It seems like if you pick one, you are going against the other

That doesn't mean that one can't be progressive and support Israel, but support for Israel strongly correlates with how right wing someone is.

Israel is the most liberal country in the region by far. Support for Israel exists among both liberals and conservatives, often for different reasons.

President Obama:

As Americans and Israelis, we often talk about the unbreakable bonds between our nations. And, yes, these bonds encompass common interests -- vital cooperation that makes both our nations more secure. But today we are reminded that the bonds which matter most run deeper.

Anchored in a Judeo-Christian tradition, we believe in the irreducible value of every human being. Our nations were built on that idea. They were built in large part by stubborn idealists and striving immigrants, including those who had fled war and fled oppression. Both our nations have flaws that we have not always fixed, corners of our history which date back to our founding that we do not always squarely address.

But because our founders planted not just flags in the eternal soil, but also planted the seeds of democracy, we have the ability to always pursue a better world. We have the capacity to do what is right.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/30/remarks-president-obama-memorial-service-former-israeli-president-shimon

Obama is describing an Israel that doesn't exist.

It is also quite true that Israel is surrounded almost exclusively by illiberal right-wing countries where progressive values are anathema.

Trying to establish a liberal democracy in that region was like trying to plant rice in the desert.

"Justice and hope are at the heart of the Zionist idea," he said just this year.

I think it is important to separate the concept of Israel from the current RW government in charge there, just as it is important to separate the concept of the USA from the Trump administration that is about to take control (along with a RW Congress).

To say that justice and hope are at the center of Israeli political thought is risible.

The concept of the USA is dead. It's a political entity, not an idea. There are no such things as American/USA values. The only people saying such values exist are politicians chasing votes.

There is Trump's America and there's Obama's America. Two different Americas/tribes, with radically different sets of values.

Time to treat nation states as the morally bankrupt ciphers of power that they are.

He recently spoke in Israel and commended the Zionist ideals that underpin Israel in its current state.

You find Obama's perspective on Israel to be ridiculous. I would respectfully disagree.

I do appreciate, though, that your disdain for nation states extends more broadly.

Especially unquestioning public support on "security policies".

Standing with Netanyahu achieves nothing.

A TRUE pro-Israel position would be to publicly disavow the West Bank occupation and the settlements, or, if nothing else, to PUBLICLY call for the Palestinian people to be given some breathing space, to be allowed to go from one part of the West Bank to another without having to go through checkpoint after check poitn, to return the Palestinian olive trees that were illegally uprooted and replanted on the settlements, and to let the NGO's carry out humanitarian work like the construction of solar panel without having to wait endlessly for approval from the IDF-AND to admit that it's possible to support things like that without being anti antisemite or(if you're Jewish)to be "self-loathing".

Treating the PA with kid gloves, not holding them accountable for anything they do against the interests of peace, achieves nothing.

For the most part.

Tikkun's articles have probably done more to influence my views on the I/P issue than anything else.

It is not a helpful thing to have being "pro-Israel" equated to being an unquestioning public supporter of the Revisionist/Irgun/Lehi/Likud strain of Zionism-a strain whose ideas can never lead to peace, because the dispute can never be settled through either side gaining a decisive military victory over the other.

I would point out that J Street's mission statement begins with:

J Street is the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people.

aid package to Israel now?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/14/40-billion-aid-to-Israel-is-largest-ever-to-any-country-says-Susan-Rice/5461465914964/

so they can use it to develop Trump projects in the West Bank.

Republicans generally try to cut and limit aid to Israel while Democrats generally expand it - see Obama vis-a-vis Bush.

Republicans certainly never tried to cut it when Obama was President.

Trump has a very simple plan for Israel:

1) continue very high levels of aid

2) avoid any disagreement of any kind with Israel regarding the Palestinians

3) use (1) and (2) as cover for the anti-semites amongst his alt-right fanclub.

There might be some disagreement regarding Syria, but Assad won't be a threat to Israel for quite some time given how weak his position is.

Broke all records, and it was not even close.

Reagan and Bush Sr. both tried to block the levels of aid to Israel that Congress supported.

Democrats in Congress were able to overrule them both.

In terms of Trump, I don't think he has any plan for anything.

(something there is no good reason to do, btw) and is a big backer of the West Bank settlement project...in other words, our chief diplomat in that country will be a dedicated opponent of peace.

