Is Israel a Good Ally to the US?

To me it's not so much of an issue of 'what have they done to others - or what have others done to them' - the issue of how much of an 'ally' they are comes from examining the actions *of* being an ally - and *of* being reliant on one.

Are they on our side politically? Yes - we hold many of the same views and values.

But are they reliant *on* us or do they work in tandem *with* us?
They are reliant *on* us - and because of their current situations they cannot *work* in tandem with us to the extent that a technical ally does. You know: in it together, supporting eachother, tit for tat, I've got your back nd you've got mine. They have so many issues on the homefront they cannot spread theirselves around. It just doesn't work that way for them.

Because of their issues they cannot step in and help as an ally would.

Partner, yes. Raliant, yes. Supportive, yes. Sharing values and beliefs, yes. Technical ally, no.

What they do with/to Palestine et al does not factor in - that's not what *makes* an ally - and it shouldn't be that big of a deal to discuss, honestly. Many countries fall UNDER our umbrella as opposed to helping hold the umbrella UP.

theplaydrive said:

The problem is that your criticism of my question assumes that I endorse the common implication in this thread that all Palestinian violence in about murdering innocent Jewish civilians, which is not. I have a problem with the implication that all Palestinian violence is terrorism when it clearly isn't.

Click to expand...

Oh but your question "what do you expect them to do" was a reply to a comment discussing Palestinian terrorism, so it's really undeniable that this was the subject of your question as well.

So my "what would you have them do?" was a question about why Israel can commit violence and Palestine can't.

Click to expand...

Clearly violence is only justified in certain cases such as self-defense and not when directed at civilians and clearly the objection is to violence that is being directed deliberately at civilians. Clearly I do not need to tell you that as clearly you should have been able to understand it on your own.

The idea that the US and Israeli military (or any military for that matter) has not purposely included civilians in their strategic attacks is ridiculous and I'm not going to entertain it.

Click to expand...

Oh but I object, there's nothing ridiculous in pointing out the reality of the situation. I'm not saying it didn't happen several decades ago, but in the modern age it is safe to say that civilians are not being targeted as part of a policy or order by any Western military, including the Israeli and US military.

It's not terrorism in the sense that we exclusively attack civilians, but it's ridiculous to believe that civilian deaths are simply "mistakes".

Click to expand...

It's ridiculous to assume that we have an intention to cause deaths amongst uninvolved civilians when we know too well the implications it has on motivating further terrorist attacks on our civilians from their side. After all maintaining the safety of its civilians is the top objective of any legitimate government.

Like I said, the notion that the Israeli military only kills civilians by "mistake" is ludicrous. Attacking civilian targets is a military strategy as it is sometimes believed to weaken the morale of the opposition.

Click to expand...

Accoridng to you, not to reality. It has more negative implications than it would ever have on the positive side. You're also forgetting the fact that the soldiers are human beings who are grown on Western values and thus cannot really be ordered to kill a person they know is innocent. For example in the Israeli military there's a law stating that an order that is perceived by the soldier to be a strongly immoral order such as the killing of people the soldier knows are innocents is to be refused and reported on. That's only one of the many reasons such orders cannot really exist in the military of a Western and civilized nation.

Right back at you. I think you're denying the fact that attacking civilians is a strategy considered and implemented by even the most humanitarian militaries.

Click to expand...

I still honestly think you're wrong and are misleading yourself due to the lack of evidence you are being exposed to. You are convincing yourself of a falsehood and that's never a good thing.

Aunt Spiker said:

To me it's not so much of an issue of 'what have they done to others - or what have others done to them' - the issue of how much of an 'ally' they are comes from examining the actions *of* being an ally - and *of* being reliant on one.

Are they on our side politically? Yes - we hold many of the same views and values.

But are they reliant *on* us or do they work in tandem *with* us?
They are reliant *on* us - and because of their current situations they cannot *work* in tandem with us to the extent that a technical ally does. You know: in it together, supporting eachother, tit for tat, I've got your back nd you've got mine. They have so many issues on the homefront they cannot spread theirselves around. It just doesn't work that way for them.

Because of their issues they cannot step in and help as an ally would.

Partner, yes. Raliant, yes. Supportive, yes. Sharing values and beliefs, yes. Technical ally, no.

