)

lmao.......

[commanding]

I see Israel as a beacon of liberty (and democracy) in a sea of nations that do not subscribe to the American ideals, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Democracy is not extremely high on my list of must haves, but it is still important. The US should always attempt to support nations with those 3 ideals.

[TR1]

And that is important why?

[commanding]

And that is important why?

what are you talking about? my opinion?

[TR1]

No, I mean the statistic.

[Zarak]

I guess the Israelis shouldn't vote for him next time. Ohwai-

Who cares what they think? The only people that the President of the United States is accountable to are the American people.

[commanding]

the statistic isn't "important" but it shows that whereas many past presidents had a warm, close relationship with Israel, and there are many pro Israeli citizens in the USA, that Mr. Obama is breaking ranks with many past presidents, on his approval rating in Israel. I would call it a lack of trust, of the Israeli people in the judgement of Pres. Obama.

[RoyB]

I better watch when I post on Israel threads I feel that all the Israel Strong Krew watch me like they were Jane Goodall and I was the Goy In The Mist. :)
And you're right.
Watch your kidney..

Israel, the 51st state..
And Egypt is the 52nd and so and so on..
God, everybody are so convenient seeing only a quarter of a quarter of a quarter of a quarter of the picture.

[GB_FXST]

hope not a repost:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1251145138121

this does not surprise me, as I "read" Mr. Obama's rhetoric early in his campaign as being anti Israel, ...and I could NOT understand why heavily pro Israeli US states, like Florida, voted for Obama.

Tis a shame that American Jews do not have an equally low opinion of him.

[Chimera]

Mr. Obama is breaking ranks with many past presidents, on his approval rating in Israel.

That's called Change.

[RoyB]

American Jews are American citizens.
I doubt their only criteria was how much supportive he will be towards Israel..

[RxOnco]

Tis a shame that American Jews do not have an equally low opinion of him.

Most may have the same opinion, if they were to actually take the time to evaluate the whole picture. However, like many voting blocks here in the U.S., the vast majority do their voting based solely on the "R" or "D" next to the name and not that particular candidate's record or views.

Attendance in Wright's church for 20 years should have turned many Jews away.

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

Tis a shame that American Jews do not have an equally low opinion of him.

American Jews are American Jews, simple as that
I mean, I have issues with Indians from India at times.

[Estopped]

If 96% of Israeli Jews think that Obama is not pro-Israel they need to get their head examined. That's unless they set the bar of being anti-Israel so high that anything less than total capitulation is anti-Israel.

[GiladS]

I don't think he's pro-Israel but that doesn't mean I think he's anti-Israel.

As time passes I think Obama will get to understand Israel better and even his administration will move closer to Israel.

[Chimera]

So far the Obama Adm. does not support Hezbollah, Hamas and Cie.

He is just less pro Israel than other presidents. Some people can't live with this simple fact.

[ting]

If 96% of Israeli Jews think that Obama is not pro-Israel they need to get their head examined. That's unless they set the bar of being anti-Israel so high that anything less than total capitulation is anti-Israel.

x2

Another thing:
One interesting thing is how Obama would poll in the rest of the world vs Israel. I think the numbers would be the opposite.

Bush was the most unpopular in the world, while Israelis loved him.

So who should the President be on good terms with. The Israeli jews or the rest of the world?

[GiladS]

x2

Another thing:
One interesting thing is how Obama would poll in the rest of the world vs Israel. I think the numbers would be the opposite.

Bush was the most unpopular in the world, while Israelis loved him.

So who should the President be on good terms with. The Israeli jews or the rest of the world?

Ah yeah, because any president Israelis would like would automatically be hated by the rest of the world. :roll:

[Zeev]

I remain very doubtful about the viability of this poll, and anyway, if they dont see him as pro israel, I dont think that they think that he,s anti israeli... israel is a nation of educated and instructed people not a third world one where people are ignorant and under the influence of propaganda.

[ting]

Ah yeah, because any president Israelis would like would automatically be hated by the rest of the world. :roll:

I don't think there is anything automatic about it.

[SiEMpre_Leal]

I remain very doubtful about the viability of this poll, and anyway, if they dont see him as pro israel, I dont think that they think that he,s anti israeli... israel is a nation of educated and instructed people not a third world one where people are ignorant and under the influence of propaganda.

I have to comment on your opinion my freind...i say most of the population in every country is or has been under influence by propaganda Israel should not be an exception.

[GiladS]

Bush at the begining of his term was rather isolationist and didn't show signs of caring for ME issues, including those concerning Israel. Many Israelis wished Clinton would have carried on for another term.

Of course then 9/11 happend.

*Waits for a troll to pin that on the Mossad*

[cltknight]

I see Israel as a beacon of liberty (and democracy) in a sea of nations that do not subscribe to the American ideals, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Democracy is not extremely high on my list of must haves, but it is still important. The US should always attempt to support nations with those 3 ideals.

You should move there and renounce your U.S. citizenship.

[commanding]

x2

Another thing:
One interesting thing is how Obama would poll in the rest of the world vs Israel. I think the numbers would be the opposite.

Bush was the most unpopular in the world, while Israelis loved him.

So who should the President be on good terms with. The Israeli jews or the rest of the world?

I suspect the above statement is inaccurate. Most citizens in other countries know little or nothing about our past presidents. What do you think about the job Harding did as president? How about Hoover? How about Chester Arthur?

[Elemental666]

You should move there and renounce your U.S. citizenship.

Ah yes, how very American etc of you. Move to another country if you don't share my opinion.

GOD DAMN FREEDOM HATER THAT COMMANDING.

[RoyB]

You should move there and renounce your U.S. citizenship.
What's the matter, he hurt your feelings?
The man is entitled to have an opinion.. and if you denounce that than maybe you should move away and renounce your citizenship.

[Kaplanr]

If 96% of Israeli Jews think that Obama is not pro-Israel they need to get their head examined. That's unless they set the bar of being anti-Israel so high that anything less than total capitulation is anti-Israel.

Better go back and read the thread title, you're having issues with placing integers.

Have to wonder how random it was, and how the question was phrased. I also wouldn't jump to the reverse conclusion based on the poll -- it doesn't mean 96% think he's anti-Israel.
I happen to think he's where he should be.

[GB_FXST]

American Jews are American citizens.
I doubt their only criteria was how much supportive he will be towards Israel..


;4372448']American Jews are American Jews, simple as that
I mean, I have issues with Indians from India at times.

I cannot argue against the principle underlying the points you guys have made, for such is the nature of democracy.

However, IMO, 78% of American Jews chose poorly on November 4, 2008.


Most may have the same opinion, if they were to actually take the time to evaluate the whole picture. However, like many voting blocks here in the U.S., the vast majority do their voting based solely on the "R" or "D" next to the name and not that particular candidate's record or views.

Attendance in Wright's church for 20 years should have turned many Jews away.

I agree. Many Jews voted a democratic ticket.

Wright is just one of a number of reasons Americans across the board should have voted differently. Ayers, Jackson, Rashidi, the list is long ...

[Player]

If 96% of Israeli Jews think that Obama is not pro-Israel they need to get their head examined. That's unless they set the bar of being anti-Israel so high that anything less than total capitulation is anti-Israel.

There is a difference between ignorance and the need for head examination. Surprise - Nearly all of the world's population isn't less ignorant than Israelis when it comes to politics, it's only the very few who actually have some clue.

Now speaking of the poll itself, actually 96% of the 500 Israelis who took part in this survey might have a point: it's not really a big secret that the policy of Obama is neutral, however I disagree with those who consider him to be anti-Israel.

P.S. IMO Obama is the best president Amerika had since Clinton, this man is devoted to his nation, unlike his predecessor. His foreign policy is very smart actually and the fact that he doesn't blindly support Israel doesn't make him a bad person.

[Estopped]

The US's position on Israel is pro-Israel by default. Relations would literally have to dive down the toilet in order to make US policy anti-Israel. As it stands US policy towards Israel is extremely favourable. Now Israel may not be liking some of the things it is hearing, but at the end of the day things could be a hell of a lot worse. You could say that relative to Bush's tenure Obama is slightly less favourable to Israel's interests.

[ting]

I suspect the above statement is inaccurate. Most citizens in other countries know little or nothing about our past presidents. What do you think about the job Harding did as president? How about Hoover? How about Chester Arthur?

Ah, you got me on what I was afraid of. I thought it would be easiest not to have a discussion on presidents past the previos one. Yes it was inaccurate, but I'm a bit tired, and did'nt want to write a long post on the brilliance of Howard Taft.p-)

[Player]

The US's position on Israel is pro-Israel by default.

This is not as simple as you make it sound, the foreign policy of the US also heavily depends on its government.


As it stands US policy towards Israel is extremely favourable.

Not always.


Now Israel may not be liking some of the things it is hearing, but at the end of the day things could be a hell of a lot worse. You could say that relative to Bush's tenure Obama is slightly less favourable to Israel's interests.

Of course things could be worse, hence Obama is neither pro nor anti Israel.

[cltknight]

What's the matter, he hurt your feelings?
The man is entitled to have an opinion.. and if you denounce that than maybe you should move away and renounce your citizenship.

And iam entitled to mine:)


Ah yes, how very American etc of you. Move to another country if you don't share my opinion.

GOD DAMN FREEDOM HATER THAT COMMANDING.

How about you chillout, I did not know that you have control over opinions in the US:)

[Elemental666]

How about you chillout

I'm chilled as a camel.


I did not know that you have control over opinions in the US:)

Opinions, media, banks, KFC. We control everything.

[Henry's Fork]

American Jews are American citizens.
I doubt their only criteria was how much supportive he will be towards Israel..

Very true. But what surprises me the most, is how Anti-Israel American Jews can be.

For example, the San Anselmo anti zionist, free Palistine and US keep your bloody hands off Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, etc. community center, is ran and staffed largely by people of Jewish descent. Must be all that lefty white guilt?!:roll:

[cltknight]

I'm chilled as a camel.



Opinions, media, banks, KFC. We control everything.

i was referring to yourself:) As for Jews, i have nothing but respect and admiration toward them.
Regarding the poll........>>>>>>>>>

the only people that the President of the United States is accountable to are the American people

[Elemental666]

i was referring to yourself:) As for Jews, i have nothing but respect and admiration toward them.

Don't mind me, I'm just here to be a sarcastic asshole on the weekends. It doesn't fly very well while you're in the army, you see.

[Player]

But what surprises me the most, is how Anti-Israel American Jews can be.

Being Jewish doesn't make one a Zionist, sometimes even exactly the opposite. For example even here in Israel we have some ultra-religious Jews who want to see Israel wiped off the map. Jews are just as much diverse in their opinions as most of other civilized people.

[cltknight]

Being Jewish doesn't make one a Zionist, sometimes even exactly the opposite. For example even here in Israel we have some ultra-religious Jews who want to see Israel wiped off the map. Jews are just as much diverse in their opinions as most of other civilized people.

Are the Neturei Karta allowed to live in Israel???

[RoyB]

Are the Neturei Karta allowed to live in Israel???
Yes, they live in Jerusalem.
And that's how democratic we are..

[Player]

Are the Neturei Karta allowed to live in Israel???

AFAIK yes...

[JJC]

Very true. But what surprises me the most, is how Anti-Israel American Jews can be.

For example, the San Anselmo anti zionist, free Palistine and US keep your bloody hands off Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, etc. community center, is ran and staffed largely by people of Jewish descent. Must be all that lefty white guilt?!:roll:
What surprises me even more is how anti-Israel Israelis themselves can be. Don't know if it's the lefty white guilt for them or trying to emulate Europe/West to feel more accepted? If Zionism is a losing cause in Israeli culture these days, people shouldn't have expectations from American Jews especially the younger generations.

[cltknight]

Yes, they live in Jerusalem.
And that's how democratic we are..


Is there any tension between them and the rest of the Jews?

[matthew.manhorn]

All US presidents are pro-Israel besides Carter.

[Estopped]

Of course things could be worse, hence Obama is neither pro nor anti Israel.

Relatively you might be right. But US policy towards Israel is favourable whichever way you want to cut it. An objective person can see that. Obama's stance is pro-Israel; it just isn't as pro-Israel as the last president. To say he's neutral simply belies the political reality.

[cltknight]

All US presidents are pro-Israel besides Carter.

Carter is the only US president that helped Israel secure its southern borders, through "Peace".

[Player]

What surprises me even more is how anti-Israel Israelis themselves can be. Don't know if it's the lefty white guilt for them or trying to emulate Europe/West to feel more accepted? If Zionism is a losing cause in Israeli culture these days, people shouldn't have expectations from American Jews especially the younger generations.

