3 ms·

The United States has never had a problem supporting aggressive states in contravention of international law with a history of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. I

The United States has never had a problem supporting aggressive states in contravention of international law with a history of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. It is itself such a state. From the perspective of U.S. planners there are both costs and benefits to aggressively projecting power over the middle east (and for that matter the rest of the world). You've only identified the costs. You omit the perceived benefits and implicitly exaggerate the influence of a small, (primarily) ethnic domestic lobby. That is like saying the Roman empire was a bad idea because it obviously would lead to collapse--true--but instead of chalking it up to outsized imperialism by the Romans themselves you blame some like Mesopotamian lobbyists for overextending it.

Udik 8y ago
> a history of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. It is itself such a state. Well, you tried to score an easy win there. (1) But Israel is engaging in such oppression now, we're not talking about a remote past. We're talking about very public and vociferous support for the very public actions of a democratic state- a state on whose policies the citizens have control through democratic elections and knowledge through public opinion. > aggressively projecting power It's the third time you use the expression "projecting power" in a handwavy fashion, without explaining what you mean in detail. I've linked in my previous comment the opinion of a former US ambassador, arguing that this supposed "power projection" amounts to nil. I was expecting some counter-arguments. I'll paste an excerpt here: "It's useful to recall what we generally expect allies and strategic partners to do for us. In Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the Middle East, they provide bases and support the projection of American power beyond their borders. They join us on the battlefield in places like Kuwait and Afghanistan or underwrite the costs of our military operations. They help recruit others to our coalitions. They coordinate their foreign aid with ours. Many defray the costs of our use of their facilities with "host nation support" that reduces the costs of our military operations from and through their territory. They store weapons for our troops', rather than their own troops', use. They pay cash for the weapons we transfer to them. Israel does none of things and shows no interest in doing them. Perhaps it can't. It is so estranged from everyone else in the Middle East that no neighboring country will accept flight plans that originate in or transit it. Israel is therefore useless in terms of support for American power projection." - 1- As an aside, I understand that there might be a fundamental contradiction in the minds of the freedom and independence-loving Americans: while they repeal and condemn ethnic cleansing and oppression of native populations by superior force, they also somehow must accept its eventual historical outcome, as they are themselves that outcome.
- abalone 8y ago
  You are being obstinate. I cited a couple extensive discussions of the matter backed by voluminous scholarly work, compared to your one ambassador to Saudi Arabia. You promptly ignored them. Israel is literally the only nuclear power in the middle east and they are essentially a client state of the U.S. They have helped destroy secular Arab nationalism (e.g. 1967) which was/is the greatest threat to U.S. control of the region. There is intelligence collaboration. There are internal U.S. planning documents going back to the 1940s demonstrating the perceived military value in supporting Israel. The existence of dissenting voices within the establishment proves nothing. There are always hawks & doves that debate the costs & benefits of policies. It's as shabby an argument as the notion that a relatively small Jewish lobby could "trick" U.S. corporate powers that be into doing something against their perceived interests for decades.
  - Udik 8y ago
    > You are being obstinate. I cited a couple extensive discussions of the matter backed by voluminous scholarly work Hm? Sorry, I think I missed them. I can only see two videos of Noam Chomsky. > and they are essentially a client state of the U.S This is what you are trying to prove. I haven't heard a single argument or seen a single good reference yet.

Udik 8y ago

> a history of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. It is itself such a state. Well, you tried to score an easy win there. (1) But Israel is engaging in such oppression now, we're not talking about a remote past. We're talking about very public and vociferous support for the very public actions of a democratic state- a state on whose policies the citizens have control through democratic elections and knowledge through public opinion. > aggressively projecting power It's the third time you use the expression "projecting power" in a handwavy fashion, without explaining what you mean in detail. I've linked in my previous comment the opinion of a former US ambassador, arguing that this supposed "power projection" amounts to nil. I was expecting some counter-arguments. I'll paste an excerpt here: "It's useful to recall what we generally expect allies and strategic partners to do for us. In Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the Middle East, they provide bases and support the projection of American power beyond their borders. They join us on the battlefield in places like Kuwait and Afghanistan or underwrite the costs of our military operations. They help recruit others to our coalitions. They coordinate their foreign aid with ours. Many defray the costs of our use of their facilities with "host nation support" that reduces the costs of our military operations from and through their territory. They store weapons for our troops', rather than their own troops', use. They pay cash for the weapons we transfer to them. Israel does none of things and shows no interest in doing them. Perhaps it can't. It is so estranged from everyone else in the Middle East that no neighboring country will accept flight plans that originate in or transit it. Israel is therefore useless in terms of support for American power projection." - 1- As an aside, I understand that there might be a fundamental contradiction in the minds of the freedom and independence-loving Americans: while they repeal and condemn ethnic cleansing and oppression of native populations by superior force, they also somehow must accept its eventual historical outcome, as they are themselves that outcome.

abalone 8y ago
You are being obstinate. I cited a couple extensive discussions of the matter backed by voluminous scholarly work, compared to your one ambassador to Saudi Arabia. You promptly ignored them. Israel is literally the only nuclear power in the middle east and they are essentially a client state of the U.S. They have helped destroy secular Arab nationalism (e.g. 1967) which was/is the greatest threat to U.S. control of the region. There is intelligence collaboration. There are internal U.S. planning documents going back to the 1940s demonstrating the perceived military value in supporting Israel. The existence of dissenting voices within the establishment proves nothing. There are always hawks & doves that debate the costs & benefits of policies. It's as shabby an argument as the notion that a relatively small Jewish lobby could "trick" U.S. corporate powers that be into doing something against their perceived interests for decades.
- Udik 8y ago
  > You are being obstinate. I cited a couple extensive discussions of the matter backed by voluminous scholarly work Hm? Sorry, I think I missed them. I can only see two videos of Noam Chomsky. > and they are essentially a client state of the U.S This is what you are trying to prove. I haven't heard a single argument or seen a single good reference yet.