3 ms·

The bigger question of course is why the "agreement" was made with the Israelis, and not with the Palestinians directly.

by vanusa 5y ago

isoprophlex 5y ago
Might makes right, as always ...
dijit 5y ago
USA is the only country on earth that recognises all of Israel’s territory claims.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  Not just that. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
  - iDisagreedEar 5y ago
    127$/US citizen tax to murder people you never met. It's worse than that, you can't even travel as an American without people thinking you support murdering people.
  - devmunchies 5y ago
    $38 billion. woah. if US continues to give Israel unconditional aid then it will start to look like a vassal state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal_state
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      The US needs an ally in the Middle East that is more reliable than any of the Arab nations are. Better than being even more beholden to Saudi Arabia. US interests also benefit quite a lot from Israeli industry, from Intel to Cellebrite
    - iskander 5y ago
      It's primarily a subsidy for American weapons manufacturers (from whom the Israelis have to make purchases), mixed with a hefty R&D budget for new military technology like Iron Dome.
      - bombcar 5y ago
        Exactly. And it keeps Israel from buying similar equipment from Russia or China (and helping support those developers).
      - vanusa 5y ago
        "Primarily" is more than a bit of stretch, here. All observation of U.S.-Israel relations since 1967 indicate that it's driven by a very strong ideological (and perceived electoral) component. In fact it's hard to think of a single case of a ("friendly") country for which the degree of U.S. support is less ideological. Pork barreling plays a role for sure as well, but it's definitely second fiddle.
  - lr4444lr 5y ago
    While that at a glance looks likr a thorough source, you might want to mention that most of that aid was a result of the after math of the 1973 war, which led to a stabilization of the Suez region militarily, friendly relations between Egypt (which also got annual aid from the deal) and U.S., the Camp David Accords, and an enduring peace that's nearing half a century between Egypt and Israel.
wernercd 5y ago
Because there's never been a country named "Palestine" and as such it's hard to make agreements with a country that doesn't exist.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  ... in the US Government's (and some of its allies') perspective (NB: there are definitely some caveats and the most "Israel-only" policy is in the Trump era but in practice this is how it works). Most Arab countries (for some, until recently) have the inverse: they only recognize the Palestinian government and never the Israeli government. Some governments choose a more pragmatic "both Israel and Palestine exists but their land borders are definitely not defined well".
  - wernercd 5y ago
    in the US perspective? Please, show a map that has ever had the country Palestine... I love how a simple statement of fact is getting voted down: You can't make an agreement with a non-entity. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168 > In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. > So, the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity. Recognition of... what? a "government" of a country that never existed? People can vote me down more but facts remain that the country never existed as a real entity.
- Angostura 5y ago
  The US seems to manage OK forming relationships with Taiwan, for example.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    Taiwan has a working government.
    - wernercd 5y ago
      And, I'd argue, it's willing to negotiate in good faith. The PLO, over the decades, has turned down anything that doesn't give it 100% of what it wants (basically, the destruction of Israel).
buserror 5y ago
possibly because the israelis already have all the imagery they would want anyway, and the blurring is only a problem for people who don't?
duxup 5y ago
As far as Gaza goes, Hamas rules Gaza but they're not the recognized government. I'm not sure who you would ask to make policy in such a situation. Just Hamas because they rule that area by force? That sounds a lot like asking Israel for the same reason. I don't think there's a good/ automatic answer for these situations.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  > As far as Gaza goes, Hamas rules Gaza but they're not the recognized government. It's definitely more complicated by that, there is some evidence that people in the Gaza area have definitely supported Hamas, but of course they're rejected by the PNA (which rules over West Bank) and Israel.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > there is some evidence that people in the Gaza area have definitely supported Hamas Such as when they were elected.
- windthrown 5y ago
  Playing the devil's advocate, if the US is willing to negotiate with both the Taliban and official Afghanistan government directly, why not Hamas and Israel? (I am not trying to equate these groups; just compare the official vs force relationships)
  - tifadg1 5y ago
    Because they can't win in Afghanistan and are planning a retreat, whereas gaza is this way due to historical reasons, but mostly because they don't pose a real threat.
betterunix2 5y ago
Should they have negotiated with the Palestinian Authority, which only partially controls the West Bank, or with Hamas, which took control of Gaza and proceeded to murder leaders from other Palestinian political parties? It is kind of hard to know who the "official" representatives of the Palestinian people actually are due to the failure to establish a functional Palestinian state or government.
- elmomle 5y ago
  I wish the recent history of Palestine were different too, but it seems unkind to use language that implicitly blames Palestinians as a people--or the factions that now hold power--for these issues. Literally any people on Earth would probably have a similar history, and be in a similar (or worse) place with respect to government, if they faced similar pressures for such an extended period of time.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    How did I blame the Palestinian people? The fact is that they do not have a functioning government, and the government they have is not in a position to negotiate on their behalf when it comes to Gaza. The faction that controls Gaza is not even recognized as legitimate by the PA (which is supposed to represent the Palestinian people).
    - lacksconfidence 5y ago
      You appear, and i could of course be mistaken, to be blaming the palestinian people for "the failure to establish a functional Palestinian state or government". As if it the fault of a population that's mostly under 30 years old that they haven't been able to establish a government under the existing conditions. I'm not sure anyone else could.
      - betterunix2 5y ago
        That was a statement of fact, I was not blaming anyone in particular. As I have said elsewhere, if anyone is to blame it would be Hamas, whose political campaign in 2006 was based on delegitimizing the peace process and two-state solution and which pressed a war with Fatah that greatly weakened the PA. It is not as if the Palestinians were told to build a functioning state on their own; they receive a lot of help from other countries, including from Israel itself (e.g. joint police operations, joint security patrols, etc. -- all of which are confidence-building and institution-building measures).
zokier 5y ago
Because Israel has more deeper pocketed lobby groups in US?

