Mossad Chief: Israel becoming a burden for the USA

[LibraryLady]

I have split off a significant number of posts to AAH. Please stay on topic and stay civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Mycroft]

As soon as America changes it's energy policy then Israel will cease to matter anymore and the billlions in military aid will dry up. It has only ever been a wedge in the heart of pan-Arabism and subsequent control of the oil-fields. It's a useful distraction, people in the region can get outraged with Israel's crimes rather than focussing on the Waahabi extremists that control their lives and are compliant to America's wishes.

Do you seriously believe that?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes because we desperately need another Iran Nukes thread.

The chief spook's statement on Israel being a diplomatic liability for the US is something new and interesting.

He was stating the obvious. Possibly belaboring it.

DR

 

[Thunder]

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national/fresh_debate_emerging_us_israel_strategic_alliance

ooooh...now the same theme hits the Jewish Week.

anti-Semites....all of them!!!

they actually argue that Israel has some obligations to the USA. how dare they!!

 

[Thunder]

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=183319

amazing that this appeared in the Jerusalem Post.

it appears that Israel may be becoming more of a liability than an asset.

I have always wondered if Israel was EVER an asset. Maybe during the Cold War....maybe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Should they just march themselves into the sea?

You know any Israelis named Sherman?

Let me try that again.

Should they just march themselves into the sea?

You know any Israelis named Lemming?

Man, my jokes suck today.

 

[Darth Rotor]

it appears that Israel may be becoming more of a liability than an asset.

I have always wondered if Israel was EVER an asset. Maybe during the Cold War....maybe.

Parky, you are about twenty years late with your analysis, but yes, Israel was very much an asset, as an ally, during the Cold War. An outlier was how support for Israel got the first oil embargo started in 1973 ... however, that wasn't a show stopper, as it forced subsequent administrations to find new ways to work with the Arab world. Mixed bag.

Post Cold War, Israel's value, and cost, as an ally was brought in to sharp relief when Saddam Hussein sent Scud missile attacks at Israel in hopes of provoking a response, leading to potential political fracture in the West/Arab world coalition Pres Bush (41) had put together.

Since then, the asset/liability balance has tipped back and forth a bit. Pres Obama seems to me willing to watch it swing for a while.

DR

 

[Thunder]

Parky, you are about twenty years late with your analysis, but yes, Israel was very much an asset, as an ally, during the Cold War.

how you figure?

one might argue that America's support for Israel turned the Arab world against us. if not for Israel, the Arabs may have sided more with the West, rather than the USSR.

furthermore, it could be argued that Israel became somewhat of a unifying force for the Arabs. they had a common enemy to hate and loath, and attack.

without Israel, the Arab dictators may have fought more amongst themselves, which may have been good for the USA and the West.

 

[Virus]

one might argue that America's support for Israel turned the Arab world against us. if not for Israel, the Arabs may have sided more with the West, rather than the USSR.

Bulldust. Arab nationalism was always anti-west, even before America took much interest in Israel. So was Islamism.

furthermore, it could be argued that Israel became somewhat of a unifying force for the Arabs. they had a common enemy to hate and loath, and attack.

Yeah that could be argued but so what? Israel's existence gives the Arabs something (else) to hate. We all know they have a problem with its existence. What are you suggesting? Finish that thought.

without Israel, the Arab dictators may have fought more amongst themselves, which may have been good for the USA and the West.

How is war and civil strife in the primary oil producing region "good for the USA and the West"?

 

[bit_pattern]

Bulldust. Arab nationalism was always anti-west, even before America took much interest in Israel.

Decades of colonialism will do that, especially when the nationalist sentiment is rooted in anti-colonial struggles, but that doesn't make Arabs, or even Arab nationalism, inherently "anti West". For instance, you can hardly blame Egypt for being slightly distrustful of western machination after the unprovoked Suez invasion. That sort of distrust and hostility doesn't just come from nowhere - the "they hate our freedom" school of logical fallacy - rather it is the product of very real betrayals on the part of Western powers.

So was Islamism.

Only in the sense that supposed Western decadency was corrupting Islamic countries, the vast majority of Islamist violence has been directed not at the West but at corrupt Arab states. The direct conflict with the West was very much a product of Western foreign policy and unconditional support for Israel.

 

[Mycroft]

Decades of colonialism will do that, especially when the nationalist sentiment is rooted in anti-colonial struggles, but that doesn't make Arabs, or even Arab nationalism, inherently "anti West". For instance, you can hardly blame Egypt for being slightly distrustful of western machination after the unprovoked Suez invasion. That sort of distrust and hostility doesn't just come from nowhere - the "they hate our freedom" school of logical fallacy - rather it is the product of very real betrayals on the part of Western powers.