Seems like he didn't put a whole lot of thought into that pick (unsurprisingly).

I would point out that ambassadors do not set foreign policy.

...yet...

Scary as that may be.

Though if it had to be any of his offspring, I'd really hope for Tiffany...she seems the most human of the lot.

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2016, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)

We're now living in an alternate universe.

Waiting for someone to say it's just all a big joke.

Bush 44, Trump or Hillary Clinton. By a wide margin.

Trump will let Congress set the level of aid, and he'll be fine with Israel doing a slow motion annexation of the West Bank. It's not as if he sees Muslims as human beings with human rights.

The people that don't consider Obama pro-Israel also feel the same way about Hillary Clinton.

Reasonable people understand that both of them are/were pro-Israel.

As for Bush 44, he was also very popular among Israelis, but his father was definitely not - and neither was Reagan.

With respect to Trump, I don't think he has any actual opinions on the subject and certainly no understanding or interest in learning more about the situation.

I think it is important to recognize that the pro-Israel community among Democrats is different from the pro-Israel community among Republicans.

Even the Leftists at Gush Shalom who started the boycott of settlements are seen as too Right wing for the anti-Zionists.

This IMO is all the proof needed to show how bigoted the BDS anti-zionist movement is. They believe nearly 100% of Jews (minus the unhinged BDS types) are racists, including our Left. In no other situation worldwide does the global Left just reject the vast majority of a nation's Leftwing as they do the Jews.

In fact, that crowd often despises the liberal Zionists most of all.

in their support of Israel--they view our role to play a constructive role in guiding Israel's behavior.

The Republicans view it as our job to have Israel's back no matter what the circumstances, and that we shouldn't be telling them what to do.

Trump doesn't know anything about anything, but it's hard to beat his blank check in terms of being pro-Israel.

So was Reagan.

Pat Buchanan, a known anti-Semite, was his senior advisor.

What would you call THAT?

You can't possibly be proud of a regressive minded UN that passes more resolutions vs. Israel than the rest of the world combined for the past few decades, including hot spots like Syria right now for example.

(for some reason, he'll still try to make Mexico pay for it, though).

which would not be a smart move.

In fact, I would argue that it is actually an anti-Israeli administration and is doing more damage to Israel

Building more settlements, and discarding what has been the position of the U.S. for decades, a two-state solution, is contrary not only to Israel's security, but also the whole region.

An example is what happened after Bill Clinton left office. He left an opening for the incoming bush administration to take over where Bill Clinton left off, and continue negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The bush administration refused to continue those negotiations. At the same time, a Bill Clinton commissioned the Hart-Rudman Commission to investigate what could be done regarding the terrorism threat, and issued a report as a result of that in January 2000. The bush administration, along with Cheney completely discarded it, saying they would do their own investigation, which never happened.

Not only did that report warn of 9/11 type attacks, but made recommendations to prevent them.

Because of the arrogance of the bush administration, 9/11 occurred, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has deteriorated even more.

When President Obama took over he tried to engage the parties again, but a lot of momentum had been lost because the bush administration completely dropped the ball. He also was contending with the greatest financial implosion the country had faced since the great depression.

We are at a similar precipice that we were at when Bill Clinton left office, except the stakes are much higher. This administration is now talking about undoing everything that the Obama Administration has accomplished, including the Iran deal, Dodd/Frank, and complete deregulation. Trump's appointments should alarm the hell out of everyone.

We are in very serious situation, and the television media is playing it as some type of reality game show. The situation is far more dangerous than it was when George bush took office, an our entire way of life can be destroyed in the blink of an eye.

Santayana
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

Israel's government is pretty weak on the latter.

Trump isn't going to undo the Iran deal--he can't. The UN sanctions have been lifted and he's powerless to get them reinstated.

Trump's going to rubber stamp whatever the Israeli government does w/r/t the Palestinians. Hard to be more supportive than absolutely supportive.

If he gives them all the rope they want, and they choose to hang themselves, they'll have only themselves to blame.

next president, and his threats regarding dismantling the deal have enough experts concerned about it

It shouldn't surprise anyone if they ratchet up some lame excuse for a purported violation by Iran as an excuse for the U.S. to leave.

Recall the bush administration unilaterally walked away from the ABM treaty

Even if they don't formally leave, they can, and most like will apply economic and other sanctions against Iran, thinking it would give them leverage.