Your point of view seems to be very black and white - either you are a Zionist or you are anti-Israel. It just doesn't work this way JJC. The reasons why some Israelis oppose Zionism or criticize Israel is no different than the reasons of non-Israelis, in fact it has little to do with being Israeli or not; it is just about your political view and the ability to reason in general.

[HakkaPelitta]

Don't worry Israelis, All US presidents are extremly pro-israel. If Obama is slightly less pro-israel than usual, he is still the most pro-israeli president outside Israel itself.

99,9% of all US goverment officials are totally in love with Israel and would sacrifize their own mothers for the sake of it. So don't worry, everything is under control.

[LEGEND]

Relatively you might be right. But US policy towards Israel is favourable whichever way you want to cut it. An objective person can see that. Obama's stance is pro-Israel; it just isn't as pro-Israel as the last president. To say he's neutral simply belies the political reality.

Obama has no choice even if he wanted to be anti-Israeli. 76 senators signed a letter to him to "continue to support Israel". Going against majority of the senate republican and democrat would be a political suicide.

[Player]

Don't worry Israelis, All US presidents are extremly pro-israel. If Obama is slightly less pro-israel than usual, he is still the most pro-israeli president outside Israel itself.

99,9% of all US goverment officials are totally in love with Israel and would sacrifize their own mothers for the sake of it. So don't worry, everything is under control.

Hey, I heard that the Jew lobby controls Amerika foreign policy, is that true??



:roll:

[Zarak]

Hey, I heard that the Jew lobby controls Amerika foreign policy, is that true??



:roll:

Its certainly got more influence than the Czech or Thai lobby. :p

[JGXL836]

Is there any tension between them and the rest of the Jews?

They are ultra-orthodox and they interact almost only with such ultra-orthodox Jews.

[cltknight]

They are ultra-orthodox and they interact almost only with such ultra-orthodox Jews.

Ah ok, thank you

[GB_FXST]

... snip ...

P.S. IMO Obama is the best president Amerika had since Clinton, this man is devoted to his nation, unlike his predecessor. His foreign policy is very smart actually and the fact that he doesn't blindly support Israel doesn't make him a bad person.

Iran, North Koreas, Russia, Venezuela and Cuba would all agree with that …

Abbas and Fatah are pretty happy too; so happy that they have abandoned the façade of moderation for demands of capitulation ….



Being Jewish doesn't make one a Zionist, sometimes even exactly the opposite. For example even here in Israel we have some ultra-religious Jews who want to see Israel wiped off the map. Jews are just as much diverse in their opinions as most of other civilized people.


In all fairness to the ultra-ultra-orthodox anti-Zionist religious bloc, their rejection of the secular state of Israel does not equate to wanting Israel to be wiped off the map. They have been public that their position should not be construed as advocacy for the hatred or genocide of fellow Jews. And yes, I do believe that the act of wiping a state off the map is code for genocide.

[Russianlynxy]

I am not exactly an Obama fan (definately not a McCain fan either) and he hasn't given any reason so far why I should be.

However I do think it's a good idea for US politics to distance itself from Israel's lobby. It has too strong of an affect on American foreign policy hence some of the decisions made do no always make sense, other than the fact that US and Israel are allies. There should be a partnership... but in no way shape or form should the US assume the role of Israel's guardian angel.

my $0.02

[RoyB]

Its certainly got more influence than the Czech or Thai lobby. :p
How about the oil lobby?

[JJC]

Your point of view seems to be very black and white - either you are a Zionist or you are anti-Israel. It just doesn't work this way JJC. The reasons why some Israelis oppose Zionism or criticize Israel is no different than the reasons of non-Israelis, in fact it has little to do with being Israeli or not; it is just about your political view and the ability to reason in general.
I don't know how many Jews in Israel apposed Zionism in academia or media in 1950s or 60s compared to today and it all has to do with education. And let's be clear "anti-Israel" is not just criticizing Israel's government on how it runs its health-care program or provides oppartunities to minorities.

[cltknight]

I am not exactly an Obama fan (definately not a McCain fan either) and he hasn't given any reason so far why I should be.

However I do think it's a good idea for US politics to distance itself from Israel's lobby. It has too strong of an affect on American foreign policy hence some of the decisions made do no always make sense, other than the fact that US and Israel are allies. There should be a partnership... but in no way shape or form should the US assume the role of Israel's guardian angel.

my $0.02

Well Said!

[GB_FXST]

Obama has no choice even if he wanted to be anti-Israeli. 76 senators signed a letter to him to "continue to support Israel". Going against majority of the senate republican and democrat would be a political suicide.

I think that you are correct.

Political realities have forced and will continue to force Obama to adopt a more centrist position on many issues, both domestic and international.

[Danielotu]

The last time I checked, President Obama was the president of the USA and not Isreal. He answers only to the American people, not the Isrealis.

[JJC]

However I do think it's a good idea for US politics to distance itself from Israel's lobby. my $0.02
Which Israel lobby? The J Street one?

[RoyB]

Thinking that the Jewish lobby has gotten too strong is stupid.

[Snoshi]

I am not exactly an Obama fan (definately not a McCain fan either) and he hasn't given any reason so far why I should be.

However I do think it's a good idea for US politics to distance itself from Israel's lobby. It has too strong of an affect on American foreign policy hence some of the decisions made do no always make sense, other than the fact that US and Israel are allies. There should be a partnership... but in no way shape or form should the US assume the role of Israel's guardian angel.

my $0.02

So when did USA intervene on behalf of Israel? :roll:

[Henry's Fork]

Being Jewish doesn't make one a Zionist, sometimes even exactly the opposite. For example even here in Israel we have some ultra-religious Jews who want to see Israel wiped off the map. Jews are just as much diverse in their opinions as most of other civilized people.

I dig, as these same terrorist loving people i was talking about are for the most part only Jewish by DNA, and not practicing.

Dont know how you put up with the ones who want you wiped off the map and they are living down the street from you.

Makes no sense, but then religion and sense are like oil and water.:|

[Danielotu]

There is a difference between ignorance and the need for head examination. Surprise - Nearly all of the world's population isn't less ignorant than Israelis when it comes to politics, it's only the very few who actually have some clue.

Now speaking of the poll itself, actually 96% of the 500 Israelis who took part in this survey might have a point: it's not really a big secret that the policy of Obama is neutral, however I disagree with those who consider him to be anti-Israel.

P.S. IMO Obama is the best president Amerika had since Clinton, this man is devoted to his nation, unlike his predecessor. His foreign policy is very smart actually and the fact that he doesn't blindly support Israel doesn't make him a bad person.

Well said, sir.

[RoyB]

The last time I checked, President Obama was the president of the USA and not Isreal. He answers only to the American people, not the Isrealis.
Did someone asked him to?
Stop repeating what 'ctlknight' said.

[RoyB]

Dont know how you put up with the ones who want you wiped off the map and they are living down the street from you.

Makes no sense, but then religion and sense are like oil and water.:|
The fruits of democracy..

[cltknight]

So when did USA intervene on behalf of Israel? :roll:

How many times the US vetoed security council resolutions condemning Israel?

[Snoshi]

How many times the US vetoed security council resolutions condemning Israel?

And that matters? Everyone protects their allies.. How is that different from Russia vetoing resolution regarding Iran and etc etc...

Not to mention that most of the UNSC resolution against Israel are made up by Arab countries or their allies.. Its all a game.

[cltknight]

And that matters? Everyone protects their allies.. How is that different from Russia vetoing resolution regarding Iran and etc etc...

Not to mention that most of the UNSC resolution against Israel are made up by Arab countries or their allies.. Its all a game.

I was just responding to a simple question with a simple answer.


So when did USA intervene on behalf of Israel?

Plenty of times.

[Danielotu]

Did someone asked him to?
Stop repeating what 'ctlknight' said.

And what's wrong with my opinion being similar to those of ctlknight and some other forum members?

[Russianlynxy]

And that matters? Everyone protects their allies.. How is that different from Russia vetoing resolution regarding Iran and etc etc...

Not to mention that most of the UNSC resolution against Israel are made up by Arab countries or their allies.. Its all a game.

You're making it more complicated than it actually is, Snoshi.
What does Russia have to do with this? Last I remember they refused to send S-300 systems to Iran...

[Snoshi]

Plenty of times.

So stopping UNSC resolutions=Guardian Angel?


You're making it more complicated than it actually is, Snoshi.
What does Russia have to do with this? Last I remember they refused to send S-300 systems to Iran...
It has nothing to do with it.. I just said that US vetoing resolution that are directed against Israel is no different then any other major players that do the same, but for other countries.

[GB_FXST]

I am not exactly an Obama fan (definately not a McCain fan either) and he hasn't given any reason so far why I should be.

However I do think it's a good idea for US politics to distance itself from Israel's lobby. It has too strong of an affect on American foreign policy hence some of the decisions made do no always make sense, other than the fact that US and Israel are allies. There should be a partnership... but in no way shape or form should the US assume the role of Israel's guardian angel.

my $0.02



The last time I checked, President Obama was the president of the USA and not Isreal. He answers only to the American people, not the Isrealis.


The article in reference is not about lobbying in the US. Rather, the issue is that Obama’s ability to broker an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is related to how Israeli’s perceive him.




… snip …

A much-cited Post poll published on June 19 that put the first figure at 6% had been cited by top officials in both the White House and the Prime Minister's Office as the catalyst for recent American efforts to improve the American-Israeli relationship. But the new poll proves that those efforts have not improved Obama's reputation among Israelis.

The earlier poll, taken shortly after Obama reached out to the Muslim world in a landmark address in Cairo, found that 50% of those sampled considered the administration's policies more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, and 36% said the policies were neutral. The remaining 8% did not express an opinion.

Obama's popularity among Israelis has been plummeting since a May 17 Post poll on the eve of a meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Obama at the White House. In that poll, 31% labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian, 40% said he was neutral, and 15% declined to give an opinion.

… snip …

[cltknight]

So stopping UNSC resolutions=Guardian Angel?


It has nothing to do with it.. I just said that US vetoing resolution that are directed against Israel is no different then any other major players that do the same, but for other countries.

Let's not go back to the old " who is helping who " war:)

To answer your question, YES

Stopping UNSC resolutions+Annual aid+ US. commitment to israel qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors = GUARDIAN ANGEL.

[Snoshi]

Stopping UNSC resolutions+Annual aid+ US. commitment to israel qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors = GUARDIAN ANGEL.

Egypt also gets aid.. It also gets US arms.. Why dont you focus on that? I mean this is the thing that most people forget or just ignore..

[cltknight]

Egypt also gets aid.. It also gets US arms.. Why dont you focus on that? I mean this is the thing that most people forget or just ignore..

Keep digging that hole :cantbeli:

[TR1]

Egypt also gets aid.. It also gets US arms.. Why dont you focus on that? I mean this is the thing that most people forget or just ignore..
So US support and aid to Egypt is no greater than the same towards Israel? Interesting....

[Zarak]

Egypt also gets aid.. It also gets US arms.. Why dont you focus on that? I mean this is the thing that most people forget or just ignore..

Egypt gets 54% of the FMF money that Israel gets and 71% of the economic aid money. In total, Israel gets 51.14% of the TOTAL FMF money.

I see your point. But its hardly an equal relationship.

[Snoshi]

Keep digging that hole :cantbeli:

Nope.. Its you that is confused.. USA is no way a guardian angel of Israel... Stopping UNSC resolutions is important and Israel is thankful for that, but they are mostly empty words.. Israel can also survive without US aid.. So saying that USA is the guardian angel of Israel is incorrect.

[RoyB]

So US support and aid to Egypt is no greater than the same towards Israel? Interesting....
It isn't greater, but it isn't nothing too.
For some odd reason people tend to pick only on Israel's aid and forget about everybody else..

[Snoshi]

Egypt gets 54% of the FMF money that Israel gets and 71% of the economic aid money. In total, Israel gets 51.14% of the TOTAL FMF money.

I see your point. But its hardly an equal relationship.

The point is that most people who whine about Jewish lobbies, US military aid to Israel etc always tend to ignore that US gives aid to Egypt..

[Zarak]

The point is that most people who whine about Jewish lobbies, US military aid to Israel etc always tend to ignore that US gives aid to Egypt..

Perhaps because Israel receives more FMF money individually than the entire rest of the world combined?

[RoyB]

Perhaps because Israel receives more FMF money individually than the entire rest of the world combined?
Yes, I'm sure that's the reason.
Its not like the rest of world is getting small pennies..

[squidO]

So US support and aid to Egypt is no greater than the same towards Israel? Interesting....
Actually, US financial support to the arabs around Israel (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, PA) is greater then the same to Israel.

[Zarak]

Actually, US support to the arabs around Israel (Egypr, Jordan, Lebanon, PA) summary is greater then the same to Israel.