What they do with/to Palestine et al does not factor in - that's not what *makes* an ally - and it shouldn't be that big of a deal to discuss, honestly. Many countries fall UNDER our umbrella as opposed to helping hold the umbrella UP.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, especially the highlighted area. I wouldn't say that most US "allies" do very much to help the United States accomplish its goals. We're pretty much keeping everyone safe, giving military support and economic support among other things. That's why people bring up the freerider issue a lot with regard to US allies including Israel. The main benefit Israel and other allies provide to us is in promoting our brand of what the ideal world would look like.

Apocalypse said:

Oh but your question "what do you expect them to do" was a reply to a comment discussing Palestinian terrorism, so it's really undeniable that this was the subject of your question as well.

Click to expand...

It actually wasn't. That's what you interpreted the comment as. It was in reply to a comment implying that all Palestinian violence is terrorism. This is what I take issue with.

Clearly violence is only justified in certain cases such as self-defense and not when directed at civilians and clearly the objection is to violence that is being directed deliberately at civilians. Clearly I do not need to tell you that as clearly you should have been able to understand it on your own.

Click to expand...

Don't knock my understanding since you had project all kinds of crap onto my question and other people's statements. I have a problem with the constant talking about Palestinian violence as if it all terrorism.

Oh but I object, there's nothing ridiculous in pointing out the reality of the situation. I'm not saying it didn't happen several decades ago, but in the modern age it is safe to say that civilians are not being targeted as part of a policy or order by any Western military, including the Israeli and US military.

Click to expand...

Right. I disagree. Civilian targets can be strategically useful.

It's ridiculous to assume that we have an intention to cause deaths amongst uninvolved civilians when we know too well the implications it has on motivating further terrorist attacks on our civilians from their side. After all maintaining the safety of its civilians is the top objective of any legitimate government.

Click to expand...

Why is that ridiculous? You've even admitted it may have happened several decades ago.

Accoridng to you, not to reality. It has more negative implications than it would ever have on the positive side. You're also forgetting the fact that the soldiers are human beings who are grown on Western values and thus cannot really be ordered to kill a person they know is innocent. For example in the Israeli military there's a law stating that an order that is perceived by the soldier to be a strongly immoral order such as the killing of people the soldier knows are innocents is to be refused and reported on. That's only one of the many reasons such orders cannot really exist in the military of a Western and civilized nation.

Click to expand...

I agree it has more negative implications in certain circumstances. However, lots of things have negative consequences and that doesn't stop governments from doing them. Nonetheless, I find it amusing that you consider my comments opinion and your comments "reality". We're both talking about things from our own knowledge of international politics - you're overestimating the objectivity of your own opinions.

I still honestly think you're wrong and are misleading yourself due to the lack of evidence you are being exposed to. You are convincing yourself of a falsehood and that's never a good thing.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the Israeli and US militaries have never targeted civilians?

theplaydrive said:

It actually wasn't. That's what you interpreted the comment as. It was in reply to a comment implying that all Palestinian violence is terrorism. This is what I take issue with.

Click to expand...

You're wrong, disgbe's comment was discussing Palestinian terrorism. "They employ terrorism" is a different statement from "they employ terrorism and terrorism alone".

Don't knock my understanding since you had project all kinds of crap onto my question and other people's statements. I have a problem with the constant talking about Palestinian violence as if it all terrorism.

Click to expand...

I don't care of your problems, I'm not a therapist. However you did compare the legitimacy of Israeli-employed violence and Palestinian-employed violence even though we're talking about self-defense versus unjustified attacks here.

Right. I disagree. Civilian targets can be strategically useful.

Click to expand...

You have the right to hold a damaged opinion.

Why is that ridiculous? You've even admitted it may have happened several decades ago.

Click to expand...

Hirushima and stuff like that, not in today's world where things are completely different. I took time to explain why the negative overwhelms the so-called positive.

I agree it has more negative implications in certain circumstances. However, lots of things have negative consequences and that doesn't stop governments from doing them. Nonetheless, I find it amusing that you consider my comments opinion and your comments "reality". We're both talking about things from our own knowledge of international politics - you're overestimating the objectivity of your own opinions.

Click to expand...

Objectivity? I've already alerted you that I'm not merely discussing things out of empty air. Regardless you're the claims-maker and you choose to base your claims on opinions and not on reality, thus I can only point out that your opinions are damaged and move on. Unless you give me something to work with I will not be able to go further than discussing your own opinions and how different they are from the reality I have experienced.

Are you saying that the Israeli and US militaries have never targeted civilians?

