And next, Syria?
- Thread starter Idris2002
- Start date
Pft please. Take this shit off to the conspiracy bunker. It's not Israel that funds and subsidises the US military. It's not America who need Israeli military support and sponsorship to protect the viability of their state. Forget the Israeli Lobby for just a second and look at the geopolitics, who needs who in this relationship the most?
The Israel lobby is the whole point. Yes, Israel needs US military support & will get it because of that lobby. The US doesn't issue orders to Israel.
No this is fundamentally misunderstanding the whole relationship. Israel requires absolute US backing to remain a viable state. It needs investment and capital from western countries to keep the economy strong, it needs the US Navy based on Doha to keep it's commercial shipping lanes open, and it needs a whole host of other things politically and economically that it can get best from the USA. It's a totally dependent relationship. Sure the US needs to have strong military allies in the middle east to control access to oil resources, but it doesn't need Israel to survive as a nation. See the difference? The strength of the Israeli Lobby* is peripheral to this regional power politics, not to say that it has no impact at all, but it's not what determines the relationship. If anything the Israeli Lobby is a product of these regional power strcuctres, not it's architect.
*I wish John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt hadn't legitimised this phrase to such an extent, it crops up all over the place and becomes a term to express "Zionists runs the US govt" which is an old anti-semitic trope (ZOG) that's been dug up many times by the far-right, both in the USA and elsewhere, over the years. I suggest TomUS should get this notion of the Israel dominating American foreign policy out of his head, because it's not only factually wrong but it's uncomfortably close to some crude anti-semitism.
This idea that Israel is America's military outpost in the ME isn't true. The Israel lobby idea isn't antisemitism at all. It's a political fact of life in the US. What has Israel done for the US lately, or ever? Some intelligence sharing & counter insurgency training/advice for Iraq & Afghan is all I can think of. In both conflicts with Iraq, did the US base it's bombers in Israel? No, in Diego Garcia & on carriers. The US doesn't need Israel. It's a pain in the ass.
Right it's far too much of a digression to school you in basic international relations, and you're a grown adult it's your own responsibility to educate yoursself not mine. So I'll have a crack at this then leave it, don't expect more replies.
I've asked you a series of question as well Tom, that you've ignored or bypassed. The main thing I've been banging on about is who needs who and to look at it from a geopolitical perspective, not a perspective which takes as it's premise the existence of a shady Zionist lobby group that's so powerful it can actually force the US to act against it's own geopolitical interests. You've not even acknowledge this or tried to answer it in any intelligent way, so I'm not going to waste time going through it all step by step for you to ignore it and respond with gibberish.
No that's pretty much it. Not in a literal sense, but that's the appeal. It's was actually part of the Cold War logic, in the aftermath of the the 6 Day War Israel proved itself the dominant military power in the region and so it was in the US interests to incorporate that country into the US sphere of influence. The region is hugely important in strategic terms and it's good to have the leading military power in the area in your service. That's what the massive spike in US financial support, under Lyndon B Johnson after 1967 iirc, was designed to accomplish - to structurally integrate Israeli power into the American side of the Cold War. Which it has done, spectacularly sucessfully. This is no different what the US did with Britain and the remnants of it's empire after the second world war.
It's not a completely one-sided relationship. Israel has a certain amount of autonomy, and if it wanted to could act independently if necessary, but again that's got far more to do with old fashioned power politics, in particular those bunkers full of nukes in the Negev desert, than any Israeli Lobby, or as Louis XIV put it Ultima Ratio Regum. That gives Israel some level of independence, as it does with France (less so with Britain as our nukes are technologically dependent on the US) but the only chance they would ever be used would be in the event that the US has abandoned them, what was called the Samson Option ie that if the US pulls it's support from Israel they'll bring the temple down on their own heads (and the rest of the world with it) I think that alone demonstrates how dependent Israel is on the US, even the very things that should ensure Israeli military independence exist to ensure Israel remains a beneficiary of American protection.
I'm not saying the idea of a Israel Lobby is anti-semitic, what I'm saying is the idea the Israel Lobby exerts so much influence that it can dominate American foreign policy, and even make American act against it's own interests, is very close to the old anti-semitic trope that the Jews run American policy via secret societies and freemasons. Is that any clearer? Because even Mearsheimer and co don't suggest that Israel has that kind of influence, they're all right-wing realpolitick guys at the end of the day who concede that national interests matter most, they're not conspiracy theorists they're chess-players. Whatever your objections to them are they don't suggest what you do. If the Israel Lobby had nothing to offer the US in foreign policy terms then it wouldn't have any power at all, if there were no over-arching geopolitical interests in common that a relationship between the US and Israel can be based on they'd be laughed out of Washington, hence my saying - The Israel Lobby is a product of the regional architecture, not it's creator.