Source? http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/sat/c14560.htm The State Department says you're a retard who makes 'facts' up. Israel getting over 50% of the FMF money ($2.4bn out of $4.536bn in 2008) means that it is impossible for the evil a-rabs to get more than Israel.

[cltknight]

Egypt gets 54% of the FMF money that Israel gets and 71% of the economic aid money. In total, Israel gets 51.14% of the TOTAL FMF money.

I see your point. But its hardly an equal relationship.

The magic word is "quality" For example, The F16's that the Egyptians got are all downgraded versions of the Israeli ones.

[Elbs]

The magic word is "quality" For example, The F16's that the Egyptians got are all downgraded versions of the Israeli ones.

You have a source for that, wiseguy?

Egypt got basic F-16s, probably without nuclear wiring on the USAF examples.

Israel's Vipers are more capable because they've been upgradedlocally by the Israelis, who know a thing or two about upgrading aircraft.

[cltknight]

Nope.. Its you that is confused.. USA is no way a guardian angel of Israel... Stopping UNSC resolutions is important and Israel is thankful for that, but they are mostly empty words.. Israel can also survive without US aid.. So saying that USA is the guardian angel of Israel is incorrect.

Really:) Israel will be just fine without US support, but would it be able to keep its qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors? Or maybe Russia or China will use their vetoes for Israel.

[Zarak]

You have a source for that, wiseguy?

Egypt got basic F-16s, probably without nuclear wiring on the USAF examples.

Israel's Vipers are more capable because they've been upgradedlocally by the Israelis, who know a thing or two about upgrading aircraft.

Israel:

Block 5 - 1980-1981
Block 10 - 1980-1981
Block 30 - 1986-1988
Block 40 - 1991-1993
Block 1,5,10 - 1994
Block 52 - 2003-2009

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article7.html

Egypt:

Block 15 - 1982-1983
Block 32 - 1986-1987
Block 40 -1991-2002

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article4.html

Hardly conclusive, tbh. Looks roughly even, until recently. Although lets not forget that Egypt has never been supplied with AIM-120 AMRAAMs for its fighters, while Israel has. And Israel was supplied with F-15s. And a lot more F-16s in total.

The AMRAAMs vs. Sparrows is a pretty huge advantage, more so than what Block the aircraft is.

*shrug*

[cltknight]

Israel:

Block 5 - 1980-1981
Block 10 - 1980-1981
Block 30 - 1986-1988
Block 40 - 1991-1993
Block 1,5,10 - 1994
Block 52 - 2003-2009

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article7.html

Egypt:

Block 15 - 1982-1983
Block 32 - 1986-1987
Block 40 -1991-2002

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article4.html

Hardly conclusive, tbh. Looks roughly even, until recently. Although lets not forget that Egypt has never been supplied with AIM-120 AMRAAMs for its fighters, while Israel has. And Israel was supplied with F-15s. And a lot more F-16s in total.

*shrug*


You beat me to it :) Again, the US is committed to Israel qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors, and would never do anything that would jeopardize that advantage. Israel military industry is a pretty good one, but not to the point to maintain the current advantage over its neighbors.

[Elbs]

You beat me to it :) Again, the US is committed to Israel qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors, and would never do anything that would jeopardize that advantage.

And.... this is a problem to you why?

[GB_FXST]

Let's not go back to the old " who is helping who " war:)

To answer your question, YES

Stopping UNSC resolutions+Annual aid+ US. commitment to israel qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors = GUARDIAN ANGEL.


I am curious as to whether you believe the topic in the following thread is another Guardian Angel example.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=164017

[squidO]

Source? http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/sat/c14560.htm The State Department says you're a retard who makes 'facts' up. Israel getting over 50% of the FMF money ($2.4bn out of $4.536bn in 2008) means that it is impossible for the evil a-rabs to get more than Israel.
OMG, all the time the same...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4068556&postcount=108

Besides FMF, there are mаny other US aid programms.

[cltknight]

And.... this is a problem to you why?

Not at all:)

[Snoshi]

Israel military industry is a pretty good one, but not to the point to maintain the current advantage over its neighbors.

Over which neighbours? Syria?

[cltknight]

I am curious as to whether you believe the topic in the following thread is another Guardian Angel example.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=164017

And your point is? Ok let me word it differently for you.

The US is the superpower, and not the other way around, The US does not need Israel, but Israel needs the US.

[cltknight]

Over which neighbours? Syria?

Hate to mess with your ego, but last time i checked Israel couldn't hold on to a small Village" bint jebil" for a full day and failed to accomplish any of its initial goals, so if i were you, i would not underestimate " the enemy"

[Ayub -al -Somal]

I think the American right wing people of jewish background are trying to blur some of the lines here .
How is Obama good for Isreal ? Well I have changed my mind since he's been elected president and I am willing to recognize it , live in peace and prosperity with the bani Isreal and respect them also insha Allah .{ I mean here,there are a lot of people like me :)}

[Peanut]

Looks like 96% of Israeli Jews are fairly uninformed.

[3rdMillhouse]

hope not a repost:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1251145138121

this does not surprise me, as I "read" Mr. Obama's rhetoric early in his campaign as being anti Israel, ...and I could NOT understand why heavily pro Israeli US states, like Florida, voted for Obama.

Well, aparently this research claims that 4% of Israel's jewish population is completely insane.


Looks like 96% of Israeli Jews are fairly uninformed.

Wrong. Given that George "Walker the Texas Ranger" Bush was the best US president for ISrael, in the last 20 years, I wouldn't blame them for being suspicious of Obama.

[Snoshi]

Hate to mess with your ego, but last time i checked Israel couldn't hold on to a small Village" bint jebil" for a full day and failed to accomplish any of its initial goals, so if i were you, i would not underestimate " the enemy"

Now this is a flamebait... I dont see what this has anything to do with the thread and we discussed Lebanese war in other threads..

I quoted your post and asked you what neigbours you talk about.

[JJC]

How is Obama good for Isreal ? Well I have changed my mind since he's been elected president and I am willing to recognize it , live in peace and prosperity with the bani Isreal and respect them also insha Allah .{ I mean here,there are a lot of people like me :)}
Are you saying that in 8 years of Bush era, you would not recognize Israel, but as soon as Obama came to power, you see prosperity and recognize Israel now? (And people say Obama is not Jesus.)

[cltknight]

Now this is a flamebait... I dont see what this has anything to do with the thread and we discussed Lebanese war in other threads..

I quoted your post and asked you what neigbours you talk about.

I thought you were making fun of their capabilities.

[GB_FXST]

And your point is? Ok let me word it differently for you.

The US is the superpower, and not the other way around, The US does not need Israel, but Israel needs the US.

You may not have understood my question, or I phrased it poorly, so please let me try again.

Do you think that the US will be acting as Israel’s Guardian Angel if the US positions ABM’s in Israel?

I am not trying to bait you. Instead, I am trying to really understand the boundaries of what constitutes for you a Guardian Angel relationship between the US and Israel.

Along that line of thought, is the US a Guardian Angel to say, NATO Countries, Japan, or S. Korea?

[Peanut]

Well, aparently this research claims that 4% of Israel's jewish population is completely insane.



Wrong. Given that George "Walker the Texas Ranger" Bush was the best US president for ISrael, in the last 20 years, I wouldn't blame them for being suspicious of Obama.

Yea buddy, just because they have a good excuse, doesn't mean they're not uninformed.

Obama has no reason to be "Anti-Israel". The whole American agenda is Pro-Israel.

[Ayub -al -Somal]

JJC what I am saying is , for the FIRST time in Obama is there somebody I can trust and see as an honest broker .

[Estopped]

Egypt also gets aid.. It also gets US arms.. Why dont you focus on that? I mean this is the thing that most people forget or just ignore..

Aid to Egypt and Jordan is simply an extension of aid to Israel. It may not be going into Israeli coffers but it serves to benefit Israel and as a means of making sure they do as they're told.

[cltknight]

Do you think that the US will be acting as Israel’s Guardian Angel if the US positions ABM’s in Israel?

Yes, the battery will defend Israel as well, and will probably be financed by the US.


NATO Countries, Japan, or S. Korea?

Yes, let's not forget that The US has already saved the world Twice ( WW1&2).

[OrangeWolf]

Aid to Egypt and Jordan is simply an extension of aid to Israel. It may not be going into Israeli coffers but it serves to benefit Israel and as a means of making sure they do as they're told.

Oh my god, trying to have more stable countries not run by the Muslim Brotherhood or other fundamentalist hotheads. The outrage!

[GB_FXST]

Yes, the battery will defend Israel as well.



Yes, let's not forget that The US has already saved the world Twice ( WW1&2).

Thank you for your response.

[GB_FXST]

Aid to Egypt and Jordan is simply an extension of aid to Israel. It may not be going into Israeli coffers but it serves to benefit Israel and as a means of making sure they do as they're told.

I'll be sure to remember this post if Egyptian M1A1's and F16's cross into Israel.

[GiladS]

Aid to Egypt and Jordan is simply an extension of aid to Israel. It may not be going into Israeli coffers but it serves to benefit Israel and as a means of making sure they do as they're told.

Yes, because everyone knows that when this aid program started the U.S had no interest in keeping these countries away from the USSR or (in present day) preserving these pro-West regimes in the face of Islamic fundamentalism.

It's all in Israel's benefit boys and girls... :roll:

[Estopped]

I'll be sure to remember this post if Egyptian M1A1's and F16's cross into Israel.

I'm 97% sure we'll never see that happen.

[Estopped]

Yes, because everyone knows that when this aid program started the U.S had no interest in keeping these countries away from the USSR or (in present day) preserving these pro-West regimes in the face of Islamic fundamentalism.

It's all in Israel's benefit boys and girls... :roll:

Are you trying to say its not in Israel's interest for Egypt not to be run by the muslim brotherhood?

[GiladS]

Are you trying to say its not in Israel's interest for Egypt not to be run by the muslim brotherhood?

It is in Israel's interest as well as the US. Funny how our interests match... ain't it?

[GiladS]

I'm 97% sure we'll never see that happen.

So you are 97% sure Mubarak will be in good health for a long time, won't be toppeled or his succeeder will be just as good.

In the Middle East those are high stakes my friend.

[Estopped]

It is in Israel's interest as well as the US. Funny how our interests match... ain't it?

Who's to say Egypt would be that high of a priority if it didn't border Israel.

[OrangeWolf]

Are you trying to say its not in Israel's interest for Egypt not to be run by the muslim brotherhood?

Yeah but that's like in everyone's interest except for ****head Islamists and some corrupt power hungry friends of theirs in Gaza.

[GiladS]

Who's to say Egypt would be that high of a priority if it didn't border Israel.

Suez Canal, rings a bell?

[cltknight]

So you are 97% sure Mubarak will be in good health for a long time, won't be toppeled or his succeeder will be just as good.

In the Middle East those are high stakes my friend.

What's funny is the way you are trying to make it look like the US needs Israel and not the other way around.FYI the US became a super power before the Birth of israel in modern times. As for Egypt or Jordan, the US can care less, whos is power there if it was not for Israel, so give me a break.

Suez Canal can be re-opened in 24 hours, if the Egyptians try to block it :)

[GiladS]

What's funny is the way you are trying to make it look like the US needs Israel and not the other way around.FYI the US became a super power before the Birth of israel in modern times. As Egypt or Jordan, the US can care less, whos is power there if it was not for Israel, so give me a break.

Israel is a strtegic asset, whether you like it or not.

Yoram Ettinger sums it up rather well:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3084569,00.html




Suez Canal can be re-opened in 24 hours, if the Egyptians try to block it


At what cost?

I advise you to stop perpetuating the stigma of the cocky American.

[Elbs]

What's funny is the way you are trying to make it look like the US needs Israel and not the other way around.FYI the US became a super power before the Birth of israel in modern times. As Egypt or Jordan, the US can care less, whos is power there if it was not for Israel, so give me a break.

Suez Canal can be re-opened in 24 hours, if the Egyptians try to block it :)

I have no idea what you're getting at. No one is saying the US "neeeeeeds" Israel. It's been pointed out that Israeli interests and US interests in the regions are similar. Quit trying to pick a fight. Putting little smileys at the end of every post doesn't make your point any more interesting...

[GB_FXST]

I'm 97% sure we'll never see that happen.

The Egyptian army may disagree with your projection as they tend to war-game exclusively against Israel.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/38391

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Egypt.html

[cltknight]

Israel is a strtegic asset, whether you like it or not.

Yoram Ettinger sums it up rather well:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3084569,00.html

At what cost?

I advise you to stop perpetuating the stigma of the cocky American.

strategic asset? Maybe during the cold war but not in nowadays.
More like a strategic liability.

Let's go back to the original subject.

Peace out.

[GiladS]

strategic asset? Maybe during the cold war but not in nowadays.
More like a strategic liability.


