BF2S Forums US-Israel Relationship In Context

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. I never said it "acts as a shining beacon". But it's more democratic than anywhere else in the ME, by and large.

If its not a beacon of any kind why make a big deal of it being a democracy?
Why not pick one of the moderate, democratic Islamic countries and support them?
That woud make way more sense than picking the one country the entire region uniformly despises.

We do.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why did the US not support apartheid South Africa? It was a democracy and supporting them would have upheld the 'balance' theory in Africa.

Didn't meet our national interests.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

We do.

And those moderates the US supports are more than fucked off about US support for Israel -> Net negative effect.

Yet they still have diplomatic ties with us, and quite cordial relations with us.

Weird.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Didn't meet our national interests.

Oh come on, surely the US has some interest in Africa? The Chinese are finding plenty to keep them busy.

Sure we do. Didn't meet our national interests to support apartheid South Africa.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yet they still have diplomatic ties with us, and quite cordial relations with us.

Its what grown-ups do. However their people are sending suicide bombers.

No, their people aren't. Non-state terrorist groups with a warped ideology are.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Sure we do. Didn't meet our national interests to support apartheid South Africa.

But it does to support Israel, I call BS on the balance theory.

Different issues for a different part of the world. Doesn't matter if you call BS on it or not--it's there.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Different issues for a different part of the world. Doesn't matter if you call BS on it or not--it's there.

I see, so the balance theory only applies to the ME, see how thats convenient?

No, it applies elsewhere as well, per the OP. But it applies where national interests are involved.

Last edited by FEOS (2010-05-27 03:48:11)

The OP is talking about NOW, Dilbert. In the past, the policy has been applied elsewhere, primarily WRT the USSR. Right now, the primary US national interests are involved in the ME. There is some balance being applied in South America (Colombia balancing against Venezuela and Bolivia, for example).

"Manipulating" is an interesting term, and completely dependent upon perspective. You, since you tend to despise all things US, choose to see every US action as a manipulation, even if the other country benefits from it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"Manipulating" is an interesting term, and completely dependent upon perspective. You, since you tend to despise all things US, choose to see every US action as a manipulation, even if the other country benefits from it.

Point is the US benefits, at the expense of world stability.

The point is, all sides generally benefit, as the goals of US foreign policy are generally positive.

You just disagree with the US's foreign policy WRT Israel. Get over it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyway, seems South Africa and Israel had more in common than I thought.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo … 5870721036

article wrote:

Although Israel in the end did not provide South Africa with nuclear warheads, according to Dr Polakow-Suransky, it did provide 30g of tritium, a substance that provides thermonuclear weapons with a boost to their explosive power.

30 grams? Stop the fucking presses! Oh wait, it's also used for self-powered lighting, firearms night sights, and analytical chemistry.

Interesting story, but until it's backed with something more than hearsay, it's just that.

And even if the allegations are true...so what? It's off-topic, anyway.

Last edited by FEOS (2010-05-28 05:24:47)

Can't say I knew about tritium being used as a radio-label before...

ruisleipa wrote:

and 'hearsay'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … -editorial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian- … outhafrica

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … uth-africa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma … ar-weapons

(yeah I know they're all from the guardian but similar reports can be found everywhere)

FEOS wrote:

Interesting story, but until it's backed with something more than hearsay, it's just that.

Read what I wrote. The last story provides a bit more than just hearsay, IMO. The one Dilbert linked to was little more than an op-ed, tbh (as are the first three you linked to, as well). It's still a developing story.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The point is, all sides generally benefit, as the goals of US foreign policy are generally positive.

How does encouraging people to be at each others throats benefit them exactly?

How has there been any encouragement of that whatsoever? Again, you've got your blinders on, Dilbert. In fact, the US has pushed for Israel to make concessions that go against Israel's perceived national interests repeatedly in trying to get a peace process started (one would think having a peace deal in place would be in their national interests, as well).

Dilbert_X wrote:

30 grams[/]? Stop the fucking presses! Oh wait, it's also used for self-powered lighting, firearms night sights, and analytical chemistry.

