3 ms·

Answered in the first 5 words of the subtitle: > According to our elected leaders, we should be very scared of the possibility that Iran could get a nuclear bo

Answered in the first 5 words of the subtitle: > According to our elected leaders, we should be very scared of the possibility that Iran could get a nuclear bomb. But Israel already has them, and ... For the past 80 years, it's been all-but-guaranteed that you won't win an American election if you seem insufficiently pro-Israel. Yes, there are plenty of objective arguments for America's foreign policy being far less pro-Israel than it has been for 8+ decades. US Sec. of State (and former US Army General) George Marshall made those arguments to US President Harry Truman back in 1948 - and was overruled. Truman had staked out a pro-Israel position before his previous election (which he had won), then won another election 6 months after overruling Marshall. - If your real priority is sounding sophisticated, you can make fancy arguments about America being far too pro-Israel. - If your real priority is understanding why America is so pro-Israel, then you need to shut up with the fancy arguments, and analyze the American electorate's strong preference for that. - And if your real priority is winning American elections, then you need to present as "obviously" pro-Israel. And ignore the idiots making fancy arguments.

BrandoElFollito 1y ago
Could you elaborate on the reasons for this pro Israel preference? I thought that it was mostly because Israel is backed by evangelists who have a large electorate + lobby from the people with Jewish roots or faith.
yencabulator 1y ago
> analyze the American electorate's strong preference Electorate or lobbyist and entrenched power? Losing funding is a way to lose votes, but doesn't imply anything about voter preference.
jfengel 1y ago
Arguably, the last Presidential election was lost because the candidate was insufficiently anti-Israel. I heard a number of people claim that the incumbent's support for Israel during the Gaza conflict was sufficient to reject his hand-picked successor. It's impossible to know for sure, of course. I do not trust people's claims about their reasons. If she had somehow taken a position that would attract their votes, I can't know how many votes that position would have lost. Nonetheless... AIPAC didn't make an endorsement in the last election. I don't think that she could have taken an even-more-pro-Israel position and gotten their endorsement. So it may well be that the only path forward is to hope that the anti-Israel crowd would vote if they were pandered to. (I'll note that I don't believe that they will. I am quite certain they will find some other reason not to vote. But options are becoming thin on the ground.)

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

Could you elaborate on the reasons for this pro Israel preference? I thought that it was mostly because Israel is backed by evangelists who have a large electorate + lobby from the people with Jewish roots or faith.

yencabulator 1y ago

> analyze the American electorate's strong preference Electorate or lobbyist and entrenched power? Losing funding is a way to lose votes, but doesn't imply anything about voter preference.

jfengel 1y ago

Arguably, the last Presidential election was lost because the candidate was insufficiently anti-Israel. I heard a number of people claim that the incumbent's support for Israel during the Gaza conflict was sufficient to reject his hand-picked successor. It's impossible to know for sure, of course. I do not trust people's claims about their reasons. If she had somehow taken a position that would attract their votes, I can't know how many votes that position would have lost. Nonetheless... AIPAC didn't make an endorsement in the last election. I don't think that she could have taken an even-more-pro-Israel position and gotten their endorsement. So it may well be that the only path forward is to hope that the anti-Israel crowd would vote if they were pandered to. (I'll note that I don't believe that they will. I am quite certain they will find some other reason not to vote. But options are becoming thin on the ground.)