So I take it that you didn't read Ettinger's column... too bad.

As long as the Middle East is on the agenda, Israel will be an asset.

[Zarak]

So I take it that you didn't read Ettinger's column... too bad.

As long as the Middle East is on the agenda, Israel will be an asset.

Did Israel send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? How many Taliban or Al Qaeda has Israel killed? Israel's enemies aren't America's enemies, Islamic terror isn't homogeneous. Hezbollah has never attacked America. Which isn't to say I don't hope that Israel kills all those who attack it.

Personally, I don't think its an asset or a liability. Israel 'helps' America in some ways (although not anywhere near on the level of nations like the UK or Australia) and also hurts America (Arab resentment towards America's support for Israel).

[deagle]

so, are the other 96 % retarded or what ?

we should wonder if israel is pro-USA.

[Hollis]

Did Israel send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? How many Taliban or Al Qaeda has Israel killed? Israel's enemies aren't America's enemies, Islamic terror isn't homogeneous. Hezbollah has never attacked America. Which isn't to say I don't hope that Israel kills all those who attack it.

Personally, I don't think its an asset or a liability. Israel 'helps' America in some ways (although not anywhere near on the level of nations like the UK or Australia) and also hurts America (Arab resentment towards America's support for Israel).


1) You are clearly not knowledgeable about Israel and Iraq and..

2) Hezbullah has attack US assets and is responsible for about 250 Americans being killed.

I'll let you find out why.

[Zarak]

1) You are clearly not knowledgeable about Israel and Iraq and..

2) Hezbullah has attack US assets and is responsible for about 250 Americans being killed.

I'll let you find out why.

Explain to me about Israel and Iraq. Operation Opera occurred while Iraq was a United States ally...

I meant recently, although I admit I forgot about the barracks bombing. Hezbollah, Fatah, and Hamas aren't responsible for 9/11 or the USS Cole Bombing or what's happening in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Hollis]

Explain to me about Israel and Iraq. Operation Opera occurred while Iraq was a United States ally...

I meant recently, although I admit I forgot about the barracks bombing. Hezbollah, Fatah, and Hamas aren't responsible for 9/11 or the USS Cole Bombing or what's happening in Iraq or Afghanistan.


Saddam was never a US ally, he was always in the Soviet court. Hez is a proxy of Iran, you can go from there. Unless you believe in all the anti-US cold war stuff that you read.


BTW, The US supplied Iran during the Iran/Iraq war until 1985. Look at the weapons sytems and you can go from there. OH BTW, don't post the Cheney shaking hands of Saddam to mean anything more than it is. Nikita K, visited the US during the heights of the Cold War, even visited Disney Land, the SU was not a ally of the US either.

[Zarak]

Saddam was never a US ally, he was always in the Soviet court. Hez is a proxy of Iran, you can go from there. Unless you believe in all the anti-US cold war stuff that you read.


BTW, The US supplied Iran during the Iran/Iraq war until 1985. Look at the weapons sytems and you can go from there. OH BTW, don't post the Cheney shaking hands of Saddam to mean anything more than it is. Nikita K, visited the US during the heights of the Cold War, even visited Disney Land, the SU was not a ally of the US either.

The United States reluctantly supplied Iran (through Israel) in an extremely retarded bid to get hostages returned. Don't make that out to be support for Iran over Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war when I know you know that's not the case.

"In 1985, the Reagan Administration agreed to secretly sell weapons to Iran to win support for the freeing of American hostages being held by terrorists in Lebanon."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/iraniraq.html

At any rate, Iraq certainly wasn't hostile to America when Operation Opera occurred - let alone some sort of enemy.

"The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. "

"Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East."

"Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Etc.

[Universal_Soldier]

so, are the other 96 % retarded or what ?

we should wonder if israel is pro-USA.

Obama is not President of Israel, so I wonder what's the purpose these polls?

[Difool]

Saddam was never a US ally, he was always in the Soviet court.
There's not only black and white. In the Iraq vs. Iran war he's been supported by the U.S. of A.


Hez is a proxy of Iran, you can go from there. Unless you believe in all the anti-US cold war stuff that you read. While Iran is a islamistic and shiite regime, Saddam's been the ruler of a secular state dominated by his sunite clans with suppressing shiites. If I remember correctly his former vice president is christian. The christians and jews in Iraq had even been better off than today.


BTW, The US supplied Iran during the Iran/Iraq war until 1985. Look at the weapons sytems and you can go from there. Indeed, the U.S.A. supported first one side and then the other.

[IraGlacialis]

There is a next-to-nil chance that Obama will ever renounce support for Israel, despite his overtures to the Muslim nations. Of course he won't be a unconditional as GWB, and he is more likely to butt heads with Netenyehu than Bush was with Sharon or Olmert. But ties will likely be mainted with Isreal, for practical reasons (it will be politcal suicide with Congress if not) and philosophical (historical ties).
Now if it is rated on his ability to broker peace between Israel and Palestine, I can see where the numbers come from. He is still relatively unexperienced in this arena, so some skeptecism is warrented. Also, his overtures to the Muslim nations and relatively quiet stance on Israel in general could be the reasoning for the 51% saying he is pro-Palestine.

Nikita K, visited the US during the heights of the Cold War, even visited Disney Land, the SU was not a ally of the US either.Slightly off-topic: I thought that while Khrushchev was in the US, he never got to visit Disneyland, even throwing a complete fit in public over it.

[Yoni-R]

What's funny is the way you are trying to make it look like the US needs Israel and not the other way around.FYI the US became a super power before the Birth of israel in modern times. As for Egypt or Jordan, the US can care less, whos is power there if it was not for Israel, so give me a break.

Suez Canal can be re-opened in 24 hours, if the Egyptians try to block it :)

now whos under-estimating a potential enemy?

[Yoni-R]

Did Israel send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? How many Taliban or Al Qaeda has Israel killed? Israel's enemies aren't America's enemies, Islamic terror isn't homogeneous. Hezbollah has never attacked America. Which isn't to say I don't hope that Israel kills all those who attack it.

Personally, I don't think its an asset or a liability. Israel 'helps' America in some ways (although not anywhere near on the level of nations like the UK or Australia) and also hurts America (Arab resentment towards America's support for Israel).

there are reasons why israel didnt send troops. and HA not attacking the US??? its obvious you are very ignorant on these issue. stop asking your rhetorical, sacrastic questions and do some research to understand the issue. if you still dont know whats going on, ask a serious question.

[RoyB]

Really:) Israel will be just fine without US support, but would it be able to keep its qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors? Or maybe Russia or China will use their vetoes for Israel.
Israel managed to take care of itself before the US support, so drop your ego.

And your point is? Ok let me word it differently for you.

The US is the superpower, and not the other way around, The US does not need Israel, but Israel needs the US.
Oh man, you're so naive.
Than why does the US supply Israel with billions of aid money?
Oh right, its because of the Jewish lobby.

Hate to mess with your ego, but last time i checked Israel couldn't hold on to a small Village" bint jebil" for a full day and failed to accomplish any of its initial goals, so if i were you, i would not underestimate " the enemy"
You really an ass.
Before you put up false and idiotic claims like these I suggest that you'll do a little research before.
I would hate to burst your bubble with similar difficulties your own mighty US and A are facing..

Yes, the battery will defend Israel as well, and will probably be financed by the US.
Well, it'll be operated by US personal..
Israel didn't ask the US to put it there.

Yes, let's not forget that The US has already saved the world Twice ( WW1&2).
Hahahahahhaha rofl.
For god's sake, wake up already.
You have this common problem, the 'US is so awesome' syndrome.. better treat it before it goes out of control.(or it already is?).

What's funny is the way you are trying to make it look like the US needs Israel and not the other way around.FYI the US became a super power before the Birth of israel in modern times. As for Egypt or Jordan, the US can care less, whos is power there if it was not for Israel, so give me a break.
Do your homework, because you don't know shiit.
And we all should be happy that you're not the one making the decisions in the US government.

Suez Canal can be re-opened in 24 hours, if the Egyptians try to block it :)
Do you think that everything is so easy when you're a 'super power'?
Being a super power doesn't mean you can take over the world or do whatever you want..

strategic asset? Maybe during the cold war but not in nowadays.
More like a strategic liability.

Let's go back to the original subject.

Peace out.
A strategic liability that gets billions of dollars from the US.. a fact that you enjoy so much throwing in our faces over and over again.

Did Israel send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? How many Taliban or Al Qaeda has Israel killed? Israel's enemies aren't America's enemies, Islamic terror isn't homogeneous. Hezbollah has never attacked America. Which isn't to say I don't hope that Israel kills all those who attack it.
Wrong. wrong. wrong.

Personally, I don't think its an asset or a liability. Israel 'helps' America in some ways (although not anywhere near on the level of nations like the UK or Australia) and also hurts America (Arab resentment towards America's support for Israel).
Wrong. wrong. wrong.

[Snoshi]

Did Israel send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? How many Taliban or Al Qaeda has Israel killed? Israel's enemies aren't America's enemies, Islamic terror isn't homogeneous. Hezbollah has never attacked America. Which isn't to say I don't hope that Israel kills all those who attack it.

First of all.. Do you really beliave that IDF troops in Iraq or Astan would be beneficial for the US and coalition? :roll:

2nd.. If not Israel Hamas or HZB would choose someone else as their enemy be it USA or France since these org's need an enemy to survive.

[GiladS]

Did Israel send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? How many Taliban or Al Qaeda has Israel killed?

Is the U.S interested in having Israeli troops on the ground? After all you are rather sensitive to Arab/Muslim sentiments regarding such issue. Heck, there was a row over U.S military in Iraq using Israel made bullets!
As if for some reason an Arab gets killed by an Israeli bullet it's as if his body was defiled, his wife raped and children murderd.



Israel's enemies aren't America's enemies, Islamic terror isn't homogeneous.


When it comes to hating both Israel and the U.S it is very homogeneous.

AQ has targeted and killed Israelis in Kenya and the Sinai so I recommend you get your fact straight.



Hezbollah has never attacked America.


TWA 847?

1983 Beirut barracks bombing?

So sure, unlike AQ they haven't attacked American soil... but they did kill their fare share of Americans.

[RoyB]

TWA 847?

1983 Beirut barracks bombing?

So sure, unlike AQ they haven't attacked American soil... but they did kill their fare share of Americans.
Not yet.
Hizballah cells/Hizballah connected cells were discovered on American soil not so long ago..

[IsraDani]

I find this poll misleading.

[Schmeiser]

Obama is not "pro" to anyone...Albanians from Kosovo don't have the same support now with Obama as they had during the time of Bush...

(http://translate.google.hr/translate_s?hl=hr&sl=hr&tl=en&q=btf%0A%0A&source=translation_link)

[Wahnsinn]

Yes, let's not forget that The US has already saved the world Twice ( WW1&2).

The US didn't save the world! rofl

[Kaplanr]

Is there any tension between them and the rest of the Jews?

Remember the old comeback: Does the Pope **** in the woods? Is a bear Catholic?
Without derailing the thread, take a look here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145144319&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[commanding]

You may not have understood my question, or I phrased it poorly, so please let me try again.

Do you think that the US will be acting as Israel’s Guardian Angel if the US positions ABM’s in Israel?

I am not trying to bait you. Instead, I am trying to really understand the boundaries of what constitutes for you a Guardian Angel relationship between the US and Israel.

Along that line of thought, is the US a Guardian Angel to say, NATO Countries, Japan, or S. Korea?

This is a good question, slightly tangential to the topic, but good. I have often wondered what (my country) the USA would do, if Israel were attacked with an atomic weapon, say by AQ. There are a thousand scenarios, which COULD happen. Be it Israel, South Korea, Japan, etc. Industrialized nations, that could be attacked, ...to me more likely a non-nation such as Al Qaeda, would attack directly, or indirectly by having say a Saudi air force pilot attack Israel with a hijacked nuclear device. The pressure on the USA and Israel would be heavy, and I am unsure of the appropriate response by USA.

[GB_FXST]

Obama is not President of Israel, so I wonder what's the purpose these polls?

Objectively speaking, anyone who believes in Obama’s vision of mid-east peace should be troubled by the results of this poll.

This poll is saying that the majority of Israeli’s do not endorse Obama’s current approach. And if the majority of Israelis do not endorse it, it will not happen.

I have stated my own opinion on Obama at the beginning of the thread. But, to reiterate, I think that Israeli’s are correct to reject Obama as a peacemaker. Obama’s tacit dismissal of the historical roots of Zionism and linkage of the Holocaust and the “Naqba” will haunt his efforts for a long time to come.