The bigger question of course is why the "agreement" was made with the Israelis, and not with the Palestinians directly.

by vanusa 5y ago

The bigger question of course is why the "agreement" was made with the Israelis, and not with the Palestinians directly.

isoprophlex 5y ago

Might makes right, as always ...

dijit 5y ago

USA is the only country on earth that recognises all of Israel’s territory claims.

squarefoot 5y ago
Not just that. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
- iDisagreedEar 5y ago
  127$/US citizen tax to murder people you never met. It's worse than that, you can't even travel as an American without people thinking you support murdering people.
- devmunchies 5y ago
  $38 billion. woah. if US continues to give Israel unconditional aid then it will start to look like a vassal state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal_state
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    The US needs an ally in the Middle East that is more reliable than any of the Arab nations are. Better than being even more beholden to Saudi Arabia. US interests also benefit quite a lot from Israeli industry, from Intel to Cellebrite
  - iskander 5y ago
    It's primarily a subsidy for American weapons manufacturers (from whom the Israelis have to make purchases), mixed with a hefty R&D budget for new military technology like Iron Dome.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Exactly. And it keeps Israel from buying similar equipment from Russia or China (and helping support those developers).
    - vanusa 5y ago
      "Primarily" is more than a bit of stretch, here. All observation of U.S.-Israel relations since 1967 indicate that it's driven by a very strong ideological (and perceived electoral) component. In fact it's hard to think of a single case of a ("friendly") country for which the degree of U.S. support is less ideological. Pork barreling plays a role for sure as well, but it's definitely second fiddle.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  While that at a glance looks likr a thorough source, you might want to mention that most of that aid was a result of the after math of the 1973 war, which led to a stabilization of the Suez region militarily, friendly relations between Egypt (which also got annual aid from the deal) and U.S., the Camp David Accords, and an enduring peace that's nearing half a century between Egypt and Israel.

wernercd 5y ago

Because there's never been a country named "Palestine" and as such it's hard to make agreements with a country that doesn't exist.

