3 ms·

Let's not overlook that Israel has bought all previous US presidents back to its founding, and more than enough Congresscritters. We have been treating Israel a

Let's not overlook that Israel has bought all previous US presidents back to its founding, and more than enough Congresscritters. We have been treating Israel as if it were the 51st state, including unconditionally funding and defending it.

Quarrelsome 1y ago
I think we can point to Trump as a particular outlier, who in his first term green lit the capital move from Tel Aviv to Jeruselum, burning considerable political captial among Israel's detractors, in exchange for..... absolutely nothing (seemingly). As well as his general rhetoric (like his comments on Gaza) being considerably out of keeping with most of the Presidents before him.
- throw310822 1y ago
  His son in law (and business partner, and advisor) Jared Kushner is a personal family friend of Netanyahu. Besides this, Trump's muscular rhetoric probably just assumed that Israel was a piece of the US, more or less. I'm sure he also got very solid support at the elections from all the usual lobbies.
  - mr_toad 1y ago
    > I'm sure he also got very solid support at the elections from all the usual lobbies. “Did they vote for me?” is his first consideration.
- ImJamal 1y ago
  > the capital move from Tel Aviv to Jeruselum Israel considers their capital to be Jerusalem. Was there any other country where we just reject the city they consider their capital? Like would we tell Germany that we won't recognize Berlin as their capital and would instead tell them we are going to consider Hamburg their capital?
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    Jerusalem is partitioned in two, like Berlin was during the cold war. The US embassy for west Germany (and the capital of west Germany) were in Bonn. Moving the capital of west Germany to Berlin would have been seen as a very aggressive move.
    - ImJamal 1y ago
      You are missing a very clear difference. West Germany did not consider Berlin their capital. So I'll ask my question again, have we ever denied the capital of a country is the city of their choice?
  - Quarrelsome 1y ago
    ignoring the fact the move of the capital is controversial move among the groups previous administrations wanted Israel to work with. The delay of the capital move was a tool held over Israel's head by previous US administrations that Donald Trump gave up, seemingly for nothing.
    - ImJamal 1y ago
      Have we ever done such a thing to any other country?
      - Quarrelsome 1y ago
        idk but for 24 years US presidents did that and then they didn't. I'm asking why and what I get out of it is that the current US president is maybe more friendly to Israel than previous presidents.
        ImJamal 1y ago
        I don't know that we get anything out of it, but frankly I think we should respect what countries consider their capital. It is such a ridiculous thing to deny which we haven't done with any other country. Even our adversaries like the Soviet Union and China had their capitals acknowledged. If there was some sort of precedence for not accepting capitals, I wouldn't have a problem, but as far as I can tell Israel is the only exception. I like consistent standards even if it is bad politicaly.
- tguvot 1y ago
  The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37).[3] The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
  - Quarrelsome 1y ago
    that law included a 6 month waiver to delay the move and every President from Bill Clinton onwards perpetually signed those wavers. Donald Trump allowed it to lapse, which is the point I'm making; he's an outlier.
    - tguvot 1y ago
      it was literally law made us congress with a large majority. saying "trump did it", will be ignoring objective reality
      - Quarrelsome 1y ago
        The fact remains that Bill Clinton (2 terms), George W Bush (2 terms) and Barack Obama (2 terms) all utilised the waiver in the original legislation. Donald Trump in his first term didn't, which makes him an outlier. My point is that one can suggest that as opposed to being supportive to Israel like former presidents that Donald Trump is friendly to Israel, giving them what they want without asking for anything tangible in exchange. Please note that I will not continue to talk to you if you reply again without referencing the additional context I added. Talking past your conversational partner is rude.
        tguvot 1y ago
        You are also talking past facts. >The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37). The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995. Your context is deflecting that this is US law, adopted by more than supermajority in both houses and trying to dump it on trump. This law was essentially the will of american people; and presidents that you enumerated avoided implemented provisions of it. also, waiver in question was not blanket, but 6 months long and based on "national security" grounds". i guess under trump there were no more national security grounds to get a waiver
- MPSFounder 1y ago