And btw I'm not saying it has no influence at all in how America deals in the middle-east, just that it's an adjunct to the wider political structure. What you're doing is putting the cart before the horse.
What has Israel done for the US lately? Oh boy that's a good one. We could have a whole thread on that. Let me explain to you what a real "pain in the ass" would be - China and Russia having control over all the access to oil resources in the middle-east, and there being a rival network of client states dependent on China and Russia to enforce this control. Imagine that. Imagine China and Russia being able to put the US under sanctions and blockade it's oil needs. Yeah, exactly. Having Israel on side and dependent prevents this state of affairs from ever happening. That's what is boils down to, an imperial power controlling access to highly valuable natural resources.
I've asked you a series of question as well Tom, that you've ignored or bypassed. The main thing I've been banging on about is who needs who and to look at it from a geopolitical perspective, not a perspective which takes as it's premise the existence of a shady Zionist lobby group that's so powerful it can actually force the US to act against it's own geopolitical interests. You've not even acknowledge this or tried to answer it in any intelligent way, so I'm not going to waste time going through it all step by step for you to ignore it and respond with gibberish.
No that's pretty much it. Not in a literal sense, but that's the appeal. It's was actually part of the Cold War logic, in the aftermath of the the 6 Day War Israel proved itself the dominant military power in the region and so it was in the US interests to incorporate that country into the US sphere of influence. The region is hugely important in strategic terms and it's good to have the leading military power in the area in your service. That's what the massive spike in US financial support, under Lyndon B Johnson after 1967 iirc, was designed to accomplish - to structurally integrate Israeli power into the American side of the Cold War. Which it has done, spectacularly sucessfully. This is no different what the US did with Britain and the remnants of it's empire after the second world war.
It's not a completely one-sided relationship. Israel has a certain amount of autonomy, and if it wanted to could act independently if necessary, but again that's got far more to do with old fashioned power politics, in particular those bunkers full of nukes in the Negev desert, than any Israeli Lobby, or as Louis XIV put it Ultima Ratio Regum. That gives Israel some level of independence, as it does with France (less so with Britain as our nukes are technologically dependent on the US) but the only chance they would ever be used would be in the event that the US has abandoned them, what was called the Samson Option ie that if the US pulls it's support from Israel they'll bring the temple down on their own heads (and the rest of the world with it) I think that alone demonstrates how dependent Israel is on the US, even the very things that should ensure Israeli military independence exist to ensure Israel remains a beneficiary of American protection.
I'm not saying the idea of a Israel Lobby is anti-semitic, what I'm saying is the idea the Israel Lobby exerts so much influence that it can dominate American foreign policy, and even make American act against it's own interests, is very close to the old anti-semitic trope that the Jews run American policy via secret societies and freemasons. Is that any clearer? Because even Mearsheimer and co don't suggest that Israel has that kind of influence, they're all right-wing realpolitick guys at the end of the day who concede that national interests matter most, they're not conspiracy theorists they're chess-players. Whatever your objections to them are they don't suggest what you do. If the Israel Lobby had nothing to offer the US in foreign policy terms then it wouldn't have any power at all, if there were no over-arching geopolitical interests in common that a relationship between the US and Israel can be based on they'd be laughed out of Washington, hence my saying - The Israel Lobby is a product of the regional architecture, not it's creator.
And btw I'm not saying it has no influence at all in how America deals in the middle-east, just that it's an adjunct to the wider political structure. What you're doing is putting the cart before the horse.
What has Israel done for the US lately? Oh boy that's a good one. We could have a whole thread on that. Let me explain to you what a real "pain in the ass" would be - China and Russia having control over all the access to oil resources in the middle-east, and there being a rival network of client states dependent on China and Russia to enforce this control. Imagine that. Imagine China and Russia being able to put the US under sanctions and blockade it's oil needs. Yeah, exactly. Having Israel on side and dependent prevents this state of affairs from ever happening. That's what is boils down to, an imperial power controlling access to highly valuable natural resources.
Poo Flakes
Active Member
While I do not agree with TomUS, I do think that the role of the 'Jewish vote' in American elections may be having an effect on American foreign policy. If anything the US might be starting to ask questions about its relationship to Israel.
There is actually a real anti-Russian theory being played out by a range of commentators including some surprising individuals (I think Zizek or Chomsky). The idea is that Russians have moved there and the country has become increasingly militant and racist (no hint of irony in such a statement is given). Very dark.