zinekeller 5y ago
... in the US Government's (and some of its allies') perspective (NB: there are definitely some caveats and the most "Israel-only" policy is in the Trump era but in practice this is how it works). Most Arab countries (for some, until recently) have the inverse: they only recognize the Palestinian government and never the Israeli government. Some governments choose a more pragmatic "both Israel and Palestine exists but their land borders are definitely not defined well".
- wernercd 5y ago
  in the US perspective? Please, show a map that has ever had the country Palestine... I love how a simple statement of fact is getting voted down: You can't make an agreement with a non-entity. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168 > In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. > So, the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity. Recognition of... what? a "government" of a country that never existed? People can vote me down more but facts remain that the country never existed as a real entity.
Angostura 5y ago
The US seems to manage OK forming relationships with Taiwan, for example.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Taiwan has a working government.
  - wernercd 5y ago
    And, I'd argue, it's willing to negotiate in good faith. The PLO, over the decades, has turned down anything that doesn't give it 100% of what it wants (basically, the destruction of Israel).

buserror 5y ago

possibly because the israelis already have all the imagery they would want anyway, and the blurring is only a problem for people who don't?

duxup 5y ago

As far as Gaza goes, Hamas rules Gaza but they're not the recognized government. I'm not sure who you would ask to make policy in such a situation. Just Hamas because they rule that area by force? That sounds a lot like asking Israel for the same reason. I don't think there's a good/ automatic answer for these situations.

zinekeller 5y ago
> As far as Gaza goes, Hamas rules Gaza but they're not the recognized government. It's definitely more complicated by that, there is some evidence that people in the Gaza area have definitely supported Hamas, but of course they're rejected by the PNA (which rules over West Bank) and Israel.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > there is some evidence that people in the Gaza area have definitely supported Hamas Such as when they were elected.
windthrown 5y ago
Playing the devil's advocate, if the US is willing to negotiate with both the Taliban and official Afghanistan government directly, why not Hamas and Israel? (I am not trying to equate these groups; just compare the official vs force relationships)
- tifadg1 5y ago
  Because they can't win in Afghanistan and are planning a retreat, whereas gaza is this way due to historical reasons, but mostly because they don't pose a real threat.

betterunix2 5y ago

Should they have negotiated with the Palestinian Authority, which only partially controls the West Bank, or with Hamas, which took control of Gaza and proceeded to murder leaders from other Palestinian political parties? It is kind of hard to know who the "official" representatives of the Palestinian people actually are due to the failure to establish a functional Palestinian state or government.

elmomle 5y ago
I wish the recent history of Palestine were different too, but it seems unkind to use language that implicitly blames Palestinians as a people--or the factions that now hold power--for these issues. Literally any people on Earth would probably have a similar history, and be in a similar (or worse) place with respect to government, if they faced similar pressures for such an extended period of time.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  How did I blame the Palestinian people? The fact is that they do not have a functioning government, and the government they have is not in a position to negotiate on their behalf when it comes to Gaza. The faction that controls Gaza is not even recognized as legitimate by the PA (which is supposed to represent the Palestinian people).
  - lacksconfidence 5y ago
    You appear, and i could of course be mistaken, to be blaming the palestinian people for "the failure to establish a functional Palestinian state or government". As if it the fault of a population that's mostly under 30 years old that they haven't been able to establish a government under the existing conditions. I'm not sure anyone else could.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      That was a statement of fact, I was not blaming anyone in particular. As I have said elsewhere, if anyone is to blame it would be Hamas, whose political campaign in 2006 was based on delegitimizing the peace process and two-state solution and which pressed a war with Fatah that greatly weakened the PA. It is not as if the Palestinians were told to build a functioning state on their own; they receive a lot of help from other countries, including from Israel itself (e.g. joint police operations, joint security patrols, etc. -- all of which are confidence-building and institution-building measures).

zokier 5y ago

Because Israel has more deeper pocketed lobby groups in US?