5 ms·

Very much so, a paradox given millions flying in defence aid to both Egypt, and Israel. The kind of lobbyists in Washington are not rooting for the secular sta

Very much so, a paradox given millions flying in defence aid to both Egypt, and Israel. The kind of lobbyists in Washington are not rooting for the secular state of Israel, but pretty much specifically for the orthodox Haradrim, or the kind of Neftali Bennet. Equally so, Israelis hating Arabs don't preclude them propping up the criminal Saudi state, and a small portion of Saudi elites who hate Turkey.

handrous 5y ago
Israel and Egypt both being top recipients of US aid is part of the peace arrangement. Egypt is by far Israel's strongest neighbor, militarily. No coalition of neighboring states has any chance defeating Israel without them, so the US pays Egypt not to mess around with Israel.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Egypt was defeated by Israel who had no intention of keeping their land, and they have had a better relationship than most other countries in that region for a long time.
  - handrous 5y ago
    OK? The US aid arrangement is also part of the whole thing, though. [EDIT] Oh damn, when did Jordan rocket up the list of US aid recipients? I gotta start keeping up with geopolitical shenanigans again, I'm clearly behind the times. But yes, the Egypt thing was, if not publicly the case, one of those open-secret things that're taken for granted in poli-sci and policy circles, like "Israel has nukes", or "the US removing MRBMs from Turkey was part of the deal for keeping Soviet nukes out of Cuba". The US pays Egypt not to mess with Israel.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      It’s as useful as the money they used in Afghanistan. This isn’t the 70s anymore. Egypt isn’t incentivized to battle Israel, and Israel isn’t incapable of defending itself.
      - handrous 5y ago
        It wasn't incapable then, either. Clearly. But this takes some of the heat off them, and discourages Egypt from permitting—or encouraging—non-conventional anti-israel forces within its borders, or abroad, even as its domestic politics shift (no-one wants to shut off the money hose).
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
goboronshka 5y ago
And in return for said aid, Israel has become an American puppet and stays about the size of New Jersey without us having to use force. Between sending in troops and paying them, the US decided to pay. Imagine if a bully promised to not beat you up as long as he could pay you a small sum to sit in a corner in a fetal position all day. These politics are a lot more complex than you're making them out to be.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  If the US hated Israel it wouldn't have supported its creation, and last I checked the US is paying Israel not the opposite. Your analogy is stupid and pointless. Are you crying in a fetal position all day making analogies out of your own delusional fantasies?
  - goboronshka 5y ago
    Yes sorry I mistyped, it was early, I meant the bully pays you to sit in the corner, otherwise he beats you up. Sure he's paying you, but it's still clearly coercive.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Israelis don't see the US as a bully. I have never heard of this viewpoint, Israel has settlers, it has borders, and if it chooses to change its borders the US won't be the bully, it will be a battle with the other countries in the middle east. I don't get any of your points, you are complaining about money that Israel takes and how its coersive, so you don't have to take the money? Trump moved the US embassy to Jersusalem, and the US gives billions of aid to Israel. What is your criteria for "antisemitism"? If accepting the capital of Israel, giving money, military aid, is your definition of antisemetic it dimimishes Nazis activity if you group aid into "bullying" and "antisemitism".
      - yyyk 5y ago
        Basically his position, when you strip out the inflammatory rhetoric, is that the US wants to keep Israel weak and dependent on US aid. i.e. Get Israel to make concessions (say returning the Sinai to Egypt), the US covers up for that with aid, but the aid can always be withdrawn (say if Israel dares make the US upset, or if some radical President is elected), leaving Israel dependent, and at risk in the long term. I don't think that accurately describes US policy anymore, if it ever did. Modern day US administrations have withdrawn from the world, and that means their ME policies are not determined by reality, but by domestic ideologies and domestic political considerations.

handrous 5y ago

Israel and Egypt both being top recipients of US aid is part of the peace arrangement. Egypt is by far Israel's strongest neighbor, militarily. No coalition of neighboring states has any chance defeating Israel without them, so the US pays Egypt not to mess around with Israel.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Egypt was defeated by Israel who had no intention of keeping their land, and they have had a better relationship than most other countries in that region for a long time.
- handrous 5y ago
  OK? The US aid arrangement is also part of the whole thing, though. [EDIT] Oh damn, when did Jordan rocket up the list of US aid recipients? I gotta start keeping up with geopolitical shenanigans again, I'm clearly behind the times. But yes, the Egypt thing was, if not publicly the case, one of those open-secret things that're taken for granted in poli-sci and policy circles, like "Israel has nukes", or "the US removing MRBMs from Turkey was part of the deal for keeping Soviet nukes out of Cuba". The US pays Egypt not to mess with Israel.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    It’s as useful as the money they used in Afghanistan. This isn’t the 70s anymore. Egypt isn’t incentivized to battle Israel, and Israel isn’t incapable of defending itself.
    - handrous 5y ago
      It wasn't incapable then, either. Clearly. But this takes some of the heat off them, and discourages Egypt from permitting—or encouraging—non-conventional anti-israel forces within its borders, or abroad, even as its domestic politics shift (no-one wants to shut off the money hose).
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

goboronshka 5y ago

And in return for said aid, Israel has become an American puppet and stays about the size of New Jersey without us having to use force. Between sending in troops and paying them, the US decided to pay. Imagine if a bully promised to not beat you up as long as he could pay you a small sum to sit in a corner in a fetal position all day. These politics are a lot more complex than you're making them out to be.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
If the US hated Israel it wouldn't have supported its creation, and last I checked the US is paying Israel not the opposite. Your analogy is stupid and pointless. Are you crying in a fetal position all day making analogies out of your own delusional fantasies?
- goboronshka 5y ago
  Yes sorry I mistyped, it was early, I meant the bully pays you to sit in the corner, otherwise he beats you up. Sure he's paying you, but it's still clearly coercive.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Israelis don't see the US as a bully. I have never heard of this viewpoint, Israel has settlers, it has borders, and if it chooses to change its borders the US won't be the bully, it will be a battle with the other countries in the middle east. I don't get any of your points, you are complaining about money that Israel takes and how its coersive, so you don't have to take the money? Trump moved the US embassy to Jersusalem, and the US gives billions of aid to Israel. What is your criteria for "antisemitism"? If accepting the capital of Israel, giving money, military aid, is your definition of antisemetic it dimimishes Nazis activity if you group aid into "bullying" and "antisemitism".
    - yyyk 5y ago
      Basically his position, when you strip out the inflammatory rhetoric, is that the US wants to keep Israel weak and dependent on US aid. i.e. Get Israel to make concessions (say returning the Sinai to Egypt), the US covers up for that with aid, but the aid can always be withdrawn (say if Israel dares make the US upset, or if some radical President is elected), leaving Israel dependent, and at risk in the long term. I don't think that accurately describes US policy anymore, if it ever did. Modern day US administrations have withdrawn from the world, and that means their ME policies are not determined by reality, but by domestic ideologies and domestic political considerations.