6 ms·

In 1986, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said, “Supporting Israel is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America wou

In 1986, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said, “Supporting Israel is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.” Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name. You'd have a better shot at dissolving the UN entirely than suspending Israel. What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state.

ycomb-acct 2y ago
[flagged]
- flappyeagle 2y ago
  There are no Israelis in the cabinet as far as I know. Are you saying that Jewish Americans are secretly agents for Israel?
  - goldfishgold 2y ago
    Blinken’s gf was an early supporter of Israel: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/15/obituaries/maurice-blinken-86-early-backer-of-israel.html https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/15/obituaries/maurice-blinke.... Biden’s current “envoy” to Lebanon and Israel, Amos Hochstein, is a former IDF soldier born and raised in Jerusalem.
  - shsisjdhdh 2y ago
    There’s plenty of non Jewish Zionists in the US as well. And I don’t think anyone is really being secretive here. The US is taking actions that benefit Israel to the detriment of America.
  - Asparagus7426 2y ago
    This is exactly what people are saying when they are referring to 'zionists', everything else is just a red herring. Unfortunately even well intentioned people are ignorant of this.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
boomboomsubban 2y ago
>What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state. That isn't the criteria for being a council member, if it were they'd need to allow India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Plus, pretty sure the US does not officially recognize Israel as a nuclear power, it's one of those open secret things Besides that, how would the US benefit from another country being able to veto anything they want to do in the UN? Sure, they'd probably agree with far more things than Russia or China, but the US wouldn't gain anything from them being there.
ioblomov 2y ago
Excellent point. But assuming you're not being facetious, the Security Council is largely a historical artifact: all five permanent members were the victors of WWII. (Why occupied France was included is something I never understood.)
- cma 2y ago
  Council came first for some, but they were also the first 5 nuclear powers. In one case, Mainland China got the bomb in '64 and replaced Taiwan on the security council within a decade.
  - ioblomov 2y ago
    While it's true nuclear proliferation began with the five permanent members, at the time the UN and Security Council were founded in 1945, only the US had the bomb. The USSR didn't test one until 1949, the UK in 1952, France in 1960, and China (as you mentioned) in 1964. The Soviet Union had an early start because of their spies in the Manhattan Project, while the UK contributed to it during the War. 15 years would pass before another permanent member caught up. And Russia took the USSR's seat just as China did Taiwan's.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name. The US is more reflexively pro-Israel than Israel is pro-US in international policy, the opposite of what you’d expect if Israel was a US vassal. > What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council There are lots of reasons, but one that renders all the others secondary is that the US can’t add permanent Security Council members. > considering it is a nuclear armed state. India, Pakistan, North Korea, and, when it was a nuclear-armed state, South Africa also are (and were) not permanent UNSC members, a set whuch hasn't expanded, though two seats have switched hands, since the UN was founded.
- renegade-otter 2y ago
  Yet Russia, a country the leader of which is wanted for war crimes - is on the permanent Security Council. The whole organization needs to be uprooted and rebuilt. It's become a farce.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Multiple recent American presidents also committed war crimes
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      The set of American presidents who haven't would be more easily enumerable/null.
    - renegade-otter 2y ago
      We can discuss American misadventures and horrible decisions in the aftermath of 9/11, but equating the U.S. military to Russia, which effectively has rape and torture as part of its doctrine, is more than a stretch. To be clear, I totally expected a comment like that, but I can guarantee you 1000% that no Ukrainians will be hanging on to Russian cargo plane wheels once they are booted out.
      - 2y ago
7thpower 2y ago
Israel has far more influence in the US than the US does in Israel. It is very clear that the current administration is backed into a corner and trying to make the best of the situation. FWIW: This is not a knock against the current administration.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- walleeee 2y ago
  > It is very clear that the current administration is backed into a corner and trying to make the best of the situation. This does not seem clear at all. What has led you to think so?
  - tmnvix 2y ago
    There are two points here. The first is due to AIPAC. I would say the second is debatable.
    - 7thpower 2y ago
      That’s fair.
  - 7thpower 2y ago
    A slow and steady drumbeat of stories like these over the years: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-cnntv/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-... https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-822306 https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-822306 It goes on and on. Escalating conflict in the ME, such as with Israel and Lebanon, regardless of who is at fault, is not in the interest of the US. The administration feels attempts to deescalate are falling on deaf ears, but is in a politically precarious situation.
- invalidname 2y ago
  This is often repeated but is historically VERY incorrect. Yes, Israel does lobbying in the states and does influence (like every other country). The current Israeli government is indeed terrible and blatant at that. However, Israel left Gaza in 2005 with no deal as part of US pressure (which led to the current situation). Israel offered a Palestinians a country which included east Jerusalem twice based on US pressure. Israel left Lebanon alone due to such pressure. Israel didn't attack Lebanon for a year and tried to settle due to US pressure despite an average of 25 rockets per day towards civilian population. Imagine a country being attacked and fired on for nearly 20 years (by Hamas) and keeping reposes "moderate". That's US pressure and influence right there. Israel delayed going into Rafah due to US pressure, it turns out Sinwar and quite a few hostages were there... The reason it seems that US pressure isn't working is mostly because no one knows what to do exactly. Hostages are still held by Hamas. Hezbollah is still firing rockets/drones even now. I'm 100% for a hostage exchange but right now there's no deal, part of that is because of Netanyahu (who is terrible) but not all of it. The US can't fire Netanyahu (I wish they could...), and that's a problem. They want to strengthen anti-Netanyahu forces within Israel while still moderating its actions, that's a very tight rope to walk on.
throwaway9917 2y ago
The thing is, Israel doesn’t protect U.S. interests in the middle east. All the U.S. has really ever wanted there is oil, and because of U.S. support for Israel, we’ve been the subject of two oil embargoes. Israel provides us zero military bases, even when Arab countries provide us dozens. Despite all of the support we give them and have given them, they have repeatedly escalated conflicts when the U.S. asked them to stop. Today, we are unable to ship goods through the Red Sea because the Houthis are upset over Israel’s actions in Gaza.
- dlubarov 2y ago
  Has the US asked for a base? They do have Site 512, not a typical base but still a base. In many ways Israel does the US' dirty work, like crippling Hezbollah which is responsible for numerous attacks against US (and other Western) personnel. The Houthis are squarely to blame for the disruption of Red Sea shipping; Israel's military operation in a different country isn't a legitimate reason to attack (almost) random ships.
  - throwaway9917 2y ago
    I think you’re missing the point here. The only reason the U.S. cares about Hezbollah is because they attack Israel. The only reason Hezbollah exists is because of Israel. The reason the Houthis are attacking shipping is because the U.S. supports Israel. Being an ally to Israel has imposed huge costs on the U.S. and virtually no benefits. Many in the U.S. feel that protecting Israel is a moral cause, but it is undeniably a strategic albatross for us.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > The only reason the U.S. cares about Hezbollah is because they attack Israel. No, another is that they are proxies of Iran, which the US has problems with that go beyond attacking Israel.
      - Woshiwuja 2y ago

