• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Biden Told Netanyahu Behind Closed Doors...

Aren't you the one that thinks the Israeli military could misidentify an American ship complete with American flag flying? I rest my case.
You rest nothing, since that is your case here.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop trolling. Address the topic or depart.

Trolling? I'm responding to his allegations that whatever I post is not true or factual. My contention is there is a pattern when he said my post about the U.S.S. Liberty was not true.

If I didn't know any better I'd say I smell a conflict of interest here with you being from Israel and my posts being harsh on Israel? Perhaps you should recuse yourself and allow another moderator to take your place on this? Or just fire away which I predict you will.

BTW don't label me as antisemetic. I had as relative sent to the gas chamber in Nazi Germany and I sure don't condone the way the Jews have been treated then and now. But I'm very unhappy with my country's unconditional support of some Israeli policies that have caused us a lot of grief.
 
Last edited:
The US isn't being stupidly magnanimous. Different benefits accrue to America in each different venue. The foreign-aid to Egypt keeps the Mubarak regime in power. In return, Egypt does political and material favors for the US. Do you imagine that some CIA renditions wound up in Egypt by accident?

Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Glad you mentioned that. Were you aware that Pakistan laundered US aid funds and funneled the skimmed monies into its National Atomic Agency and Khan Industries? Nevertheless, the US is still sending substantial aid to Pakistan? Why? Because as in all cases, it highly benefits the US either in the short-term or the long-term view.

In the case of Pakistan, US aid is indeed a true subsidy. Without it, the country would quickly go bankrupt and Pakistan would totally collapse within months, if that long.

I agree with what you say about US aid. Yes. And a portion of aid that goes to Israel may be funding illegal settlements but theres no way to tell how they spend their money because of the privileged nature of American aid to them in comparison with other nations we send aid to. Aid to Israel has at times been 2% of their GPD which is a fantastic proportion. israel receives its aid in a Lump sum cash transfer. No other country gets that. Of course theres no will to rustle political favors and track or restrict or review the details of how Israel is allowed to spend its aid. Also the aid per capita of Israel makes aid per capita to other middle eastern nations look like squat.

According to your assumption of nil value, numerous US presidents (D/R) along with both houses of Congress (D/R/I) have been making the same foreign-aid mistake for decades. Possible I suppose, but highly improbable.

Not highly improbable at all, the concept that somehow the supplying aid to Israel by both parties makes utilitarian sense to the US in any way means nothing when both American political parties occupy a very small wavelength together on the political spectrum. In fact it makes the mistake quite possible, our supply of aid at many points seems to point more towards the effect and interest of the Israel lobby than any material advantage to US interests that we have gotten out of it so far.

I'm willing to list sources if you have any questions about the above.
 
Netanyahu must roll his eyes every time Hillary, Biden, or Obama dial his cell phone. He does not respect them them, nor does the rest of the world.
 
Netanyahu must roll his eyes every time Hillary, Biden, or Obama dial his cell phone. He does not respect them them, nor does the rest of the world.

Can you blame him?.....;)
 
Can you blame him?.....;)

Nope. If I were him, I'd just tell Biden to not bother calling ecause I'm waiting for the next administration to work with. He shouldn't waste him time on amateurish blowhards.
 
Netanyahu must roll his eyes every time Hillary, Biden, or Obama dial his cell phone. He does not respect them them, nor does the rest of the world.

Wow, show us your fabulous sources, I didn't know that the rest of the entire planet didn't respect obama.
 
According to your assumption of nil value, numerous US presidents (D/R) along with both houses of Congress (D/R/I) have been making the same foreign-aid mistake for decades. Possible I suppose, but highly improbable.

Times change.

The US isn't being stupidly magnanimous. Different benefits accrue to America in each different venue. The foreign-aid to Egypt keeps the Mubarak regime in power. In return, Egypt does political and material favors for the US. Do you imagine that some CIA renditions wound up in Egypt by accident?

All of these relationships need to be evaluated over time to ensure that benefit is still accrued to the U.S. Just because we've done something in the past does not mean we should continue doing it in the future.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Glad you mentioned that. Were you aware that Pakistan laundered US aid funds and funneled the skimmed monies into its National Atomic Agency and Khan Industries? Nevertheless, the US is still sending substantial aid to Pakistan? Why? Because as in all cases, it highly benefits the US either in the short-term or the long-term view.

It's arguable how much benefit has been accrued long run from this aid. Again, as stated above, this is something that must be evaluated on an ongoing basis.

In the case of Pakistan, US aid is indeed a true subsidy. Without it, the country would quickly go bankrupt and Pakistan would totally collapse within months, if that long.

Interesting deflection, Tashah.
 
The US isn't being stupidly magnanimous. Different benefits accrue to America in each different venue. The foreign-aid to Egypt keeps the Mubarak regime in power. In return, Egypt does political and material favors for the US...