  I disagree. 1. Jimmy Carter mentioned in his biography that Obama asked him not to speak at the DNC because he acknowledged Palestinians deserved a right to live peacefully in one of his speeches. I revisited that speech, and it was by all accounts tame. He explicitly mentioned Obama's Jewish chief of Staff describing AIPAC as opposing this, and Carter was denied a speech at the DNC for this very reason (including his support for a two state solutions, which the American jewry by all accounts opposes through their actions, despite their rhetoric). A US President was shunned from US elections because he was slightly critical of Israel. Let that sink in. 2. Nixon describing AIPAC influence and Pelosi describing how the US capitol could burn while ensuring Israel thrives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x_zrkJwDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x_zrkJwDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEpPk1BBFP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEpPk1BBFP8 The point of the above is American sitting Presidents or influential politicians describe the pressure they face of subjugating US interests to Israel's because America's economy is dominated by Jews and Evangelicals, who believe Israel must survive at all costs (including to the detriment of American interests). I understand how religiosity can lead to undermining America in favor of Israel. I cannot comprehend how Americans can defend this in good faith. Being America first is incompatible with the conduct of Israel, including its founding, for it is a colonial apartheid state that was founded on the murder and dislocation of families. I think it is difficult for most of us to imagine that the victims of a Holocaust, an abominable crime, can in turn be filled with so much hatred that they resort to the very crimes they were the victims of. I believe we went into Iraq and we fund Israel because powerful forces in these United States wish for us to do their dirty work, including when this work harms American interests, and most importantly, the values most of us hold dear: that every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
  - Quarrelsome 1y ago
    That's worthwhile context, however I don't think it dents the point I'm trying to make. Many US presidents have been supportive of Israel, I'm just making the point that I interpret Donald Trump to be _friendly_ as opposed to simply supportive.
    - MPSFounder 1y ago
avoutos 1y ago
The data doesn't seem to support this claim. Israel has not "bought" any Presidents. Even assuming all pro-israel spending comes from the government of Israel and not from say U.S. groups that support Israel, it is a fraction of the combined and individual spending of other interest groups. The pro-Israel lobby has spent roughly 10-15M per year since 1990 except for the past 2-3 years when it has ramped up due to the war. This is hardly enough to offset the billions of dollars spent in U.S. politics. For this to be true it would also require Israel to "buy" presidents who acted against Israel's interests (e.g. Obama and Biden who financially bolsered Iran). This seems unlikely. The U.S. does not unconditionally fund and defend Israel. Most (75-90%) of U.S. Federal military aid to Israel is contingent on Israel buying from American companies. This effectively makes most funding a roundabout subsidy of American defense contractors. There are also human rights conditions and many others. Israel and the U.S. actually have common interests in the Middle East. Contrary to some opinions, allowing Israel to cease to exist is not in the interest of the U.S. although I do support having Israel be less reliant on the U.S. sources: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?cycle=All&ind=Q05 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?cycle=All&ind=Q... https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL33222/RL33222.49.pdf https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL3322...
- an_guy 1y ago
  > The pro-Israel lobby has spent roughly 10-15M per year... This is hardly enough to offset the billions of dollars spent in U.S. politics Those $10-15 mil are given to politicians and the billions are spent from US tax payers money. > For this to be true it would also require Israel to "buy" presidents who acted against Israel's interests You might want to look into campaign contributions made by AIPAC and similar isreli institutions to these presidents. > Most (75-90%) of U.S. Federal military aid to Israel is contingent on Israel buying from American companies. Which effectively makes these weapons free for Israel. US is literally funding Israeli army.
  - avoutos 1y ago
    > Those $10-15 mil are given to politicians and the billions are spent from US tax payers money. regardless of where the money comes from, my point was that money is not enough compared to the rest to claim that Israel has "bought" candidates. > You might want to look into campaign contributions made by AIPAC and similar isreli institutions to these presidents. The pro-Israel lobby certainly donated to them, it was just not enough to justify the claim that Israel has "bought all previous US presidents." And the fact that those presidents acted against Israel's interests shows that if there was an attempt to "buy" them, it failed with respect to policy. > Which effectively makes these weapons free for Israel. US is literally funding Israeli army. You are right that the U.S. is funding Israel's military, but my point was that there are in fact conditions to the funding and the U.S. does get something in return if you consider the indirect subsidy of the American defense industry.