Click to expand...

Never is a long time, and the US did exist for a long time. I'm discussing modern age.

ElCid said:

Maybe those who disagree with you, view you as a hater.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one repeating the neo Nazi style canards that demonize Jews.

I think at this point in time it's pretty much a one-way relationship. The US-Israel alliance is like the couple in which the dude does everything, he works hard, takes out the garbage, buys the girl everything, and the girl doesn't even bother to make him a sandwich or suck his dick.

Aunt Spiker said:

To me it's not so much of an issue of 'what have they done to others - or what have others done to them' - the issue of how much of an 'ally' they are comes from examining the actions *of* being an ally - and *of* being reliant on one.

Are they on our side politically? Yes - we hold many of the same views and values.

But are they reliant *on* us or do they work in tandem *with* us?
They are reliant *on* us - and because of their current situations they cannot *work* in tandem with us to the extent that a technical ally does. You know: in it together, supporting eachother, tit for tat, I've got your back nd you've got mine. They have so many issues on the homefront they cannot spread theirselves around. It just doesn't work that way for them.

Because of their issues they cannot step in and help as an ally would.

Partner, yes. Raliant, yes. Supportive, yes. Sharing values and beliefs, yes. Technical ally, no.

What they do with/to Palestine et al does not factor in - that's not what *makes* an ally - and it shouldn't be that big of a deal to discuss, honestly. Many countries fall UNDER our umbrella as opposed to helping hold the umbrella UP.

Click to expand...

I think this is a very reasonable take on the relationship, though I would counter the idea that the U.S. gets nothing out of the relationship. The reality is that Israel serves to complement U.S. actions overseas and not just in the Middle East. Mossad is believed to carry out a number of actions in Latin America pursuant to U.S. goals in the region. However, that aside I do not think it should be characterized as a matter of Israel being a good ally to the U.S. Without question Israel's government does good work in service of the U.S. government's ends but I do not think these actions make Israel a good ally of the American people because the ends of our government are not really in the interest of the American people.

Alfons said:

Not only USA, but also the entirely Western World must help Israel.

Reasons:

1. If Israel ceases out to exist all churches will be transformed to Mosques.
2. Israel is a bastion against Islamization.
3. Israel possess excellent know-how in fight against Islamic terrorism.
4. Israel is only Democracy in the Middle East.
5. Israel has many good technologies.

Click to expand...

Alfons has made it so I didn't even have to reply, I think he covered almost all of the bases.

StillBallin75 said:

I think at this point in time it's pretty much a one-way relationship. The US-Israel alliance is like the couple in which the dude does everything, he works hard, takes out the garbage, buys the girl everything, and the girl doesn't even bother to make him a sandwich or suck his dick.

Click to expand...

I agree and I think we should go testify before Congress and use this exact description so they get in through their heads.

Demon of Light said:

I think this is a very reasonable take on the relationship, though I would counter the idea that the U.S. gets nothing out of the relationship. The reality is that Israel serves to complement U.S. actions overseas and not just in the Middle East. Mossad is believed to carry out a number of actions in Latin America pursuant to U.S. goals in the region. However, that aside I do not think it should be characterized as a matter of Israel being a good ally to the U.S. Without question Israel's government does good work in service of the U.S. government's ends but I do not think these actions make Israel a good ally of the American people because the ends of our government are not really in the interest of the American people.

Click to expand...

Yes - I agree. But does that necessitate an 'ally' or does that necessitate a single positive?

Apocalypse said:

You're wrong, disgbe's comment was discussing Palestinian terrorism. "They employ terrorism" is a different statement from "they employ terrorism and terrorism alone".

I don't care of your problems, I'm not a therapist. However you did compare the legitimacy of Israeli-employed violence and Palestinian-employed violence even though we're talking about self-defense versus unjustified attacks here.

You have the right to hold a damaged opinion.

Hirushima and stuff like that, not in today's world where things are completely different. I took time to explain why the negative overwhelms the so-called positive.

Objectivity? I've already alerted you that I'm not merely discussing things out of empty air. Regardless you're the claims-maker and you choose to base your claims on opinions and not on reality, thus I can only point out that your opinions are damaged and move on. Unless you give me something to work with I will not be able to go further than discussing your own opinions and how different they are from the reality I have experienced.

Never is a long time, and the US did exist for a long time. I'm discussing modern age.

Click to expand...