[cltknight]

An abstract from a very interesting article written by an Israeli:


If any American president were to give a small cough and say, in a half-whisper, "hmm, I am considering my steps concerning Israel," our country's excellent economic situation would immediately turn topsy-turvy. Israel's international credit line would instantly freeze, the dollar would soar, and so would our inflation rate. Our balance of payments surplus would become a deficit and foreign investment would flee Israel many times faster than it came. After all, the world knows that without American backing, tiny Israel would quickly revert to its natural proportions.



After all, were it not for America's veto in the United Nations Security Council, economic sanctions, a la South Africa during its apartheid regime, would have been imposed on Israel long ago.

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/04/israeli-dependence-day-and-us-aid.html

Having said that, i have no problem with the US aid to Israel, just don't lecture me on how much the US is dependent on Israel.

[GB_FXST]

This is a good question, slightly tangential to the topic, but good. I have often wondered what (my country) the USA would do, if Israel were attacked with an atomic weapon, say by AQ. There are a thousand scenarios, which COULD happen. Be it Israel, South Korea, Japan, etc. Industrialized nations, that could be attacked, ...to me more likely a non-nation such as Al Qaeda, would attack directly, or indirectly by having say a Saudi air force pilot attack Israel with a hijacked nuclear device. The pressure on the USA and Israel would be heavy, and I am unsure of the appropriate response by USA.

Despite some bombastic campaigning comments by Hillary, I do not think that this administration will respond in kind to a nuclear attack on an allied state.

I do not think that the US can be termed a Guardian Angel, notwithstanding the fact that the US provides Israel with tremendous and critical aid and assistance.

IMHO, the label Guardian Angel implies that the US has gone or will go into harms way – i.e., sent US Armed Forces to fight – on behalf of Israel. While I appreciative the contribution made by US Patriot crews stationed in Israel during Desert Storm, that contribution is fundamentally dissimilar to US sacrifices made for S. Korea, S. Vietnam or Western Europe. The US did serve as a Guardian Angel to those countries.

But the perception that the US is Israel’s Guardian Angel is critically interesting; because it is a misapplied but terribly emotive and evocative label.

[Snoshi]

An abstract from a very interesting article written by an israeli:



http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/04/israeli-dependence-day-and-us-aid.html

Having said that, i have no problem with the US aid to Israel, just don't lecture me on how much the US is dependent on Israel.

Good job on quoting an article of a leftists that has no economic understanding of anything at all..

This already shows the aim of the article..



Although there are no official statistics, more Israelis apparently waved their national flag this past Independence Day. Perhaps this was out of a longing for a more innocent period, when the corrupt at least felt ashamed of their deeds, or perhaps the reason was that Bank Hapoalim distributed free flags. However, there was another phenomenon, unparalleled in any other nation: The Stars and Stripes were flown alongside the national flag. This is essentially a declaration that Israelis cannot celebrate their own independence day without remembering that their country's existence is wholly dependent on American backing.

[commanding]

Objectively speaking, anyone who believes in Obama’s vision of mid-east peace should be troubled by the results of this poll.

This poll is saying that the majority of Israeli’s do not endorse Obama’s current approach. And if the majority of Israelis do not endorse it, it will not happen.

I have stated my own opinion on Obama at the beginning of the thread. But, to reiterate, I think that Israeli’s are correct to reject Obama as a peacemaker. Obama’s tacit dismissal of the historical roots of Zionism and linkage of the Holocaust and the “Naqba” will haunt his efforts for a long time to come.
I agree that Obama's views/mindset on Israel will destroy any efforts at mideast peace, during his presidency. I can't get into his mind to figure out why he is apparently so anti Israel, other than perhaps he is sucking up to the Arab states (remember him bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia?) with hopes of improving US relations to arab states.
Never the less, there are huge numbers of citizens in the USA who do support Israel and desire peace. So let's just keep our fingers crossed that nothing serious upsets the applecart during Obama's 4 or 8 years in office.

[cltknight]

Good job on quoting an article of a leftists that has no economic understanding of anything at all..

This already shows the aim of the article..


Keep digging that hole buddy :)

[GB_FXST]

An abstract from a very interesting article written by an Israeli:



http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/04/israeli-dependence-day-and-us-aid.html

Having said that, i have no problem with the US aid to Israel, just don't lecture me on how much the US is dependent on Israel.

I do not think that anyone here disputes the fact that the US provides Israel with tremendous and critical support.

I do not think that anyone here would dispute the fact the reduction or removal of such support would have a dramatic impact on Israel.

Conversely, that support does not mean that Israelis should unequivocally support Obama.

[GB_FXST]

I agree that Obama's views/mindset on Israel will destroy any efforts at mideast peace, during his presidency. I can't get into his mind to figure out why he is apparently so anti Israel, other than perhaps he is sucking up to the Arab states (remember him bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia?) with hopes of improving US relations to arab states.
Never the less, there are huge numbers of citizens in the USA who do support Israel and desire peace. So let's just keep our fingers crossed that nothing serious upsets the applecart during Obama's 4 or 8 years in office.


Four years of Obama's tenure is more than enough ... :)

[Hollis]

Despite some bombastic campaigning comments by Hillary, I do not think that this administration will respond in kind to a nuclear attack on an allied state.


I think part of the formula is that every country will do what is in their (perceived) best interests. Meaning US will not jeopardize it's self interest for any other country. Again this is with all countries.

A nuclear attack probably would be responded to in a measure response. Iran is not the Soviet Union or China, so a response is much more possible. Would it be a nuclear response or a regime change? That would be argued by people much more in the know than any of us.

During the '73 October war, the Soviets did threaten to use their troops in the conflict, in response it was one of the very few time the US went to DEFCON offically 2, but more than likely 1. The Soviets backed off. Now Iran is not a nuclear power, if they could respond to the US, it would probably be in the manner they have already mentioned. Iran has a lot more to worry about than Israel in this situation. The comments from Ahemdinadinnerjacket has only confirmed this. Iran does not have a major power as a backer. I doubt Russia would go to bat for Iran.

So we have Israel with a major power as a committed ally, We have Iran with NK? and maybe some trading partners. I don't think Iran will initiate a nuclear attack on Israel. They might if Israel hit them first. If Israel initiate a preemptive strike depending on US support, agreement or knowledge before hand of the strike would effect US response to any retalitory attack by Iran. Other factors is the responses and support of other countries in the ME. Saudis could aid Israel and add to how the US would respond.

I think a lot of Iran's posturing is out of fear of coming out really bad, more than their ability to successfully resists a Israeli preemptive strike and/or respond in kind.

[GB_FXST]

I think part of the formula is that every country will do what is in their (perceived) best interests. Meaning US will not jeopardize it's self interest for any other country. Again this is with all countries.

A nuclear attack probably would be responded to in a measure response. Iran is not the Soviet Union or China, so a response is much more possible. Would it be a nuclear response or a regime change? That would be argued by people much more in the know than any of us.

During the '73 October war, the Soviets did threaten to use their troops in the conflict, in response it was one of the very few time the US went to DEFCON offically 2, but more than likely 1. The Soviets backed off. Now Iran is not a nuclear power, if they could respond to the US, it would probably be in the manner they have already mentioned. Iran has a lot more to worry about than Israel in this situation. The comments from Ahemdinadinnerjacket has only confirmed this. Iran does not have a major power as a backer. I doubt Russia would go to bat for Iran.

So we have Israel with a major power as a committed ally, We have Iran with NK? and maybe some trading partners. I don't think Iran will initiate a nuclear attack on Israel. They might if Israel hit them first. If Israel initiate a preemptive strike depending on US support, agreement or knowledge before hand of the strike would effect US response to any retalitory attack by Iran. Other factors is the responses and support of other countries in the ME. Saudis could aid Israel and add to how the US would respond.

I think a lot of Iran's posturing is out of fear of coming out really bad, more than their ability to successfully resists a Israeli preemptive strike and/or respond in kind.

Interesting analysis. It begs the question whether or not Iran is deterred by MAD.

I think that Ahamdinejad and the Supreme Council are religious zealots, and are not constrained by the concept of MAD.

Having said that, I hope that I am wrong. Because otherwise, nothing short of regime change or a pre-emptive strike will suffice.

[commanding]

So we have Israel with a major power as a committed ally, We have Iran with NK? and maybe some trading partners. I don't think Iran will initiate a nuclear attack on Israel. .

Nor do I think Iran would do that. However what worries me more is the political terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, who percieve so many countries as threats, that they would love to draw both Israel and the USA into a nuclear war, by deception. In example, to strike Israel with a bio or chemical weapon, and make it look like it was done by some other country, i.e. Syria, Saudi, Egypt, etc. Thereby tempting the US to counterstrike a muslim nation with nuclear weapons. Those kind of scenarios, are what worries me. The more they (AQ) can rip the fabric of cooperation between muslim countries and the US, the better in their view (al quaeda's).

By the way, I view AQ as a purely political terrorist group, not a religious zealot group, though they purport to be purely religous.

[cltknight]

The Iranian regime is in disarray, and i would not be surprised to see another revolution. I only hope that Israel wont attack, because if it does it will have destabilizing consequences, and it wouldn't just affect the general level of stability in the region. It would affect Israel's security and it would affect US interests, and the safety of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to that, it will give the Iranian regime and exist strategy from its internal turmoil.

[GiladS]

I don't think Iran will initiate a nuclear attack on Israel.

Imagine this scenario...

An Iranian proxy like Hizbollah armed with SRBMs carrying tactical nuclear warheads pointing at key strategic points in Israel.

That would be our Cuba Missile Crisis.

[commanding]

Imagine this scenario...

An Iranian proxy like Hizbollah armed with SRBMs carrying tactical nuclear warheads pointing at key strategic points in Israel.

That would be our Cuba Missile Crisis.

I agree. What also frightens me, is the possiblity of some group, gaining a couple of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and using them as you describe. They have already been attacking the Nuclear arms locations in pakistan.

[commanding]

BTW.....al Qaeda has stated in no uncertain terms that if it acquired nuclear weapons, the FIRST target it would strike would be Israel, and then the USA.

[Estopped]

Imagine this scenario...

An Iranian proxy like Hizbollah armed with SRBMs carrying tactical nuclear warheads pointing at key strategic points in Israel.

That would be our Cuba Missile Crisis.

Imagine being the operative word. The idea that Iran will hand off strategic weapons to third parties is ludicrous.

People always imagine the worst that can happen. How about we imagine the best that can happen. In a few years Iran could be the ONLY nation in the region to have a network of nuclear power plants providing cheap and clean nuclear power to the nation and perhaps even its neighbours. Iran could be like the France of the middle east.

[cltknight]

Imagine this scenario...

An Iranian proxy like Hizbollah armed with SRBMs carrying tactical nuclear warheads pointing at key strategic points in Israel.

That would be our Cuba Missile Crisis.

"Imagine this scenario" is not a argument used in a serious debate.

[GiladS]

Imagine being the operative word. The idea that Iran will hand off strategic weapons to third parties is ludicrous.

Why is it so ludicrous?

As the USSR did with Cuba which was its proxy, so could Iran do with Hizbollah.

[GiladS]

"Imagine this scenario" is not a argument used in a serious debate.

And you are the one to decide that, right?

From what what we have seen, Iran has generously armed Hizbollah and provided it's memebers with extensive training.

It's not too far fetched to perceive that Iran may arm it's military branch in Lebanon with such weapons.

[RoyB]

Having said that, i have no problem with the US aid to Israel, just don't lecture me on how much the US is dependent on Israel.
Nobody said that the US is dependent on Israel, that would be moronic.
Nobody denies the fact that the US aid is a major contribution and a crucial element in Israel's economy and security networks.
But, it is all about interests.
For a very long time now, the US has been handing over billions of dollars to Israel.. why, you ask?
Because it fit their interests.
They have found out that it benefits them, so they are willing to pay, the stacks of money handed over are worth it. (for now, of course).

[cltknight]

Because it fit their interests.


They have found out that it benefits them
would you elaborate plz? Because i only see intelligence sharing as the only benefit, other than that its just a matter of policy and ideology.

[RoyB]

would you elaborate plz?
Is there something to elaborate about?
Do you think that the US would have put a flying fvck about Israel if it thought that there is nothing to gain by supporting it? INTERESTS, man, memorize it.
And please don't come out with that 'maybe back in the Cold War' thing you have, because if it is true, than the US would have cut off Israel's 'lifeline' as soon as the USSR fell.

[Estopped]

Why is it so ludicrous?

As the USSR did with Cuba which was its proxy, so could Iran do with Hizbollah.

Cuba and the USSR are sovereign states. The USSR had complete control of the nukes. Otherwise we can make the argument that the US was handing off nukes to Turkey, Germany, Italy etc

[GiladS]

would you elaborate plz? Because i only see intelligence sharing as the only benefit, other than that its just a matter of policy and ideology.