Quarrelsome 1y ago

I think we can point to Trump as a particular outlier, who in his first term green lit the capital move from Tel Aviv to Jeruselum, burning considerable political captial among Israel's detractors, in exchange for..... absolutely nothing (seemingly). As well as his general rhetoric (like his comments on Gaza) being considerably out of keeping with most of the Presidents before him.

throw310822 1y ago
His son in law (and business partner, and advisor) Jared Kushner is a personal family friend of Netanyahu. Besides this, Trump's muscular rhetoric probably just assumed that Israel was a piece of the US, more or less. I'm sure he also got very solid support at the elections from all the usual lobbies.
- mr_toad 1y ago
  > I'm sure he also got very solid support at the elections from all the usual lobbies. “Did they vote for me?” is his first consideration.
ImJamal 1y ago
> the capital move from Tel Aviv to Jeruselum Israel considers their capital to be Jerusalem. Was there any other country where we just reject the city they consider their capital? Like would we tell Germany that we won't recognize Berlin as their capital and would instead tell them we are going to consider Hamburg their capital?
- whatshisface 1y ago
  Jerusalem is partitioned in two, like Berlin was during the cold war. The US embassy for west Germany (and the capital of west Germany) were in Bonn. Moving the capital of west Germany to Berlin would have been seen as a very aggressive move.
  - ImJamal 1y ago
    You are missing a very clear difference. West Germany did not consider Berlin their capital. So I'll ask my question again, have we ever denied the capital of a country is the city of their choice?
- Quarrelsome 1y ago
  ignoring the fact the move of the capital is controversial move among the groups previous administrations wanted Israel to work with. The delay of the capital move was a tool held over Israel's head by previous US administrations that Donald Trump gave up, seemingly for nothing.
  - ImJamal 1y ago
    Have we ever done such a thing to any other country?
    - Quarrelsome 1y ago
      idk but for 24 years US presidents did that and then they didn't. I'm asking why and what I get out of it is that the current US president is maybe more friendly to Israel than previous presidents.
      - ImJamal 1y ago
        I don't know that we get anything out of it, but frankly I think we should respect what countries consider their capital. It is such a ridiculous thing to deny which we haven't done with any other country. Even our adversaries like the Soviet Union and China had their capitals acknowledged. If there was some sort of precedence for not accepting capitals, I wouldn't have a problem, but as far as I can tell Israel is the only exception. I like consistent standards even if it is bad politicaly.
tguvot 1y ago
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37).[3] The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
- Quarrelsome 1y ago
  that law included a 6 month waiver to delay the move and every President from Bill Clinton onwards perpetually signed those wavers. Donald Trump allowed it to lapse, which is the point I'm making; he's an outlier.
  - tguvot 1y ago
    it was literally law made us congress with a large majority. saying "trump did it", will be ignoring objective reality
    - Quarrelsome 1y ago
      The fact remains that Bill Clinton (2 terms), George W Bush (2 terms) and Barack Obama (2 terms) all utilised the waiver in the original legislation. Donald Trump in his first term didn't, which makes him an outlier. My point is that one can suggest that as opposed to being supportive to Israel like former presidents that Donald Trump is friendly to Israel, giving them what they want without asking for anything tangible in exchange. Please note that I will not continue to talk to you if you reply again without referencing the additional context I added. Talking past your conversational partner is rude.
      - tguvot 1y ago
        You are also talking past facts. >The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37). The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995. Your context is deflecting that this is US law, adopted by more than supermajority in both houses and trying to dump it on trump. This law was essentially the will of american people; and presidents that you enumerated avoided implemented provisions of it. also, waiver in question was not blanket, but 6 months long and based on "national security" grounds". i guess under trump there were no more national security grounds to get a waiver
MPSFounder 1y ago
I disagree. 1. Jimmy Carter mentioned in his biography that Obama asked him not to speak at the DNC because he acknowledged Palestinians deserved a right to live peacefully in one of his speeches. I revisited that speech, and it was by all accounts tame. He explicitly mentioned Obama's Jewish chief of Staff describing AIPAC as opposing this, and Carter was denied a speech at the DNC for this very reason (including his support for a two state solutions, which the American jewry by all accounts opposes through their actions, despite their rhetoric). A US President was shunned from US elections because he was slightly critical of Israel. Let that sink in. 2. Nixon describing AIPAC influence and Pelosi describing how the US capitol could burn while ensuring Israel thrives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x_zrkJwDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x_zrkJwDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEpPk1BBFP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEpPk1BBFP8 The point of the above is American sitting Presidents or influential politicians describe the pressure they face of subjugating US interests to Israel's because America's economy is dominated by Jews and Evangelicals, who believe Israel must survive at all costs (including to the detriment of American interests). I understand how religiosity can lead to undermining America in favor of Israel. I cannot comprehend how Americans can defend this in good faith. Being America first is incompatible with the conduct of Israel, including its founding, for it is a colonial apartheid state that was founded on the murder and dislocation of families. I think it is difficult for most of us to imagine that the victims of a Holocaust, an abominable crime, can in turn be filled with so much hatred that they resort to the very crimes they were the victims of. I believe we went into Iraq and we fund Israel because powerful forces in these United States wish for us to do their dirty work, including when this work harms American interests, and most importantly, the values most of us hold dear: that every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
- Quarrelsome 1y ago
  That's worthwhile context, however I don't think it dents the point I'm trying to make. Many US presidents have been supportive of Israel, I'm just making the point that I interpret Donald Trump to be _friendly_ as opposed to simply supportive.
  - MPSFounder 1y ago