There is actually a real anti-Russian theory being played out by a range of commentators including some surprising individuals (I think Zizek or Chomsky). The idea is that Russians have moved there and the country has become increasingly militant and racist (no hint of irony in such a statement is given). Very dark.
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
So in this thread TomUS shows himself to be void of any innate understanding of the US/Israel relationship (clue: master, subordinate, respectively), and we are schooled on geo-politics by another poster. Called Poo Flakes.
On the plus side Delroy is talking sense.
On the plus side Delroy is talking sense.
That's quite possible but it may not be down to the Russians being militant and racist but down to economics. Palestinians used to be needed to work in Israel but with the Russian immigrants arriving this changed. These immigrants could now do the work Palestinians were previously required to do. This meant that the Israeli government could step up the militancy and racism as they no longer needed the labour. I think there's a bit about it in the Shock Doctrine.
elbows
Well-Known Member
The various theories about the nature of the Israel-US relationship will only truly be tested in a fresh way when one of the other motivations for controlling the region shifts. For example when the middle east is no longer a vital part of the global energy supply picture. Such a scenario is a long way off, even if oil production declines started tomorrow the region will only become more important in that regard for a long time to come.
It's not shady at all. It's out in the open for all to see. It's American Jews who naturally feel a strong kinship with Israel plus the Christian right plus Americans who have been fed pro Israel propaganda. This Israel lobby does cause the US to act against the interests of the great majority of it's people. This overrides the who needs who point. I can't think of a single American politician in national office or main stream liberal media personality who criticize Israel. They dare not, even though it's obvious that America's blind support for Israel results in hostility from most of the Muslim world.
An Israel dependent on the US doesn't prevent this. The US has bases all over the ME. If Israel vanished tomorrow, US access to ME oil would remain unchanged.
Where was this affinity between American Jews and the state of Israel before 1967? Where was the lobby? Their affinity was primarily towards the United States. It wasn't until Israel showed its worth in the 6 day war that the American administration start to support Israel. US access to oil would not remain unchanged. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are pretty good at repressing their own people (and on occasion exporting the repression) but despite the weapons sales, as I'm sure likesfish could tell you, are militarily weak. Israel is useful for dealing with threats to these countries in order to keep the oil flowing. The Israeli lobby is supportive of this. An Israeli Lobby is not required for a government to "act against the interests of the great majority of it's people". IIRC the Christian Right was pretty apolitical before 1967 and didn't become the froceit is today until the GOP started to appeal to it in the 1980's. Who fed those other Americans pro Israel propaganda? Was it dastardly Jewish plotters? Or was it the mass media, the Israeli Lobby and others supporting the interests of the American ruling class? The propaganda may be pro Israel in its message but it is there for American reasons.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
he is correct but the humiliating manner in which Chuck Hagel had to crawl up his own arse on live telly in order to take up his post needs addressing too ,along with Netanyahus open contempt of Obama.
Its equally dorrect to say the zionist lobby seem to have arrived at a state of affairs were they easily lose the run of themselves .
I suppose that sort of soft anti-semitism is a nice way to excuse the actions of your nations imperialist behaviour. I can see why a lot of this Israel Lobby stuff appeals to certain Americans eager to say "oh it's not us, we're just benigns, it's the Zionists fault" to let them off the hook. It's pitiful.
This is such bullshit it's not worthy of responding too. Nothing overrides the who needs who point. Stop wasting my time, i'm trying to teach you something and you're getting it all wrong. If you think the Jewish diaspora and even the Christian Right (which, incidentally, until very recently was anti-semitic by default and that's not entirely gone away) have enough electoral clout to be able to change the cold hard realities of international politics then you're barking mad. Rabid foaming at the mouth crazy. And listen it's not just me coming out with this there's others on the thread trying to make the same point. You'd do well to heed the advice and re-consider your position.
No again you're just plain wrong here. Israel has been the dominant miltiary force in the region for decades now. It's the only military power in the Middle-east with nuclear weapons. It's the only country there that can fight total war accross the full spectrum with high-tech military equipment on a par with the US, albeit on a much more limited basis. It is considered in IR circles as an extension of American military power, and it's armed accordingly. If that nation switched allegiences to Russia or China and became as loyal to them as it is to the US, which btw was a realistic proposition in the early part of the Cold War (where was the Israel Lobby then??) it would be a devastating blow to US power in the region.
Another point here you're missing, and it's your fault for not reading and not paying attention to the exact words, it's not about access to oil. I've never said access to oil either. It's about controlling access to oil. That word makes a lot of difference - let me explain why.