Israel is not as innocent as your biased accounts of "reality" is making it out to be. And your insistence that Israeli violence is the only legitimate violence in this conflict evidence that you are incapable of making an evidence-based analysis of the situation.

Nonetheless, you have not made a good case for Israel being a good ally to the United States. Its efforts to solve the IP conflict are mediocre and do not outweigh the damage it does to the US as an ally. Moreover, it continually excuses its excess use of force in the same way you have done here by pointing to the Palestinians as if Israel hasn't done anything wrong in the conflict. I'm over it. The US needs to restructure its relationship with Israel - the blame game is getting old.

Alfons said:

Not only USA, but also the entirely Western World must help Israel.

Reasons:

1. If Israel ceases out to exist all churches will be transformed to Mosques.
2. Israel is a bastion against Islamization.
3. Israel possess excellent know-how in fight against Islamic terrorism.
4. Israel is only Democracy in the Middle East.
5. Israel has many good technologies.

Click to expand...

So you're view centers around pure religious aspects and the possible future indirect gains such as *maybe* some technology advancements.. . . . None if it is 'ally heavy' - all of that is *why* someone might support a country or a cause. I didn't think we were discussing why you might find it acceptable for us to support them - I thought we were discussing whether they are classified as an ally or other.

So - does all of that reaosning, there, dictate them being an ally - or something else?

I'll point out that "because Islam might spread" is a horrible argument to make - our 1st Amendment states that our congress cannot pass any laws that favor one religion over another - if we HAVE religious reasoning for our support it's could be in violation of our own Constitutional values. . . Making that argument ill advised in general.

Aunt Spiker said:

Yes - I agree. But does that necessitate an 'ally' or does that necessitate a single positive?

Click to expand...

If you see an alliance as an equal relationship then the U.S. has few, if any, allies.

Demon of Light said:

If you see an alliance as an equal relationship then the U.S. has few, if any, allies.

Click to expand...

This is why I'm getting kind of tired of our "alliances" as they are. I think we need to start pulling back a bit and letting everybody take control of their own security - not just Israel, everybody.

theplaydrive said:

This is why I'm getting kind of tired of our "alliances" as they are. I think we need to start pulling back a bit and letting everybody take control of their own security - not just Israel, everybody.

Click to expand...

We have our money problems now...about time everybody stopped free-riding and started taking care of their own business.

When it comes to Israel, as a state I have no problem with. The people, I have no problem with. Its the actions of the Israeli government that annoys me. Overall, I think that Israel is a so-so ally.

Going off of my previous analogy in post 82...when's the last time Israel gave us a blowjob or made us a sandwich? Okay, okay, they did give us Natalie Portman/Queen Amidala. What else?

StillBallin75 said:

Going off of my previous analogy in post 82...when's the last time Israel gave us a blowjob or made us a sandwich? Okay, okay, they did give us Natalie Portman/Queen Amidala. What else?

Click to expand...

When was the last time you approached the situation involving Israel with an open mind and used legitimate sources instead of propaganda sites?

It was probably that long ago.

Gardener said:

When was the last time you approached the situation involving Israel with an open mind and used legitimate sources instead of propaganda sites?

It was probably that long ago.

Click to expand...

What are some sources that you deem appropriately legitimate?

Gardener said:

When was the last time you approached the situation involving Israel with an open mind and used legitimate sources instead of propaganda sites?

It was probably that long ago.

Click to expand...

I love how you think you know how I arrived at my opinions on Israel. Care to answer the question?

For the record, my opinion on the alliance could pretty much be summarized by General Petraeus' testimony before the Senate from about a year ago.

StillBallin75 said:

I love how you think you know how I arrived at my opinions on Israel. Care to answer the question?

Click to expand...

I didn't say how you arrived at your positions at all. In fact, I gave you the opportunity to say "why, just yesterday" or "Just last week", along with an answer to your own question.

theplaydrive said:

What are some sources that you deem appropriately legitimate?

Click to expand...

That would be legitimate news agencies, non-politicized reports of various types, that sort of thing.

It certainly wouldn't include websites designed for the purpose of propagandizing. Intelligent people recognize the difference.

Gardener said:

That would be legitimate news agencies, non-politicized reports of various types, that sort of thing.

It certainly wouldn't include websites designed for the purpose of propagandizing. Intelligent people recognize the difference.

Click to expand...

I've never seen StillBallin use those sources so your loaded question was nonsensical.