Again, there are enough concerned voices out there that a trump administration could dismantle the deal unilaterally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/world/americas/cia-trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

" Dismantling the deal is very possible, but it's not simple either.

Trump won't be able to simply throw is hands up and walk away. He would have to work with Congress to enact measures to undermine it, such as reimposing U.S.-based sanctions that were lifted. He could, for example, recreate the sanctions that prevented U.S. aviation businesses from selling to Iran and in turn scuttle the Boeing deal. That would anger the Iranians and could cause them walk away from the nuclear terms; and it would also likely upset Boeing.

Or he could take a strict enforcement approach to the current plan and attempt to end the deal if Iran falters in the slightest and fails to meet its own obligations. Outside observers opposed to the deal argued last week that Iran has already violated the terms of the deal by exceeding the producing limit of heavy water at its Arak nuclear facility. The U.S. has sought to downplay the incident, saying the Iranians acknowledged the excess and made no attempt to hide it, but a Trump administration could just have easily argued it was a violation.

Any such complaint of a violation would be sent to a "dispute resolution mechanism" as outlined in the agreement, but if that governing body is unable to resolve the issue, the complaining participant would then have the right to end its commitments to the deal."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/donald-trump-dismantle-iran-nuclear-deal/story?id=43521933

But, if they withdraw, they lose ALL of the benefits of the deal (inspections, monitoring, dismantling of centrifuges) and gain virtually nothing in return--they've squeezed pretty much every bit of leverage out of unilateral sanctions that they can.

The alternative would be a war with Iran right out of the gate. Which the Exxon CEO and his friends in Moscow might not favor.

War where neither Exxon nor Russia have an interest, which would probably result in a sharp rise in the oil price. Is it possible that both Exxon and Russia might benefit from a higher oil price?

Also, this might substantially cool relations between the US and Europe. Who might benefit from that?

The Palestinian authority and PLO:

1) Have announced their full submission to international law.
2) Quit the armed revolution.
3) engaged in countless rounds of negotiations about their basic lawful rights.
4) Suggested to accept the right of return for only 100,000 instead of the whole millions that they have this right.
5) Offered Israel the key *illegal* settlements.
6) Offered Israel huge compromises in the holy sites in Jerusalem: annexation for some neighbourhoods in the east city, and suggested a joint committee for the Mosque (the compound) which could make it the 'biggest Jerusalem in history'.
7) Co-operated on an intimate level with Israeli security forces to guarantee the Israeli security.
8) Accepted the principle of "exchanging lands" and later with a percentage favoured for Israel (1-50%)

Since 1993:

The settler population has doubled
50'000 new settlement homes were built and 15'000 Palestinian homes destroyed
The west bank is divided in 167 enclaves with multiple checkpoints
4.8m refugees are still waiting for a resolution

They still incite their population, praise and reward terror. Do you recall the knife intifada from last year around this time? They don't even recognize the Jewish state as their mission for the next year is to overturn the Balfour Declaration. They're waiting for the Brits to apologize for that.

I also have no idea where you see they accept just 100,000 refugees.

I actually worked with Ian Balfour (the son) a couple of years at JP Morgan and travelled with him multiple times to Israel so that name clearly rings a bell hahah

I dont think anyone seriously still believes in the return of the refugees even the PLO. As for armed revolution my point was more about the political stance to move towards a peaceful process. The issue for the PLO is they dont have that much to bring back to their population in terms of advances. Im sorry but 10 months settlement freeze is not a 'great' achievement is it? Freeing prisoners, etc.. are concessions but how is a settlement freeze (something that is inherently illegal in the first place) a concession?

It's still rewarded, as terrorists are paid by the PA according to the severity of their crimes.

The PA also could have accepted their own state multiple times since Oslo began. They simply can't do it if it means accepting the existence of a Jewish one. The 10 month freeze happened under Obama's watch, perhaps the most sympathetic President the Palestinians will ever see & they did nothing due to their rejection of the Jewish state. I'd say the many Israeli peace offers of 2 states plus the Gaza pullout is enough concessions when more terror is the only response Israel gets in return.

It's not about how the PA can be pressured, it's that they have to be held accountable - period - for working against peace as they have the past 20 years. Abbas is no moderate and treating him with kid gloves hasn't worked out at all. It's time for a new approach, don't you think? The only people against pressuring Abbas are folks who support his (and Arafat's & Hamas') war on the Jews.

into just meekly accepting whatever the Likudniks will give them-especially if that means making the creation of a Palestinian state impossible by keeping most of the settlements and checkpoints and IDF troops in place.

No Palestinian leader could EVER agree to all of Netanyahu's demands and not be immediately driven out of power. Netanyahu wants Palestinians to basically say "Israel was always right and everything we ever wanted was wrong-we admit our entire struggle was bogus". Netanyahu wants this because he knows that any Palestinian leadership that agreed to these things would immediately be cast aside and be replaced by a rejectionist leadership, thus keeping the war going without end...which is Netanyahu's real objective-he wants the fighting to go on forever, because support for the Israeli Right would immediately collapse if anything close to peace was ever established.

How about, instead of obsessing on trying to humiliate the Palestinian leadership(a tactic you know full well can't achieve anything positive) maybe creating some of the conditions for peace by giving ordinary Palestinians breathing space...by not having the IDF in their streets constantly, by not forcing them to go through checkpoint after checkpoint just to get from one part of Palestine to another, by letting the NGO's complete humanitarian projects without making them wait endlessly for IDF approval(there was no way those SOLAR PANELS could have been weaponized, for God's sakes) and by returning the olive trees that were stolen and replanted on the illegal settlements? Would you really object to cutting the Palestinian people themselves a break? We have fifteen years of proof that collective immiseration will never force a change in the Palestinian leadership. It's time to admit that the iron fist approach has been a total failure.

Netanyahu, of all Israel's leaders the past 20 years actually froze settlements for 10 months. No other Israeli leader had done that before. And what good did that do? The PA waited out the 10 months, doing nothing.

The root of the conflict is that the PA/Hamas leadership doesn't accept a Jewish state in peace. It's never been about having their own state, which they could've had numerous times over the past 80 years. They need to know Israel is there to stay, and they need to deal with it. You need to deal with it. Until then, there won't be any peace agreement.

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2016, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Israel has been pressured. Netanyahu actually froze settlements 10 months and Abbas sat on his ass doing nothing the entire time. Insanity is continuing to do the same thing, expecting different results.

Abbas can make 2 states happen rather quickly if he accepts the existence of the Jewish state of Israel and does a Sadat by speaking at the Knesset. He and Arafat could've done that for the past 2 decades. What's holding them back? US pressure on Abbas could make that happen.

The settlements are easy to deal with if Palestine is willing to accept Jews as citizens (given they renounce Israeli citizenship). Unfortunately, the racist BDS movement you subscribe to calls for no Jews in Palestine and that's really what you mean when you say all settlements must go. Your notion of 2 states means Palestine with no Jews in it via ethnic cleansing & apartheid. You cannot tolerate Jews in a Palestinian state.

Why can't any Israeli settlement become the exclusive domain of a future Palestinian state, with no Israeli influence and no IDF protection? Why can't the settlers renounce their Israeli citizenship and become full Palestinian citizens? This has been proposed by Leftwing Israeli groups like Gush Shalom. Here's another article about the settlers staying. If Israel can extend citizenship to Arabs living as a minority within Israel, then Palestine can do the same.

It's because the racist BDS movement believes Jews shouldn't be allowed to live in the W.Bank.

East Jerusalem would've been the capital of the Palestinian state. You didn't know this?

After all the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis are mostly of semitic descent and so the roots are incredibly close. So I guess they could?

It doesn't seem that there was clear discriminatory behaviours in these regions against jews prior the Palestinian riots because of jewish immigration and then when hostilities really started with the Zionist political violence driven by the Irgun, the haganah, the Lehi.

That being said most settlers aren't moving into those terrirories because they like them more but because of the Greater Israel political motive.

Because I dont understand the answer. Im a strong believer in the 2 state solution. I think land exchanges are feasible. The 2 capitals will be based in Jerusalem and where land exchanges are not achievable then people will have to integrate. I just said I dont beleive many settlers dream about living in a Palestinian state.

He'll lose exactly zero votes in pursuing a maximalist, rubber-stump policy for Israel/Palestine (Syria and Iran are a different story of course).

From his calculation, the Israelis are strong and have something to offer him. He views the Palestinians as less than human, and even worse so weak they have nothing of value to offer him.

and everything to gain in the long-term.