Did you read Yoram Ettinger's column?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3084569,00.html

[RoyB]

would you elaborate plz? Because i only see intelligence sharing as the only benefit, other than that its just a matter of policy and ideology.
4+ Billion dollars a year for intelligence.. very nice, can I join in?
If you will do a little research you will find out all by yourself..

[Estopped]

Is there something to elaborate about?
Do you think that the US would have put a flying fvck about Israel if it thought that there is nothing to gain by supporting it? INTERESTS, man, memorize it.
And please don't come out with that 'maybe back in the Cold War' thing you have, because if it is true, than the US would have cut off Israel's 'lifeline' as soon as the USSR fell.

Millions of Americans have an ideological attachment to Israel. Sure Israel has some strategic benefits; but don't be so callous as to think that US support on Israel is solely based on Israel's strategic location. The US doesn't exactly lack bases, allies and influence in the middle east. That would persist with or without Israel and has more to do with oil/gas.

[GiladS]

Cuba and the USSR are sovereign states. The USSR had complete control of the nukes. Otherwise we can make the argument that the US was handing off nukes to Turkey, Germany, Italy etc

So it would seem more logical to you if the scenario was of Iranian officers being responsible for the mobile launchers armed with nuclear warheads (as this is already the case with conventional Iranian Zelzals launchers stationed in Lebanon)?

[cltknight]

Millions of Americans have an ideological attachment to Israel. Sure Israel has some strategic benefits; but don't be so callous as to think that US support on Israel is solely based on Israel's strategic location. The US doesn't exactly lack bases, allies and influence in the middle east. That would persist with or without Israel and has more to do with oil/gas.

Well said.

[GB_FXST]

would you elaborate plz? Because i only see intelligence sharing as the only benefit, other than that its just a matter of policy and ideology.

Do not dismiss ideology, or worldview, as a benefit.

Christian Zionists, for example, believe that it is a US core interest to support Israel.

[GiladS]

Millions of Americans have an ideological attachment to Israel. Sure Israel has some strategic benefits; but don't be so callous as to think that US support on Israel is solely based on Israel's strategic location. The US doesn't exactly lack bases, allies and influence in the middle east. That would persist with or without Israel and has more to do with oil/gas.

Funny how it seems that the current nature of U.S-Israel relations has existed since forever yet that has only been the case since the early 80s.

[Zarak]

Do not dismiss ideology, or worldview, as a benefit.

Christian Zionists, for example, believe that it is a US core interest to support Israel.

To be fair, Christian Zionists are widely believed to be nuts. :p But that doesn't have anything to do with their support for Israel.

[GB_FXST]

To be fair, Christian Zionists are widely believed to be nuts. :p But that doesn't have anything to do with their support for Israel.

I think many of Obama's supporters are nuts too ... :)

But, alas sanity is not a prerequisite to voting.

We can do this all day long, so I'll leave it at that ... :)

[Estopped]

So it would seem more logical to you if the scenario was of Iranian officers being responsible for the mobile launchers armed with nuclear warheads (as this is already the case with conventional Iranian Zelzals launchers stationed in Lebanon)?

No. I don't think the scenario exists other than a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel by virtue of ballistic missiles. And even that's tenuous at best considering Israel's tiny size.

[Atlantic Friend]

This is not as simple as you make it sound, the foreign policy of the US also heavily depends on its government.

We sure hope the policy depends on the government! ;)

But what American administration can honestly be called anti-Israel? Can we imagine a situation where the US lets Israel be destroyed? Or vanquished? Or punished?

The day an American president says "Tell you what, I simply do not care about what happens in Israel" is the day Hell freezes over.

[Atlantic Friend]

It's nevertheless amazing how being seen as pro- or anti-Israel seems to be a litmus test on one's presidency. Could we imagine Bush or Obama being judged on whether they're pro-Georgia? Or pro-Chad? Or pro-anything but the United States, which is their voters' main concern?

[Stormz_STA]

Could we imagine Bush or Obama being judged on whether they're pro-Georgia? Or pro-Chad? Or pro-anything but the United States, which is their voters' main concern?

How many voters of Georgian descent are there in the US? How wealthy are they? ;)

[Universal_Soldier]

How many voters of Georgian descent are there in the US? How wealthy are they? ;)

It's one thing to poll Jewish American on their opinions of Obama and it's another thing all together to go to poll another country as to whether Obama is doing what they want or not.

whether the result is 0% or 90% support it doesnt matter, they are not Americans, they don't get to vote.

[RoyB]

how many voters of georgian descent are there in the us? How wealthy are they? ;)
jewwwwisshhh lobbyyy!!@@!#@!
Riichh juice!!!!

[Atlantic Friend]

How many voters of Georgian descent are there in the US? How wealthy are they? ;)

p-)

Okay, I'll switch to a different country then. Do we see a President being judged on how pro-Ireland he is? And yet one cannot deny there's a strong Irish-American electorate.

[Stormz_STA]

p-)

Do we see a President being judged on how pro-Ireland he is?

Yes, by Irish-Americans. ;)

[GB_FXST]

We sure hope the policy depends on the government! ;)

But what American administration can honestly be called anti-Israel? Can we imagine a situation where the US lets Israel be destroyed? Or vanquished? Or punished?

The day an American president says "Tell you what, I simply do not care about what happens in Israel" is the day Hell freezes over.

No, probably not. But, past presidents have been known to be cold to Israel. Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter all come to mind. Even LBJ took a very hard stand with Israel in 1967. Bush Sr. was not that warm either.

Let’s not forget that Nixon was not known to be fond of Jews, and chroniclers have noted interesting outbursts regarding Jews. Also, US aid to Israel in 1973 may have been fueled by Cold War politics as much as anything else.

[Yoni-R]

To be fair, Christian Zionists are widely believed to be nuts. :p But that doesn't have anything to do with their support for Israel.

wow thats a bit of a generalisation.

[Yoni-R]

p-)

Okay, I'll switch to a different country then. Do we see a President being judged on how pro-Ireland he is? And yet one cannot deny there's a strong Irish-American electorate.

maybe the reason is that ireland's neighbors recognise it as a country and its hasnt been faced with destruction since its conception.

[RoyB]

maybe the reason is that ireland's neighbors recognise it as a country and its hasnt been faced with destruction since its conception.
Not entirely true.
And what that has to do with anything? how that connects to what he said?

[Atlantic Friend]

Yes, by Irish-Americans. ;)

I'm not even sure about that, actually. But you can imagine the "WTF? moment" we'd all have should a newspaper state that only 4% of Irishmen see Obama as pro-Ireland.

[Atlantic Friend]

No, probably not. But, past presidents have been known to be cold to Israel. Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter all come to mind. Even LBJ took a very hard stand with Israel in 1967. Bush Sr. was not that warm either.

Let’s not forget that Nixon was not known to be fond of Jews, and chroniclers have noted interesting outbursts regarding Jews. Also, US aid to Israel in 1973 may have been fueled by Cold War politics as much as anything else.


I wouldn't say cold - at no point have the US and Israel been on the brink of divorce or of not speaking to each other.

Some of the US administrations have been more critical than others, certainly, as happens between any allies - you could say some Israeli administrations have been more critical of their US ally than others as well - but the disagreement has never endangered Israel, or the Israel-US relationship.

[GiladS]

No. I don't think the scenario exists other than a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel by virtue of ballistic missiles. And even that's tenuous at best considering Israel's tiny size.

Well I'm glad you are so optimistic, here in Israel we don't have that luxury.

[GB_FXST]

I wouldn't say cold - at no point have the US and Israel been on the brink of divorce or of not speaking to each other.

Some of the US administrations have been more critical than others, certainly, as happens between any allies - you could say some Israeli administrations have been more critical of their US ally than others as well - but the disagreement has never endangered Israel, or the Israel-US relationship.

It is important to note that the current US-Israeli relationship has not always been this way.

The US did not begin to provide Israel with massive military and financial assistance until the early 1970’s. France was Israel’s main strategic partner in 50’s and 60’s, up until DeGaulle’s arms embargo of 1967.

[Atlantic Friend]

It is important to note that the current US-Israeli relationship has not always been this way.

The US did not begin to provide Israel with massive military and financial assistance until the early 1970’s. France was Israel’s main strategic partner in 50’s and 60’s, up until DeGaulle’s arms embargo of 1967.

It's true that there was a shift in favor of the US, for a number of reasons, but in all fairness ever since the United Nations voted, under Western leadership, to establish Israel as a nation in 1948 the die has been cast. No western nation, however critical it can be of the Israeli government, or of israeli policies, can ever turn its back on Israel if the fate of your nation was in the balance.

I've always wondered what would have happened if, during the Independence war of 1948, the Arabs had started gaining the upper hand. I don't see the nations which had justed lobbied for the creation of an Israeli state just accept the destruction of the young nation.

[Zarak]

Well I'm glad you are so optimistic, here in Israel we don't have that luxury.

But apparently you do have the luxury of inventing fantastic 'threats' to frighten people. I doubt anyone with half a brain, in Israel or elsewhere, would believe your 'idea' that Iran might somehow smuggle in hugeass nuclear armed SRBMs to Lebanon for launch against Israel (although the threat of Syrian and Egyptian ballistic missiles is already well covered by PATRIOT and Arrow batteries).

[Hollis]

Imagine this scenario...

An Iranian proxy like Hizbollah armed with SRBMs carrying tactical nuclear warheads pointing at key strategic points in Israel.

That would be our Cuba Missile Crisis.


That is basically what Iran said it will do if attack. I am sure they know what ever Hez does will reflect on them. As long as it Hez does not go to extreme, Iran is probably safe from a retaliatory attack of some kind.

Sort of what Cktknight has to say, Iran has enough issues right now at home. I don't think they will initiate anything serious, unless they feel it will secure their home front from revolution.

[GiladS]

It's true that there was a shift in favor of the US, for a number of reasons, but in all fairness ever since the United Nations voted, under Western leadership, to establish Israel as a nation in 1948 the die has been cast. No western nation, however critical it can be of the Israeli government, or of israeli policies, can ever turn its back on Israel if the fate of your nation was in the balance.


Funny you should claim this as the West on the most (except for private endeavors) left Israel to it's fate, including the U.S that on December 5, 1947, had imposed a weapons embargo on the region.

Czechoslovakia of the Eastern Bloc aided Israel the most with weapons as the young Jewish state was very socialist back then (and was to be so untill the Likud government was first elected in 1977).


I've always wondered what would have happened if, during the Independence war of 1948, the Arabs had started gaining the upper hand. I don't see the nations which had justed lobbied for the creation of an Israeli state just accept the destruction of the young nation.

At best there would have been a much larger and Mediterranean version of the Dunkirk evacuation... nothing more.

[GiladS]

. I doubt anyone with half a brain, in Israel or elsewhere, would believe your 'idea' that Iran might somehow smuggle in hugeass nuclear armed SRBMs to Lebanon for launch against Israel

Iran already has Zelzals stationed in Lebanon, adding nuclear warheads is a mere technicality.

So good morning to you...

[Atlantic Friend]

Funny you should claim this as the West on the most (except for private endeavors) left Israel to it's fate, including the U.S that on December 5, 1947, had imposed a weapons embargo.

On both sides of the conflict.


At best there would have been a much larger and Mediterranean version of the Dunkirk evacuation... nothing more.

I really don't think it would have happened. The creation of Israel was a political investment for the Western nations. I really doubt they would have just say "oh, well, there goes Israel" and leave. That would have been a political humiliation of the first magnitude.

[GiladS]

On both sides of the conflict.


Sure, just shows that Israel didn't get any sort of "special treatment".



I really don't think it would have happened. The creation of Israel was a political investment for the Western nations. I really doubt they would have just say "oh, well, there goes Israel" and leave. That would have been a political humiliation of the first magnitude.


An investment by Western nations?

Israel was created by Zionists, the world as a whole was rather apathetic.

[Hollis]

There's not only black and white. In the Iraq vs. Iran war he's been supported by the U.S. of A.

While Iran is a islamistic and shiite regime, Saddam's been the ruler of a secular state dominated by his sunite clans with suppressing shiites. If I remember correctly his former vice president is christian. The christians and jews in Iraq had even been better off than today.

Indeed, the U.S.A. supported first one side and then the other.


I guess you missed the Cold war, Look at Iraqi's weapons, artillery, rifles, tanks and airplanes. Now ask, who supplied them?

Part too, Do you know who the Baathist are? What are their political persuasion?

No go back to understanding the cold war tactics. Saddam was a ally of the Communist block countries, specifically the USSR.

Not sure, look at the Iranian weapons...........

Part III, Iran/Contra affair.

[Zarak]

Iran already has Zelzals stationed in Lebanon, adding nuclear warheads is a mere technicality.

So good morning to you...