ycomb-acct 2y ago

[flagged]

flappyeagle 2y ago
There are no Israelis in the cabinet as far as I know. Are you saying that Jewish Americans are secretly agents for Israel?
- goldfishgold 2y ago
  Blinken’s gf was an early supporter of Israel: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/15/obituaries/maurice-blinken-86-early-backer-of-israel.html https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/15/obituaries/maurice-blinke.... Biden’s current “envoy” to Lebanon and Israel, Amos Hochstein, is a former IDF soldier born and raised in Jerusalem.
- shsisjdhdh 2y ago
  There’s plenty of non Jewish Zionists in the US as well. And I don’t think anyone is really being secretive here. The US is taking actions that benefit Israel to the detriment of America.
- Asparagus7426 2y ago
  This is exactly what people are saying when they are referring to 'zionists', everything else is just a red herring. Unfortunately even well intentioned people are ignorant of this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

boomboomsubban 2y ago

>What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state. That isn't the criteria for being a council member, if it were they'd need to allow India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Plus, pretty sure the US does not officially recognize Israel as a nuclear power, it's one of those open secret things Besides that, how would the US benefit from another country being able to veto anything they want to do in the UN? Sure, they'd probably agree with far more things than Russia or China, but the US wouldn't gain anything from them being there.

ioblomov 2y ago

Excellent point. But assuming you're not being facetious, the Security Council is largely a historical artifact: all five permanent members were the victors of WWII. (Why occupied France was included is something I never understood.)

cma 2y ago
Council came first for some, but they were also the first 5 nuclear powers. In one case, Mainland China got the bomb in '64 and replaced Taiwan on the security council within a decade.
- ioblomov 2y ago
  While it's true nuclear proliferation began with the five permanent members, at the time the UN and Security Council were founded in 1945, only the US had the bomb. The USSR didn't test one until 1949, the UK in 1952, France in 1960, and China (as you mentioned) in 1964. The Soviet Union had an early start because of their spies in the Manhattan Project, while the UK contributed to it during the War. 15 years would pass before another permanent member caught up. And Russia took the USSR's seat just as China did Taiwan's.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name. The US is more reflexively pro-Israel than Israel is pro-US in international policy, the opposite of what you’d expect if Israel was a US vassal. > What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council There are lots of reasons, but one that renders all the others secondary is that the US can’t add permanent Security Council members. > considering it is a nuclear armed state. India, Pakistan, North Korea, and, when it was a nuclear-armed state, South Africa also are (and were) not permanent UNSC members, a set whuch hasn't expanded, though two seats have switched hands, since the UN was founded.