avoutos 1y ago

The data doesn't seem to support this claim. Israel has not "bought" any Presidents. Even assuming all pro-israel spending comes from the government of Israel and not from say U.S. groups that support Israel, it is a fraction of the combined and individual spending of other interest groups. The pro-Israel lobby has spent roughly 10-15M per year since 1990 except for the past 2-3 years when it has ramped up due to the war. This is hardly enough to offset the billions of dollars spent in U.S. politics. For this to be true it would also require Israel to "buy" presidents who acted against Israel's interests (e.g. Obama and Biden who financially bolsered Iran). This seems unlikely. The U.S. does not unconditionally fund and defend Israel. Most (75-90%) of U.S. Federal military aid to Israel is contingent on Israel buying from American companies. This effectively makes most funding a roundabout subsidy of American defense contractors. There are also human rights conditions and many others. Israel and the U.S. actually have common interests in the Middle East. Contrary to some opinions, allowing Israel to cease to exist is not in the interest of the U.S. although I do support having Israel be less reliant on the U.S. sources: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?cycle=All&ind=Q05 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?cycle=All&ind=Q... https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL33222/RL33222.49.pdf https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL3322...

an_guy 1y ago
> The pro-Israel lobby has spent roughly 10-15M per year... This is hardly enough to offset the billions of dollars spent in U.S. politics Those $10-15 mil are given to politicians and the billions are spent from US tax payers money. > For this to be true it would also require Israel to "buy" presidents who acted against Israel's interests You might want to look into campaign contributions made by AIPAC and similar isreli institutions to these presidents. > Most (75-90%) of U.S. Federal military aid to Israel is contingent on Israel buying from American companies. Which effectively makes these weapons free for Israel. US is literally funding Israeli army.
- avoutos 1y ago
  > Those $10-15 mil are given to politicians and the billions are spent from US tax payers money. regardless of where the money comes from, my point was that money is not enough compared to the rest to claim that Israel has "bought" candidates. > You might want to look into campaign contributions made by AIPAC and similar isreli institutions to these presidents. The pro-Israel lobby certainly donated to them, it was just not enough to justify the claim that Israel has "bought all previous US presidents." And the fact that those presidents acted against Israel's interests shows that if there was an attempt to "buy" them, it failed with respect to policy. > Which effectively makes these weapons free for Israel. US is literally funding Israeli army. You are right that the U.S. is funding Israel's military, but my point was that there are in fact conditions to the funding and the U.S. does get something in return if you consider the indirect subsidy of the American defense industry.