Don't you think seeing the world through the lens of "colonialism" is a bit shallow? It's not as though any imperial power ever put colonies in Yemen or Egypt, so claiming their problems have anything to do with colonialism seems so very disconnected from reality.

Only in the sense that supposed Western decadency was corrupting Islamic countries...

That seems to be the only sense that is needed.

...the vast majority of Islamist violence has been directed not at the West but at corrupt Arab states.

And when the Islamists get into power, they're corrupt too. So it's not about corruption per se, it's about who benefits from that corruption.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Don't you think seeing the world through the lens of "colonialism" is a bit shallow? It's not as though any imperial power ever put colonies in Yemen or Egypt, so claiming their problems have anything to do with colonialism seems so very disconnected from reality.
.

Actually, the British colonized both Yemen and Egypt (google/wiki it).

You're still right about it being an immense strain to tie the current issues to the colonial period in a meaningful causal fashion, but the history is the history.

 

[bit_pattern]

Don't you think seeing the world through the lens of "colonialism" is a bit shallow? It's not as though any imperial power ever put colonies in Yemen or Egypt, so claiming their problems have anything to do with colonialism seems so very disconnected from reality.

LOL, weren't you the guy going on about people twisting language to suit their own ends?

What would you call it, if not colonialism? maybe 'imperialism' would be a better term, no?

That seems to be the only sense that is needed.

And when the Islamists get into power, they're corrupt too. So it's not about corruption per se, it's about who benefits from that corruption.

I was actually thinking in terms of 'corrupting' Islam, but whatever. Absolute power crrupts absolutely, that is a truism, but just because those fighting corruption become corrupt themselves doesn't change the original motivation. And I am not saying that the motivation is even necessarily justified, just that simplistic black-and-white interpretations of historical events are usually as wrong as they are simple.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, the British colonized both Yemen and Egypt (google/wiki it).

You're still right about it being an immense strain to tie the current issues to the colonial period in a meaningful causal fashion, but the history is the history.

Spoilsport.

 

[Mycroft]

LOL, weren't you the guy going on about people twisting language to suit their own ends?

What would you call it, if not colonialism? maybe 'imperialism' would be a better term, no?



I was actually thinking in terms of 'corrupting' Islam, but whatever. Absolute power crrupts absolutely, that is a truism, but just because those fighting corruption become corrupt themselves doesn't change the original motivation. And I am not saying that the motivation is even necessarily justified, just that simplistic black-and-white interpretations of historical events are usually as wrong as they are simple.

I twist language how, exactly?

I think it's shallow to name "colonialism" as the root of all evil. The world had war, hunger, poverty and disease long before European powers began spreading their influences.

And just how is your own particular interpretations of historical events any less black & white?

 

[bit_pattern]

You're still right about it being an immense strain to tie the current issues to the colonial period in a meaningful causal fashion, but the history is the history.

It MIGHT be if that's what was happening, but fortunately the discussion was in relation to Arab nationalism, which most definitely DID have a causal relationship to colonialism and the collapse of colonialism after WW2.

I twist language how, exactly?

Um, by trying to rewrite the definition of 'colonialism' for starters just because you wanted to try and score points in an interwebz debate.

I think it's shallow to name "colonialism" as the root of all evil. The world had war, hunger, poverty and disease long before European powers began spreading their influences.

It MIGHT be if that's what anyone was actually arguing, but fortunately (again! I wish you people would at least try and keep up!) it's not, and it is quite possible to name "colonialism" (I like the inverted comma's, even after being proved wrong by your own side you are STILL trying to make out like the term is inaccurate or something) as the root of Arab nationalism, which was, after all, what we were actually discussing, not the root of all evil, war, hunger, poverty etc.

 

[Virus]

I twist language how, exactly?

I think it's shallow to name "colonialism" as the root of all evil. The world had war, hunger, poverty and disease long before European powers began spreading their influences.

That. And the Arab states have been independent for decades.

 

[bit_pattern]

That. And the Arab states have been independent for decades.

Quick quiz: When was the era of Arab nationalism?

 

[Virus]

Quick quiz: When was the era of Arab nationalism?

It depends where. Lasted in Iraq until the Baath Party was overthrown in 2003. Syria is still ruled by Baathists.

 

[bit_pattern]

It depends where. Lasted in Iraq until the Baath Party was overthrown in 2003. Syria is still ruled by Baathists.

LOL, the Ba'ath Party have been either Syrian nationalist or Saddam "personalitists" (yes, I made that word up) since they split from Nasser's pan-Arab movement in the mid-sixties!