They offered them nuclear weapons, thats the point.

Shit, Israel has illegal WMD and is prepared to sell them to (other) despotic regimes?

Has Israel signed the NNPT?

_{and thus the derail begins}

Dilbert_X wrote:

And even if the allegations are true...so what? It's off-topic, anyway.

They're both pariah, undemocratic apartheid states, I guess thats why they allied themselves.

Both pariahs, sure. Undemocratic? You could make that argument for South Africa at the time, but not for Israel. I've heard the argument WRT apartheid comparisons--they still don't wash. Sorry. And even if the argument were valid, keep in mind that the population that was suffering under apartheid in South Africa was black. A significant portion of the US population is black. It was politically untenable in the US to have any relationship whatsoever with a white government that actively oppressed its black population.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Point is why didn't the US support South Africa but does support Israel? I'm sure the US must have [i]some interest in Africa.

The situations in South Africa and in Israel (or, more specifically, surrounding those two countries) were different. The US's interests in those respective parts of the world were different, both resource-wise, and from a geopolitical perspective.

Last edited by FEOS (2010-05-28 05:44:52)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Has Israel signed the NNPT?

Did Saddam? Why wasn't he free to develop WMD then?

Yes. Iraq is a signatory.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It was politically untenable in the US to have any relationship whatsoever with a white government that actively oppressed its black population.

But its OK with Arabs apparently, what is morally right or wrong doesn't matter, just whatever flies politically.

It's really dependent upon what the population of the country in question can relate to, tbh. And the population of our country can relate directly to whites oppressing blacks...we sort of have a history of that. Never said it was "OK" WRT Arabs, and the situation in Palestine is different than the situation in South Africa, particularly now that there is a separate Palestinian Authority in place.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The situations in South Africa and in Israel (or, more specifically, surrounding those two countries) were different. The US's interests in those respective parts of the world were different, both resource-wise, and from a geopolitical perspective.

I guess its lucky for the Africans they don't have much oil, or some mumbo-jumbo pre-roman cult telling US christians the path to their salvation is to buy them cluster bombs and JDAMs

And again, the relationship with Israel has fuckall to do with oil or "mumbo jumbo" and everything to do with geopolitics.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And again, the relationship with Israel has fuckall to do with oil or "mumbo jumbo" and everything to do with geopolitics.

Sure it does

As explained before (note the use of the use of italics, denoting frustration with repeatedly having to explain the same point)--both in the OP and afterward--the alliance with Israel was a result of the USSR's growing influence with Arab states in the region. Prior to the USSR aligning with Egypt, Syria, and others, the US had actually aligned against Israel (and the USSR with them) on several issues, to include the Suez Crisis.

The relationship with Israel is essentially a hold-over from the Cold War that has morphed over the years like all relationships do--not an oil-based, "mumbo-jumbo" driven alliance, as you like to so simplistically (and incorrectly) characterize it.

Now, our relationship with Saudi Arabia? That's predominantly about oil, and a bit about balancing against Iran. The relationships with the other GCC countries are predominantly about maintaining stability in the Persian Gulf region (for flow of oil for everyone--including us) and keeping Iran in check. See, they don't like Iran any more than we do...

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Now, our relationship with Saudi Arabia? That's predominantly about oil, and a bit about balancing against Iran.

Who also have oil.

Saudi wins -> They sell Saudi and Iranian oil to the US
Iran wins -> The sell Saudi and Iranian oil to the US.
They both settle down and agree to be friends -> They both sell oil to the US
They nuke the hell out of each other -> No more oil.

See, I just don't see the point of this balance theory, all this posturing and sponsored aggression just increases the risks for everyone - including the US, with no discernible benefit - except for Israel.

Because you think one-dimensionally. On many, many things.

I said it's predominantly about oil. That means there are other issues at play. But you just zeroed in on oil. And framed your entire argument around oil. When it's already been stated--and explained--repeatedly--it's not just about oil.

You don't see the point of the balance theory because you (apparently) can't think big enough to grasp the (not very complex) theory. It requires one to handle more than one variable at a time and not get all dogmatic.