"In October 2002 Israeli sources indicated that Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units operating in support of Hezbollah in the Lebanon's Beka'a Valley had received the Zelzal-2. These reports remain unconfirmed and have likely confused the deliver of Fajr-3 or -5 systems with that of the Zelzal-2."
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/3367_3397.html

Its amusing how you talk about speculation as though it is fact. Between that and your overactive imagination, you're quite the entertaining poster.

[Atlantic Friend]

Sure, just shows that Israel didn't get any sort of "special treatment".

I didn't imply any kind of special treatment for Israel here.


An investment by Western nations?
Israel was created by Zionists, the world as a whole was rather apathetic.

The UN vote. The political/diplomatic support given to Zionism. That was the political investment I was referring to. Obviously Israel wasn't created ex nihilo by the western nations, and was first and foremost born out of the collective will of Jews from many nations.

But at some point the Western nations did stand besides those who wanted to create Israel, and once they did that, I doubt they'd have idly watch the young state be destroyed after a few weeks of existence.

[GiladS]

"In October 2002 Israeli sources indicated that Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units operating in support of Hezbollah in the Lebanon's Beka'a Valley had received the Zelzal-2. These reports remain unconfirmed and have likely confused the deliver of Fajr-3 or -5 systems with that of the Zelzal-2."
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/3367_3397.html

Its amusing how you talk about speculation as though it is fact.

Here's the problem with your source my friend...



Updated February 2006


Something more up to date...



The IAF offset its helicopter difficulties by expanding the use of UAVs for reconnaissance and attack missions. At least two UAVs provided 24-hour coverage over Lebanon, with the Israel Aircraft Industries’ Searcher 2 and the Elbit Systems Hermes 450 (chosen for the British Watchkeeper programme) transmitting real-time targeting data directly into F-15 and F-16 cockpits. On one occasion, this enabled the IAF to report that it had destroyed a truck in Beirut carrying an Iranian-made Zelzal long-range missile.


http://www.iiss.org/programmes/defence-analysis-programme/analysis-archive/air-war-over-lebanon/




At the same time, a number of weak points in Hizbollah’s operational preparations surfaced. The first of these was the IDF’s success in damaging the organization’s strategic assets – its medium and long range rocket systems. The rapid damage inflicted on this system and the destruction of Hizbollah’s Zelzal rockets in Beirut (an Iranian rocket with a range of 210 km) in the first hours of fighting appears to have been especially painful.


http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=1383

[Zarak]

"The rapid damage inflicted on this system and the destruction of Hizbollah’s Zelzal rockets in Beirut (an Iranian rocket with a range of 210 km) in the first hours of fighting appears to have been especially painful."

Doesn't sound like much of a threat, then, does it.

[Atlantic Friend]

Doesn't sound like much of a threat, then, does it.

Just because the system was neutralized rapidly by the IDF doesn't make it less threatening.

[GiladS]

But at some point the Western nations did stand besides those who wanted to create Israel, and once they did that, I doubt they'd have idly watch the young state be destroyed after a few weeks of existence.

There's a difference between moral support and actually taking action to prevent the distruction of a state.

As much as I wish you were right, I doubt the West would have done more than voice condemnation against the actions of the Arab nations while looking at how to house the additional Jewish refugees from Israel.

[Zarak]

Just because the system was neutralized rapidly by the IDF doesn't make it less threatening.

That's exactly what it means. :| Its not a threat if it can't even be used before its destroyed.

[GiladS]

"The rapid damage inflicted on this system and the destruction of Hizbollah’s Zelzal rockets in Beirut (an Iranian rocket with a range of 210 km) in the first hours of fighting appears to have been especially painful."

Doesn't sound like much of a threat, then, does it.

So Hizbollah's Zezal arsenal couldn't have been replenished or even enlarged by Iran in the last three years? :roll:

[GiladS]

That's exactly what it means. :| Its not a threat if it can't even be used before its destroyed.

Good intel, inefficient use of the launchers, and simple dumb luck... we might not have this next time around.

[Atlantic Friend]

There's a difference between moral support and actually taking action to prevent the distruction of a state.

As much as I wish you were right, I doubt the West would have done more than voice condemnation against the actions of the Arab nations while looking at how to house the additional Jewish refugees from Israel.

Perhaps I'm seeing too much into it myself. It's just that I cannot imagine a group of nations pledging support for something - and something as morally powerful as helping a recently persecuted people get a home and nation of their own - and being ready to accept declaring defeat within months, particularly in the face of aggression against said young nation. The French support of the 1950s, for example, going as far as nuclear cooperation, I don't think it was motivated purely by a desire to have an ally against Nasser's Egypt.

But well, it's an academic debate, now, time has passed and Israel's right to exist as a nation has been secured by its own accomplishments. I cannot imagine, if Israel was attacked as it was in 1973, that there would be any administration in America that wouldn't reaffirm its support, regardless of the level of criticism/acrimony over other issues.

[Zarak]

Good intel, inefficient use of the launchers, and simple dumb luck... we might not have this next time around.

Aside from the fact that they're huge, the area they may be in is very small, and Israel has guaranteed air superiority with massive ISTAR capabilities.

[Atlantic Friend]

That's exactly what it means. :| Its not a threat if it can't even be used before its destroyed.

More likely it shows that the IDF was able to strike at the systems early enough. The system in itself remains a potentially lethal weapon.

[Zarak]

More likely it shows that the IDF was able to strike at the systems early enough. The system in itself remains a potentially lethal weapon.

A Fokker D.II is a potentially lethal weapon, that does not make it some sort of huge threat.

[GiladS]

Aside from the fact that they're huge, the area they may be in is very small, and Israel has guaranteed air superiority with massive ISTAR capabilities.

And yet Iran still choses to station them in Lebanon.

I guess they just like having thier missile launchers used as target practice by the IAF.

[cltknight]

And yet Iran still choses to station them in Lebanon.

I guess they just like having thier missile launchers used as target practice by the IAF.

Get that right :)

[Atlantic Friend]

A Fokker D.II is a potentially lethal weapon, that does not make it some sort of huge threat.

It's a good point p-). But if a hostile party started flying D.IIs to attack a nation's citizens, it'd still be a threat that'd have to be dealt with.

[cltknight]

Its Funny how thread went from POLL to Iran vs Israel thread :)

[GiladS]

Its Funny how thread went from POLL to Iran vs Israel thread :)

Happens all the time...

[GB_FXST]

It's true that there was a shift in favor of the US, for a number of reasons, but in all fairness ever since the United Nations voted, under Western leadership, to establish Israel as a nation in 1948 the die has been cast. No western nation, however critical it can be of the Israeli government, or of israeli policies, can ever turn its back on Israel if the fate of your nation was in the balance.

I've always wondered what would have happened if, during the Independence war of 1948, the Arabs had started gaining the upper hand. I don't see the nations which had justed lobbied for the creation of an Israeli state just accept the destruction of the young nation.

I do not share your optimism.

Here is an example: In May of 1967, the Israeli Prime Minister, Eshkol, appealed to LBJ for international assistance with Egyptian belligerence, particularly the casus bellum of the closure of straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. LBJ proposed establishment of an international armada to break Egypt’s blockade. LBJ also warned Israel not to take unilateral action, saying in effect that if Israel acted alone it would stand alone. We, of course, know that nothing came of the international armada; we also know what happened as a result of Israel’s unilateral action. (Source Michael Oren’s Six Days of War.)

One can only speculate what would have happened if the events of June 5, 1967 went badly for Israel. The President of the United States does not speak of such things lightly. On the face of LBJ’s words, we have to assume that US forces would NOT have come to Israel’s aid.


Perhaps I'm seeing too much into it myself. It's just that I cannot imagine a group of nations pledging support for something - and something as morally powerful as helping a recently persecuted people get a home and nation of their own - and being ready to accept declaring defeat within months, particularly in the face of aggression against said young nation. The French support of the 1950s, for example, going as far as nuclear cooperation, I don't think it was motivated purely by a desire to have an ally against Nasser's Egypt.

But well, it's an academic debate, now, time has passed and Israel's right to exist as a nation has been secured by its own accomplishments. I cannot imagine, if Israel was attacked as it was in 1973, that there would be any administration in America that wouldn't reaffirm its support, regardless of the level of criticism/acrimony over other issues.

I think that you are.

A number of Truman’s key advisors did not want to recognize the nascent State of Israel because they feared that 1) Jewish forces would be overrun and 2) US forces would need to intervene.

As we know, Truman went ahead and recognized Israel despite objections.

I have never read or heard of any account that the US was planning in any way to deploy force in defense of Israel in 19948.

No country, not even the USSR, could bring force to bear on behalf of Israel at that time.

Also, let’s not forget that the UK voted against the partition plan, and was a strategic alley of Jordan. The UK would not have intervened on behalf of Israel.

[cltknight]

I do not share your optimism.

Here is an example: In May of 1967, the Israeli Prime Minister, Eshkol, appealed to LBJ for international assistance with Egyptian belligerence, particularly the casus bellum of the closure of straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. LBJ proposed establishment of an international armada to break Egypt’s blockade. LBJ also warned Israel not to take unilateral action, saying in effect that if Israel acted alone it would stand alone. We, of course, know that nothing came of the international armada; we also know what happened as a result of Israel’s unilateral action. (Source Michael Oren’s Six Days of War.)

One can only speculate what would have happened if the events of June 5, 1967 went badly for Israel. The President of the United States does not speak of such things lightly. On the face of LBJ’s words, we have to assume that US forces would NOT have come to Israel’s aid.



I think that you are.

A number of Truman’s key advisors did not want to recognize the nascent State of Israel because they feared that 1) Jewish forces would be overrun and 2) US forces would need to intervene.

As we know, Truman went ahead and recognized Israel despite objections.

I have never read or heard of any account that the US was planning in any way to deploy force in defense of Israel in 19948.

No country, not even the USSR, could bring force to bear on behalf of Israel at that time.

Also, let’s not forget that the UK voted against the partition plan, and was a strategic alley of Jordan. The UK would not have intervened on behalf of Israel.


Have you heard for 1956 war? The French and the british were there for you, Or maybe 1973 with the US air lift that really saved Israel.

[GiladS]

I
Also, let’s not forget that the UK voted against the partition plan, and was a strategic alley of Jordan. The UK would not have intervened on behalf of Israel.

One correction, the UK abstained on the Partition Plan vote.

[GB_FXST]

One correction, the UK abstained on the Partition Plan vote.

You are correct; my apologies.

[GiladS]

Have you heard for 1956 war? The French and the british were there for you, Or maybe 1973 with the US air lift that really saved Israel.


The French and British objectives in Operation Musketeer weren't to aid Israel in opening the Straits of Tiran but to gain control of the Suez Canal which was nationalised by Nasser.

All the parties involved had something to gain from the campaign.



As for Operation Nickel Grass, Kissinger and Nixon had to see Israel opening its missile silos in order to give the order to start the airlift.

[RoyB]

Have you heard for 1956 war? The French and the british were there for you, Or maybe 1973 with the US air lift that really saved Israel.
The French and the Brits had their own interests in mind..
And again with the US save the world thing?

[Atlantic Friend]

[FONT=Arial]A number of Truman’s key advisors did not want to recognize the nascent State of Israel because they feared that 1) Jewish forces would be overrun and 2) US forces would need to intervene

But this is my point exactly - should Israeli forces be overrun, then the US forces (in this instance) would have to intervene. It was not "should the Israeli forces be overrun, the US State Dept would write a communiqué deploring the short life of Israel". What those advisers said is what I say : a defeat of Israel would simply be unacceptable and would have to trigger intervention.

[GB_FXST]

Have you heard for 1956 war? The French and the british were there for you, Or maybe 1973 with the US air lift that really saved Israel.

1973 is a valid example of provision of emergency aid. It is not an example of military intervention to save Israel. 1956 is neither.

In 1956, French and British involvement was predicated on their mutual desire to re-establish control over the Suez Canal. There is no historical evidence to suggest that either would have moved forces northward if things went poorly for Israel. Israel was nothing but a convenient ally. If anything, Israel was a patsy for France and the UK.

However, Israel did have legitimate reasons of its own for embarking on the war.

1973 is a valid example of the US coming to Israel’s aid. However, let’s remember that aid was in the form of an emergency resupply of war material; US combat forces did not fight on behalf of Israel.

Also, it is not a given that Israel’s could not have survived without US emergency aid. The outcome of the war, however, would have been very different. Egypt would have likely regained most of the Sinai.

At any rate, many factors influenced Nixon’s decision to send emergency aid, not least of which were Cold War considerations. Considering the ongoing Vietnam War and the prevailing Domino Theory, the US could not allow an ally state to be defeated by Soviet arms / Soviet clients.