America could access oil with or without Israel and it's military bases, just on the basis they're the biggest oil customer in the world. America's oil needs can be met without the need for a network of client states and military bases costing them billions to maintain and that piss off millions of people in the countries they're in. That's not what this is about, at all. It's about controlling access to oil, it's about having your military allies in the region so that if need be you can prevent other countries accessing oil if they step out of line. It's about being able to enforce sanctions on rival imperial nations if need be, and prevent such things happening to you. It's about making sure you're allies are the strongest in the region compared to your rivals. That's what's at stake here. Hence US support for Israel. That's the big prize. Second prize was Egypt, largest Arab country, suez canal, etc. That's why it was such a big deal when Nasser turned them towards Russia, and why it was considered such a victory when Mubarak became an American client, and why it's scaring the shit out of the yanks now he's gone. 3rd prize is Saudi Arabia, where the oil is, home of Mecca and Medina, which has been an American client since 1945. Even earlier. See how this works? It's not just about "Amerikkka needs it's oil for their 4 miles per gallon SUV's" it's about imperial chess-playing geo-politics and that's the bottom line.
This doesn't mean the Israel Lobby has no influence on these events, this doesn't mean that it can't exert some pressure on how the US acts, but it's not the dominant partner in the relationship.
This is such bullshit it's not worthy of responding too. Nothing overrides the who needs who point. Stop wasting my time, i'm trying to teach you something and you're getting it all wrong. If you think the Jewish diaspora and even the Christian Right (which, incidentally, until very recently was anti-semitic by default and that's not entirely gone away) have enough electoral clout to be able to change the cold hard realities of international politics then you're barking mad. Rabid foaming at the mouth crazy. And listen it's not just me coming out with this there's others on the thread trying to make the same point. You'd do well to heed the advice and re-consider your position.
No again you're just plain wrong here. Israel has been the dominant miltiary force in the region for decades now. It's the only military power in the Middle-east with nuclear weapons. It's the only country there that can fight total war accross the full spectrum with high-tech military equipment on a par with the US, albeit on a much more limited basis. It is considered in IR circles as an extension of American military power, and it's armed accordingly. If that nation switched allegiences to Russia or China and became as loyal to them as it is to the US, which btw was a realistic proposition in the early part of the Cold War (where was the Israel Lobby then??) it would be a devastating blow to US power in the region.
Another point here you're missing, and it's your fault for not reading and not paying attention to the exact words, it's not about access to oil. I've never said access to oil either. It's about controlling access to oil. That word makes a lot of difference - let me explain why.
America could access oil with or without Israel and it's military bases, just on the basis they're the biggest oil customer in the world. America's oil needs can be met without the need for a network of client states and military bases costing them billions to maintain and that piss off millions of people in the countries they're in. That's not what this is about, at all. It's about controlling access to oil, it's about having your military allies in the region so that if need be you can prevent other countries accessing oil if they step out of line. It's about being able to enforce sanctions on rival imperial nations if need be, and prevent such things happening to you. It's about making sure you're allies are the strongest in the region compared to your rivals. That's what's at stake here. Hence US support for Israel. That's the big prize. Second prize was Egypt, largest Arab country, suez canal, etc. That's why it was such a big deal when Nasser turned them towards Russia, and why it was considered such a victory when Mubarak became an American client, and why it's scaring the shit out of the yanks now he's gone. 3rd prize is Saudi Arabia, where the oil is, home of Mecca and Medina, which has been an American client since 1945. Even earlier. See how this works? It's not just about "Amerikkka needs it's oil for their 4 miles per gallon SUV's" it's about imperial chess-playing geo-politics and that's the bottom line.
This doesn't mean the Israel Lobby has no influence on these events, this doesn't mean that it can't exert some pressure on how the US acts, but it's not the dominant partner in the relationship.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I wouldn't bother, it's like trying to teach algebra to a duck. Besides at a certain point the guy just stops quaking and waddles off to return next season and start all over again.
Innit this is a big enough digression already. Take it elsewhere Tom.
Meanwhile in Syria Assad's forces seem to have encircled the rebels in the town in Al Qusayr and closed off all routes of re-inforcement and evacuation. Al-Jazeera is a very biased source so remember that.
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
The airbase in the town has been recaptured, and the rebels look like they're in a bad situation, which would explain some of the more frantic diplomatic efforts to support them via John McCain's trip to Syria. According to this the S-300 missiles from Russia have been delivered and, surprise surprise, the Israeli's didn't bomb them.
Poo Flakes
Active Member
Hmmm... what is your problem with the name Poo Flakes? I am genuinely intrigued.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Poo Flakes
Active Member
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
It's kinda vile, unfunny, childish, and irritates me every time I see it, especially when you're posting in threads concerning pretty grave matters.