renegade-otter 2y ago
Yet Russia, a country the leader of which is wanted for war crimes - is on the permanent Security Council. The whole organization needs to be uprooted and rebuilt. It's become a farce.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Multiple recent American presidents also committed war crimes
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    The set of American presidents who haven't would be more easily enumerable/null.
  - renegade-otter 2y ago
    We can discuss American misadventures and horrible decisions in the aftermath of 9/11, but equating the U.S. military to Russia, which effectively has rape and torture as part of its doctrine, is more than a stretch. To be clear, I totally expected a comment like that, but I can guarantee you 1000% that no Ukrainians will be hanging on to Russian cargo plane wheels once they are booted out.
    - 2y ago

7thpower 2y ago

Israel has far more influence in the US than the US does in Israel. It is very clear that the current administration is backed into a corner and trying to make the best of the situation. FWIW: This is not a knock against the current administration.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
walleeee 2y ago
> It is very clear that the current administration is backed into a corner and trying to make the best of the situation. This does not seem clear at all. What has led you to think so?
- tmnvix 2y ago
  There are two points here. The first is due to AIPAC. I would say the second is debatable.
  - 7thpower 2y ago
    That’s fair.
- 7thpower 2y ago
  A slow and steady drumbeat of stories like these over the years: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-cnntv/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-... https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-822306 https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-822306 It goes on and on. Escalating conflict in the ME, such as with Israel and Lebanon, regardless of who is at fault, is not in the interest of the US. The administration feels attempts to deescalate are falling on deaf ears, but is in a politically precarious situation.
invalidname 2y ago
This is often repeated but is historically VERY incorrect. Yes, Israel does lobbying in the states and does influence (like every other country). The current Israeli government is indeed terrible and blatant at that. However, Israel left Gaza in 2005 with no deal as part of US pressure (which led to the current situation). Israel offered a Palestinians a country which included east Jerusalem twice based on US pressure. Israel left Lebanon alone due to such pressure. Israel didn't attack Lebanon for a year and tried to settle due to US pressure despite an average of 25 rockets per day towards civilian population. Imagine a country being attacked and fired on for nearly 20 years (by Hamas) and keeping reposes "moderate". That's US pressure and influence right there. Israel delayed going into Rafah due to US pressure, it turns out Sinwar and quite a few hostages were there... The reason it seems that US pressure isn't working is mostly because no one knows what to do exactly. Hostages are still held by Hamas. Hezbollah is still firing rockets/drones even now. I'm 100% for a hostage exchange but right now there's no deal, part of that is because of Netanyahu (who is terrible) but not all of it. The US can't fire Netanyahu (I wish they could...), and that's a problem. They want to strengthen anti-Netanyahu forces within Israel while still moderating its actions, that's a very tight rope to walk on.

throwaway9917 2y ago

The thing is, Israel doesn’t protect U.S. interests in the middle east. All the U.S. has really ever wanted there is oil, and because of U.S. support for Israel, we’ve been the subject of two oil embargoes. Israel provides us zero military bases, even when Arab countries provide us dozens. Despite all of the support we give them and have given them, they have repeatedly escalated conflicts when the U.S. asked them to stop. Today, we are unable to ship goods through the Red Sea because the Houthis are upset over Israel’s actions in Gaza.

dlubarov 2y ago
Has the US asked for a base? They do have Site 512, not a typical base but still a base. In many ways Israel does the US' dirty work, like crippling Hezbollah which is responsible for numerous attacks against US (and other Western) personnel. The Houthis are squarely to blame for the disruption of Red Sea shipping; Israel's military operation in a different country isn't a legitimate reason to attack (almost) random ships.
- throwaway9917 2y ago
  I think you’re missing the point here. The only reason the U.S. cares about Hezbollah is because they attack Israel. The only reason Hezbollah exists is because of Israel. The reason the Houthis are attacking shipping is because the U.S. supports Israel. Being an ally to Israel has imposed huge costs on the U.S. and virtually no benefits. Many in the U.S. feel that protecting Israel is a moral cause, but it is undeniably a strategic albatross for us.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > The only reason the U.S. cares about Hezbollah is because they attack Israel. No, another is that they are proxies of Iran, which the US has problems with that go beyond attacking Israel.
    - Woshiwuja 2y ago