I strongly agree. U.S. foreign assistance is one of the tools by which the U.S. promotes and protects its interests abroad. It is not charity. It is not welfare.
 
I strongly agree. U.S. foreign assistance is one of the tools by which the U.S. promotes and protects its interests abroad. It is not charity. It is not welfare.

It does, however, come with strings. It's a tool to leverage other countries to do what we want them to do. If Israel becomes intransigent, it could be removed.

You know, in ancient Rome, a politician was considered honest if, when bought, he stayed bought. Israel has been bought, and should remember that.
 
Last edited:
It does, however, come with strings. It's a tool to leverage other countries to do what we want them to do. If Israel becomes intransigent, it could be removed.p
Indeed. It is blackmail money wrapped in a pretty package. That wasn't so hard now was it.

You know, in ancient Rome, a politician was considered honest if, when bought, he stayed bought. Israel has been bought, and should remember that.
Oh, I think Israel is well aware of the Devil's bargain. The trick is to use it without selling one's soul. This is precisely bin-Laden's beef with the Kingdom.

Which brings to mind an Arabian proverb...

Keep your friends close, and hold your enemies closer.
 
Indeed. It is blackmail money wrapped in a pretty package. That wasn't so hard now was it.

Did you think I understood it differently? The question is... are we still buying something useful? I think your usefulness has to be judged against the actions of your country in the past 10 years. You've made yourself more of a devil's bargain...FOR US.

Israel has become a tar baby....a sticky, sticky trap that we can't put down. But, more and more Americans are wanting to.
 
The first terrorists were the Zealots.
That's a very naive thought, there were countless of other people who have committed terrorism before the Zealots have actually even existed, even if you consider the killing of political active figures to be terrorism.

But that has nothing to do with that Enigma dude being wrong.
 
It does, however, come with strings. It's a tool to leverage other countries to do what we want them to do. If Israel becomes intransigent, it could be removed.

You know, in ancient Rome, a politician was considered honest if, when bought, he stayed bought. Israel has been bought, and should remember that.
Not as long as the Israeli people believe in freedom and give their voice will Israel bow down to the control of another.

And I'm not speaking about the Obama administration here, but the opinion you are promoting.

You need to simply deal with the fact that Israel is another sovereign state that acts accordingly with the interests of its people.
 
That's a very naive thought, there were countless of other people who have committed terrorism before the Zealots have actually even existed, even if you consider the killing of political active figures to be terrorism.

But that has nothing to do with that Enigma dude being wrong.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to this:

Sicarii: First Century Terrorists

And, the zealots didn't just kill "politically active figures." They killed civilians.
The Sicariis most notable tactic was the use of short daggers to kill people. Although they were not terrorists in the modern sense, this method of murdering people in crowded places before slipping away did cause extreme anxiety among surrounding onlookers, and thus terrorize them.

As political scientist and terrorist expert David C. Rapaport has pointed out, the Sicarii were distinct in primarily targeting other Jews considered to be either collaborators or quiescent in the face of Roman rule.

They attacked, in particular, Jewish notables and elites associated with the priesthood. This strategy distinguishes them from the Zealots, who aimed their violence against Romans.

These tactics were described by Josephus as beginning in the CE 50s:

… a different type of bandits sprang up in Jersualem, the so-called sicarii, who murdered men in broad daylight in the heart of the city. Especially during the festivals they would mingle with the crowd, carrying short daggers concealed under their clothing, with which they stabbed their enemies. Then when they fell, the murderers would join in the cries of indignation and, through this plausible behavior, avoided discovery. (Quoted in Richard A. Horsley, "The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish "Terrorists," The Journal of Religion, October 1979.)

The Sicarii operated primarily in the urban environment of Jerusalem, including within the Temple. However, they also committed attacks in villages, which they also raided for plunder and set on fire in order to create fear among Jews who acquiesced or collaborated with Roman rule. They also kidnapped notables or others as leverage for the release of their own members held prisoner.

More...

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1502
 
Last edited:
Not as long as the Israeli people believe in freedom and give their voice will Israel bow down to the control of another.

And I'm not speaking about the Obama administration here, but the opinion you are promoting.

You need to simply deal with the fact that Israel is another sovereign state that acts accordingly with the interests of its people.

I have no problem with Israel being a sovereign state. If that's the case, however, you should stop accepting our aid dollars.
 
I'm pretty sure he's referring to this
I simply am not capable of, no matter how hard I'll try, understanding how you've gotten it wrong when he was even given a reference to what he was talking about, the King David hotel bombing.
Sicarii: First Century Terrorists

And, the zealots didn't just kill "politically active figures." They killed civilians.
From your link:
"Although they were not terrorists in the modern sense"

And yes, they have indeed killed politically active figures, not simply your daily innocent.
Read your own article, it clearly states their target and would enrich your knowledge on them by far.