Other than that it's just swell.
Not yet. Barak hasn't given the order.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Poo Flakes
Active Member
Get a life.
Poo Flakes
Active Member
I read a book of his predecessor when I was a child, Netanyahu. It was about combating terrorism and he argued for extremely aggressive foreign policies (this was around the 1980s/90s). Not really worth the paper it was written on, but it did sound like a sales pitch to the neocons in America. Would offer to fish out the title, but doubt anyone would want to read it.
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
Ok, Poo Flakes!
SovietArmy
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why majority agree or not agree and can't do nothing give such good path for evils. Is that fact that NATO forces funded fundamentalist Muhagagees in Afghanistan during Soviet Union times, is that fact many fascist forces supported by USA and again now peoples tax payers money going to fund fundamentals. Oh yes we are in austerity now.
So lets hear Assad's response to the US-Israeli sabre rattling and the missiles.
BBC: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/30/syria-assad-missiles-russia-claim
Russia Today: http://rt.com/news/air-defense-syria-assad-993/
This in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/30/syria-anti-aircraft-missile-system
I don't think an attack is going to happen, or even that these missiles are likely to be used against Israel in the Golan. It's a fairly understandable response to Israel bombing Syria earlier. Further attacks now would be a desperate thing to do from Israel's point of view. Netanyahu must be out of his mind to consider it. It would piss Obama right off and strain the US-Israel relationship a lot and like I said earlier it'd be percieved as a joint US-Israeli attack on Russia. You've got to ask, what happens next? More tit for tat between Russia and the US via proxy? No. They're not going to start World War 3 over Assad. Its dangerous brinkmanship I give you that and there's always a danger this could get out of hand but I wouldn't start running off to the survival bunker just yet. If a rogue Israeli attack does happen I wouldn't expect a response off Syria or Russia either because it'd be too internationally risky and besides, Assad would appear to have the upper hand in winning this war for the time being, internationalising the conflic to involve foreign powers isn't something he wants to happen. He would probably to provoke a wider conflict if he felt the regime was going to crumble and his personal safety was at risk and this was his only way out.
This is what big superpowers posturing look like. These things are being done in the run up to the conference in Geneva in June to improve everyone's bargaining positions when they get there. It's an old fashioned NATO vs Russia showdown.
On a lighter note here's a piece of performance art from the Ukrainian branch of Proletarian Democracy, who for a laugh have filmed a low-quality video claiming to have started an International Brigade to of 72,000 volunteers to go and fight for Assad against the Terrorists in exchange for Syrian citizenship.
BBC: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/30/syria-assad-missiles-russia-claim
Russia Today: http://rt.com/news/air-defense-syria-assad-993/
This in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/30/syria-anti-aircraft-missile-system
I don't think an attack is going to happen, or even that these missiles are likely to be used against Israel in the Golan. It's a fairly understandable response to Israel bombing Syria earlier. Further attacks now would be a desperate thing to do from Israel's point of view. Netanyahu must be out of his mind to consider it. It would piss Obama right off and strain the US-Israel relationship a lot and like I said earlier it'd be percieved as a joint US-Israeli attack on Russia. You've got to ask, what happens next? More tit for tat between Russia and the US via proxy? No. They're not going to start World War 3 over Assad. Its dangerous brinkmanship I give you that and there's always a danger this could get out of hand but I wouldn't start running off to the survival bunker just yet. If a rogue Israeli attack does happen I wouldn't expect a response off Syria or Russia either because it'd be too internationally risky and besides, Assad would appear to have the upper hand in winning this war for the time being, internationalising the conflic to involve foreign powers isn't something he wants to happen. He would probably to provoke a wider conflict if he felt the regime was going to crumble and his personal safety was at risk and this was his only way out.
This is what big superpowers posturing look like. These things are being done in the run up to the conference in Geneva in June to improve everyone's bargaining positions when they get there. It's an old fashioned NATO vs Russia showdown.
On a lighter note here's a piece of performance art from the Ukrainian branch of Proletarian Democracy, who for a laugh have filmed a low-quality video claiming to have started an International Brigade to of 72,000 volunteers to go and fight for Assad against the Terrorists in exchange for Syrian citizenship.
bendeus
Bellend Tagline Generator
Well thank fuck you're about with your MASSIVELY AWESOME username, eh?
Syria's Assad warns Israel on air strikes and Golan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22725334
C'mon Bashar, I'm rooting for you. You're my guy. but we all know that is never gonna happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22725334
C'mon Bashar, I'm rooting for you. You're my guy. but we all know that is never gonna happen.
Similar threads