[GB_FXST]

But this is my point exactly - should Israeli forces be overrun, then the US forces (in this instance) would have to intervene. It was not "should the Israeli forces be overrun, the US State Dept would write a communiqué deploring the short life of Israel". What those advisers said is what I say : a defeat of Israel would simply be unacceptable and would have to trigger intervention.

But there was no US contingency plan (AFAIK) to save Israel.

Maybe the Marines would have landed to allow survivors to escape. But short of that there was nothing to do other than issue a communiqué.

[RoyB]

I think the whole support for the creation of Israel back in the day was due to the Holocaust, and because not a lot of nations were thrilled on getting tons of Jews resettling in their territory..
Quite ironic, back then and before, people told the Jews to go to Palestine.. now they want us out.

[Atlantic Friend]

I think the whole support for the creation of Israel back in the day was due to the Holocaust, and because not a lot of nations were thrilled on getting tons of Jews resettling in their territory..

Holocaust + Balfour declaration of 1917 and his elaboration that "the four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, irs rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, or far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700, 000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.", etc... It all moved nations - which were under no obligation to do so - to support the Jews' efforts to create their own state.

I doubt it was a question of being "thrilled".

[RoyB]

Holocaust + Balfour declaration of 1917 and his elaboration that "the four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, irs rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, or far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700, 000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.", etc... It all moved nations - which were under no obligation to do so - to support the Jews' efforts to create their own state.

I doubt it was a question of being "thrilled".
Never read that 'elaboration'.. and what four great powers?
The Balfour declaration lost its effect as soon as the White Papers started popping out, and it was quite a disappointment for some people who fought for it, because it wasn't as good as they hoped it would be.

[OrangeWolf]

I think the whole support for the creation of Israel back in the day was due to the Holocaust, and because not a lot of nations were thrilled on getting tons of Jews resettling in their territory..
Quite ironic, back then and before, people told the Jews to go to Palestine.. now they want us out.

Yeah I hate Zionists, how about y'all f**k off to Israel. Wait, what?

Like any European nation would have wanted Jews after the war, they all denied just like before (I believe only the Dominican Republic was nice for purely its own interests). Besides, what would Europe have done with hundreds of thousands of Jews being bullied/thrown out of Middle Eastern countries?

The Arabs confiscated their belongings, millions upon millions of $h€kalim. Many Arabs were now offered the luxury to walk around their streets without seeing a Jew.

Then the Arab dictatorships refused to aid their own war refugees (imagine Israel saying no to Jewish refugees, Germany saying no to the East European Germans, India saying no to Hindu "Pakistanis"), thus creating excellent propaganda to divert the public from ANYTHING that matters by blaming Israel. Having your own people rotten in camps, refusing citizenship to people in their own country (Jordan) creates such a misirable situation you just HAVE to blame the Jews for it. And if you had enough of them you just send them somewhere else to be terrorist bullies and make them spark a civil war.

And they don't even need to fund their own propaganda campaign, UNRWA has America and Europe as BIGGGGG sugar daddies (how contrary to other refugee programs world wide). Arab countries only donate like a mercedes a year, or perhaps a million or two. The European government more or less due to its pathetic (and justified) guilt feeling removed anti-Semitic bull**** from its books and libraries, but just funds it somewhere else these days. The only time the Arab states give some more substantial amount of money is when violence or suicide bombing is involved.

Israel is the best thing that could happen to the Arab leaders/dictators to have their incompetence hidden. Sure, they lost all the wars. But the average dictator doesn't need to worry about his failures, there's always that little country Israel, and the leftist Eurotrash won't call him anti-Semetic: he got his token Jew to hug with around the corner who lives under his "protection". The average person on the street can believe all this nonsense, because hey, if Pallywood says HaKotel deosn't belong to the Jews (nor ever did), it just gotta be true.

Oh and being an Israeli Arab and bitch about it is like a rich girl bitching about her father not letting her go to the nice clubs all the time while her cousins cannot even afford the drinks.

My 10 agarot, I'm out.

[Yoni-R]

Not entirely true.
And what that has to do with anything? how that connects to what he said?

IMO people with ties to a country in trouble or one that is unstable have more reason to take a vested interest in it. for example people who support israel, both jews and non-jews, would be more interested and i believe politically passionate on a president's stance on israel than people in a similar situation with ties to ireland, where they know the presidence stance on the country is not going to have as a profound effect. please note: im not saying israel is somehow more important that anyother country but its situation makes the president's stance on policies have a more elastic effect.

[Zeev]

Dis treed iz a trap.

[Atlantic Friend]

Never read that 'elaboration'.. and what four great powers?

It was Balfour's own words that followed his short declaration. You can look it up for yourself and lose the 'quotation' 'marks'.

The 4 powers he refers to are France, Great Britain, Italy and the United States (the Western allies of WW1).

[500]

Originally Posted by cltknight
Have you heard for 1956 war? The French and the british were there for you, Or maybe 1973 with the US air lift that really saved Israel.
US airlift started on 14 Oct, when Syrians were already pushed out of Golan and Egyptian offensive in Sinai was crashed. It helped to encircle the 3rd army, but it did not save Israel.

[Kaplanr]

1973 is a valid example of provision of emergency aid. It is not an example of military intervention to save Israel. 1956 is neither.

In 1956, French and British involvement was predicated on their mutual desire to re-establish control over the Suez Canal. There is no historical evidence to suggest that either would have moved forces northward if things went poorly for Israel. Israel was nothing but a convenient ally. If anything, Israel was a patsy for France and the UK.

However, Israel did have legitimate reasons of its own for embarking on the war.

More than a patsy; Israel reaching the canal was the planned premise of French-UK intervention; as was Israel pulling back from the canal in accord with Anglo-French "demands". Three actors with two distinct sets of aims. For them it was regaining the canal, for us it was the destruction of the Egyptian military and neutralization of the terror threat from Gaza.

[RoyB]

It was Balfour's own words that followed his short declaration. You can look it up for yourself and lose the 'quotation' 'marks'.

The 4 powers he refers to are France, Great Britain, Italy and the United States (the Western allies of WW1).
I wouldn't say 'followed', considering it was written in 1918, after he resigned.
And I can't see how it comes into effect concerning what we talked about before.

[GB_FXST]

Back on topic:




Left laments Obama's image in Israel

By GIL HOFFMAN (gil@jpost.com)

The Israeli Left reacted with dismay over the weekend to the results of a Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll published on Friday that found only 4 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that US President Barack Obama's policies are more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian.

The survey, which was featured prominently on Fox News in the United States and picked up by media outlets around the world, reported that 51% of Jewish Israelis considered Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, 35% called it neutral and 10% declined to express an opinion.

The poll of 500 people representing a statistical model of the Jewish Israeli population had a margin (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145146673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull##) of error of 4.5%.

Meretz and Peace Now said the survey indicated that Israelis did not yet realize the potential benefits of the regional peace initiative that Obama was advocating, but they expressed confidence that they eventually would.

"It is terrific for Israel that there is an American president with vision, and it is a pity that most Israelis don't realize that," Meretz faction chairman MK Ilan Gilon said. "Israelis think that Christian evangelists who rubber-stamp everything Israel does are the only Americans who are pro-Israel. But what is really good for Israel is a solution to the conflict, and Obama is doing what it takes to bring it about."

Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer said what mattered more at this stage of the peace process was Obama's reputation in the Arab world, and not in Israel.

"Despite the results of the poll, the Israeli interest is that Obama will be popular in the Arab world, so he could bring about a peace agreement with Israel," Oppenheimer said. "Bush was popular in Israel and hated around the world, and his policies did not help Israel end the Palestinian conflict or quell the Iranian threat. If he succeeds in his goals of advancing Middle East peace, I am sure he will become much more popular with Israelis."

Zionist Organization (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145146673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull##) of America President Morton Klein, who was excluded from a recent meeting of US Jewish leaders with Obama, issued a press release saying that the poll confirmed a high degree of Israeli concern with and disapproval of the US leader's policies.

"It is clear that the Obama administration's relentless pressure upon America's ally Israel to not permit even one additional Jew to move into eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, demanding virtually the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian state that will certainly be a terrorist state antagonistic to Israel, while putting no serious pressure on the Palestinians to arrest terrorists or end incitement against Jews and Israelis, has led most Israelis to now believe that Barack Obama is friend of Arabs and not of the Israelis," Klein said.

Chicago-based Palestinian commentator Ray Hanania wrote on the Arabisto Web site that Israelis might have assumed wrongly that Obama would be pro-Israel, because he shared a name with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

"[Obama] is not in anyone's back pocket," Hanania wrote. "The Israeli lobby in the United States must be besides itself wondering what the heck is going on. But if being fair, just and dedicated to genuine peace means that 'more' people might think you are not on their side, then maybe that's the price (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145146673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull##) someone in this country should finally pay if the United States is going to continue to insist on being the sole arbiter of the so-far elusive Middle East Peace."

The Right questioned how 4% of the Jewish Israeli population could still consider Obama more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian.

"Four percent of the public evidently didn't understand the question," said National Union MK Arye Eldad. "If they did, 99.9% would say that he is extremely anti-Israel. The only Israelis who would say he is pro-Israel are those who join Fatah and call for anti-Israel boycotts.

"Obama is one of the most antagonistic presidents to Israel ever. I hope he will not succeed in his goal of doing irrevocable damage to Israel and that once again we will be saved by the rejectionism of the Arabs, who always want even more than they have been offered."

Likud MK Danny Danon expressed satisfaction that Israelis believed that Obama was not acting in Israel's interests. He said he hoped that the US president's "one-sidedness" would ironically derail the Middle East peace process, because Israelis would urge Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to reject Obama's pressure.

"If at first we thought Obama was omnipotent, we see polls in Israel and in the US that the magic and nice words have finally begun to wear off," Danon said. "Obama's extremism against Israel has united the population from center to Right behind Netanyahu."


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145146673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145146673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

[Pareto]

It's just fruit of succesfull Israeli right campaign against Obama!
Another problem is that meny Israelis expect from Obama to be more zionist than most Israeli politicians!

[Pareto]

I think Obama is more pro-Israeli than Bush..
If all american presidents who pushes Israel and Palestianians to peace are anti-Israeli than Clinton is the most "anti-Israeli" president ever!

[Snoshi]

I think Obama is more pro-Israeli than Bush..
If all american presidents who pushes Israel and Palestianians to peace are anti-Israeli than Clinton is the most "anti-Israeli" president ever!

The problem is that the "peace pushing", but the fact that Obama does not understand how ME works.. You cant just force Israel and Fatah to speak to each other when
A. Most Israelis will not approve of giving up Jerusalem
B. When Palestinians are divided
C. Because the Palestinians cannot drop the "right of return" condition.

[Zarak]

The problem is that the "peace pushing", but the fact that Obama does not understand how ME works.. You cant just force Israel and Fatah to speak to each other when
A. Most Israelis will not approve of giving up Jerusalem
B. When Palestinians are divided
C. Because the Palestinians cannot drop the "right of return" condition.

He's got to do something, right? Both sides have conditions they won't back down from and the other side won't agree to, that doesn't mean he shouldn't try.

[gilgoul]

He's got to do something, right? Both sides have conditions they won't back down from and the other side won't agree to, that doesn't mean he shouldn't try.
What about giving the ME 20 years to settle down without any foreign intervention, and if quiet is not restored then, bringing it under an international mandate?

Just kidding.

[GB_FXST]

I think Obama is more pro-Israeli than Bush..
If all american presidents who pushes Israel and Palestianians to peace are anti-Israeli than Clinton is the most "anti-Israeli" president ever!

In regards to Bush, are you talking about H (Sr.) or W (Jr.)?

If W, I am curious as to why you think so.

In regards to Clinton, for right or wrong, Israelis trusted him; not so with Obama.

Why the trust in Clinton? I can only speculate, but suspect that one significant reason was his strong relationship with Israeli leaders (particularly Rabin).

But, it is important to remember that the world of 1992 is not the world of 2008. In 1992, the promise of Oslo was intoxicating. In 1992, Iran was not such an immediate threat; its belligerency was muted, and its nuclear aspirations were not as well developed.

In simple terms, Obama seems to be pushing ahead with a peace plan despite the lesson learned of Oslo. His approach to Iran is also disconcerting (although his Iran policy seems to becoming more centrist).

[Atlantic Friend]

I wouldn't say 'followed', considering it was written in 1918, after he resigned.
And I can't see how it comes into effect concerning what we talked about before.

Well, I would have said 'followed' as it came after the 1917 declaration, but if you have a better word, feel free to use it.

As for how it comes to effect, you may remember we were discussing Western countries' support to Israel, which to some had its sole origin in the post-Holocaust world, and I used the Balfour declaration to show that it actually predated that.

[California Joe]

With regards to the original post, did anyone say "who cares"? You don't live here.