Now, to the actual reason why I've called your opinion a naive one - is because it was claiming that the Zealots, the organization that - as your own article states - opposed the Romans in the land, and has targeted Roman political and military officials - was the first sign of terrorism to exist in the entire of humanity.

That is very naive because even if we do consider the act of guerrilla warfare assassinations as terrorism, the Zealots did certainly not come before the Romans themselves, who have slaughtered entire villages when they have conquered them.

Or perhaps the Persian empire, the Babylonian and Assyrian empire, and every actual military force that has existed in ancient times.

There is no doubt here that this argument has no water to stand by, and it would be more effective to argue that the sun is made out of German poop.
 
I have no problem with Israel being a sovereign state. If that's the case, however, you should stop accepting our aid dollars.
And Israel would cease to be enforced by the agreement to buy American weapons, unfortunately damaging the American military industry.

I have already stated - as you must know since you've thanked that post - that I have neutral with a leaning towards positive opinion on the ending of the Israeli-American financial treaty.
 
And Israel would cease to be enforced by the agreement to buy American weapons, unfortunately damaging the American military industry.

I have already stated - as you must know since you've thanked that post - that I have neutral with a leaning towards positive opinion on the ending of the Israeli-American financial treaty.

see, the thing is...I'm not a shill for our military industrial complex. So, I'm not particularly worried about losing Israel as a customer.
 
It does, however, come with strings. It's a tool to leverage other countries to do what we want them to do.

No disagreement. Foreign aid is a tool for advancing a nation's interests, because it provides a degree of leverage/incentive for the recipients. However, it does not grant license for coercion nor does it obligate capitulation.

If Israel becomes intransigent, it could be removed.

Foreign aid is not an entitlement. So, for whatever the reason might be, a sovereign state has the freedom to choose for itself what aid it will/won't provide, to whom, etc. However, a sovereign state has to be careful not to engage in a volatile policy. If it does that, it loses reliability. When that happens, such a state finds it difficult to gain partners/cooperation, even when it has a need for partners/cooperation.

Every sovereign state also has critical interests. No sovereign state can realistically expect:

1) That all of its interests will be shared by all other sovereign states. A classic case that is unfolding is that the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran differs when it comes to the U.S., China, and Russia. U.S. interests would be placed at greater risk than those of China or Russia. At the same time, the economic costs of additional sanctions would be higher for China and Russia than for the U.S., which currently conducts very little trade with Iran. Hence, those three states have substantive differences that mirror their interests/risk exposure when it comes to the impact of possible measures aimed at reducing the prospect of Iran's attaining a nuclear weapons capability.

2) That another sovereign state would abandon its critical interests to serve the policy aims of another. The price for doing so would be steep. Mere promises of support or pledges of solidarity wouldn't even begin to cut the muster. Concrete measures would need to be taken to compensate a state for its relinquishing a critical interest, and most critical interests are off limits. In the context of the situation concerning Israel, specifically its new demand that Israel release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners as a "good faith" measure, the U.S. has made no binding commitments of any kind that it would compensate Israel for any harm such a prisoner release would cause or that it would punish the Palestinians (e.g., drastically reduce aid) should they fail to reciprocate with concessions of their own on matters that are important to Israel.

3) That its mere words of support/friendship are credible. Credibility is developed over time from a record of reliability. Words of support/friendship, particularly after a state has tried to break an ally ring hollow. Friends can express strong disagreement over policies. They do not cross the line where they try to impose outcomes on their friends.

If a nation is seen as unreliable, its perceived lack of reliability harms its ability to conduct business with other states. If, for example, the U.S. is seen being unreliable with respect to some of its closest allies i.e., Israel (over the bad timing of a housing plan announcement) or toward the United Kingdom (Falklands issue) with both of whom it has enormous shared interests, why should states such as Russia or China with which the U.S. has fewer shared interests go out of their way to accommodate U.S. needs?

No nation is willing to take risks or make sacrifices for another state when that state's willingness to reciprocate is called into question, as would happen when such states act unreliably toward their closest allies. When such a state is unreliable with respect to countries with which it has only peripheral interests, the fallout is minimal. But when it is seen as unreliable toward close allies with whom it has numerous important shared interests, that situation raises red flags.

You know, in ancient Rome, a politician was considered honest if, when bought, he stayed bought. Israel has been bought, and should remember that.

Countries aren't bought. Any state that views foreign aid as "buying" the loyalty of another sovereign state, much less at the expense of the recipient's own key interests, lacks a fundamental understanding of foreign policy. Such a state is bound to be disappointed and surprised time and again when the sovereign state refuses to capitulate on its own critical interests. Such a state is bound to wind up wasting money and finding it difficult to gain the cooperation of other states who seek to minimize risks by maintaining an arms-length relationship.
 
Last edited:
see, the thing is...I'm not a shill for our military industrial complex. So, I'm not particularly worried about losing Israel as a customer.
Fortunately you represent an opinion, and not an entire nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom