Israel/Obama/Polls

[bigross86]

Amdocs is an Israeli company. Their HQ is located near your home town.

Whiskey, as far as I know, Amdocs was founded by Israelis but is now firmly in American hands.

Edit: From Wikipedia:

"Headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri, Amdocs has more than 20,000 employees and serves customers in more than fifty countries (the Registered office of the company is in the Island of Guernsey)"

"In 1985, Southwestern Bell Corporation acquired a 50 percent ownership share of Aurec Information, and its name was changed to Amdocs. Within two years, the Aurec Group sold off all its holdings in Amdocs for almost US$1 billion."

[bigross86]

BR,



i can't see why the US needs israel geographically. when was the last time the US relied on israel/israeli geography?

For the simple fact that due to Israel's need of the US as a backer, Israeli bases and staging areas will always be available to the US. Things in the Arab world can change quite quickly, given the right circumstances, and it's not entirely impossible that 10 years from now someone in Saudi Arabia will come along and kick the US out. The US hasn't needed to use Israel as a staging point in god knows how long, but (in my opinion) should keep around simply because Israel is the only guaranteed staging area the US will ever have in the Middle East, even 50 years from now.

[bigross86]

The US doesn't remotely 'need' Israel geographically. Maybe for some intel it couldn't otherwise get, but it isn't like the US can base assets there. In many respects Israel is one of America's least useful allies. Costs a fortune, can't be trusted, makes relationships with more useful nations harder & can't provide much more assistance than information. Regionally Turkey & Saudi Arabia have both been or more practical military value than Israel....if at a price.

Read my post to Astralis as to why it makes sense for the US to keep Israel around.

"Costs a fortune" - I'm advocating we get rid of that

"can't be trusted" - As the Colonel likes to say, nations don't have friends, they have interests

"makes relationships with more useful nations harder" - Really? What exactly are Syria, Lebanon and Iran offering the US that they desire to open relations with them and Israel's existence is the only thing getting in the way?

"can't provide much more assistance than information." - I mentioned several reasons a few posts back about the advantages the US and Israel offer each other, both on the governmental level as well as in the private sector. This includes propping up US dollars against foreign currencies. I'd say that's a pretty decent thing for Israel to have done, but hey, that's just me.

"Regionally Turkey & Saudi Arabia have both been or more practical military value than Israel....if at a price." - And again, like I've said: I can foresee a future where tides and governments will change and the US will be removed from the Middle East, for any number of reasons. At that point, Israel will still be the only GUARANTEED US staging point in the Middle East. In that case, the situation hasn't changed that much in the past 40 years. Many countries in the Middle East are still in the Russian sphere of influence, and with China emerging, the battle for the Middle East just earned another player that (as we have seen) has no qualms about getting its hands dirty.

If I was given the chance to save $6 billion and at no further extra cost to myself guarantee staging rights for as long as I wanted them, I'd jump on the deal.

[Bigfella]

Read my post to Astralis as to why it makes sense for the US to keep Israel around.

I'm not suggesting America doesn't 'keep Israel around', just that the alliance isn't nearly as valuable as Israelis seem to think. When you've fought side by side in a few wars, hosted lots of US troops & installations & signed an alliance treaty get back to me.

"Costs a fortune" - I'm advocating we get rid of that

This isn't about what you advocate but about the value of the alliance.

"can't be trusted" - As the Colonel likes to say, nations don't have friends, they have interests

Pissing all over your single most important supporter (actually, more important than everybody else combined) is a special kinda stupid. Getting all self-righteous & 'realpolitik' about it simply rubs salt in. Oh, in related news I see the 'Free Pollard' campaign kicked into high gear this week

"makes relationships with more useful nations harder" - Really? What exactly are Syria, Lebanon and Iran offering the US that they desire to open relations with them and Israel's existence is the only thing getting in the way?

Given how NOT useful you are to the US the category of 'more useful' is pretty broad.

"can't provide much more assistance than information." - I mentioned several reasons a few posts back about the advantages the US and Israel offer each other, both on the governmental level as well as in the private sector. This includes propping up US dollars against foreign currencies. I'd say that's a pretty decent thing for Israel to have done, but hey, that's just me.

Assuming that this even mattered (I don't know enough to judge), making sure your biggest backer is economically stable is 'enlightened self interest' at best. 'Decency' doesn't enter ito it.

"Regionally Turkey & Saudi Arabia have both been or more practical military value than Israel....if at a price." - And again, like I've said: I can foresee a future where tides and governments will change and the US will be removed from the Middle East, for any number of reasons. At that point, Israel will still be the only GUARANTEED US staging point in the Middle East. In that case, the situation hasn't changed that much in the past 40 years. Many countries in the Middle East are still in the Russian sphere of influence, and with China emerging, the battle for the Middle East just earned another player that (as we have seen) has no qualms about getting its hands dirty.

Really? your best shot is 'one day in one possible future the US might be able to base troops here'. Wow! I was at least expecting something concrete. Instead I get 'once upon a future time....'. The US has managed to arrange its regional basing needs around Israel's relative geographic uselessness for over 60 years. I imagine it will be able to manage it for a few decades more. Who knows, by tha tpoint the US may not be interested in regional staging areas anyway.

If I was given the chance to save $6 billion and at no further extra cost to myself guarantee staging rights for as long as I wanted them, I'd jump on the deal.

All of which has nothing to do with Israel's value as an ally. If I was given the chance to get paid to betray my major ally, never commit soldiers to its wars, never provide bases and have our leaders as much as tell my major ally to go f*ck iteslf on their soil I'd jump at the chance. Sounds like a great gig. We dumbfvcks spend billions sending our young men to die in US wars, provide bases & vital facilities & can't even get a crappy trade concession.

I repeat, geographically America does not remotely 'need' you.

[bigross86]

I'm not suggesting America doesn't 'keep Israel around', just that the alliance isn't nearly as valuable as Israelis seem to think. When you've fought side by side in a few wars, hosted lots of US troops & installations & signed an alliance treaty get back to me.

I remind you that Israel has been kept out of fighting side by side with the US by the US. To then turn around and say that Israel hasn't fought side by side with the US so they can't be real allies is a cheap shot, to put it mildly.

This isn't about what you advocate but about the value of the alliance.

No one is saying it's invaluable and the most important thing in the world. All I'm saying is that the relationship between Israel and the US is strong enough to survive Israel refusing to continue accepting US foreign aid every year.

Pissing all over your single most important supporter (actually, more important than everybody else combined) is a special kinda stupid. Getting all self-righteous & 'realpolitik' about it simply rubs salt in. Oh, in related news I see the 'Free Pollard' campaign kicked into high gear this week

Once again, I'm talking about the difference between the politicians, who are a special kinda stupid, or else they wouldn't be politicians, and the real people. The real people realize that the US is important to Israel as an ally, but not in the current configuration, where US aid buys the US the right to dictate domestic and foreign policy.

And the Pollard thing heats up every single time someone from the US comes here or someone from here goes to the US. If you ask me they should have executed the damned moron for treason and gotten it over with. He spied, he got caught, deal with it.

And don't give me any crap about Pollard being unique, you can bet pretty much every single dollar you have, Australian, US or otherwise, that Australia spies on the US, the US spies on the UK, and everyone spies on everybody. This guy was stupid enough to get caught, end of story. Nothing new, unique, or particularly antagonizing here.

Given how NOT useful you are to the US the category of 'more useful' is pretty broad.

Answer the questions, please.

Assuming that this even mattered (I don't know enough to judge), making sure your biggest backer is economically stable is 'enlightened self interest' at best. 'Decency' doesn't enter ito it.

This may be true. There also might be other reasoning behind it. Again, countries don't have friends, they have interests. Whatever the reasoning, it doesn't change the fact that Israel shored up the US dollar at a time when it was highly needed.

You'll also notice that the US' biggest trading partners (Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, the UK, South Korea, Brazil, France and Taiwan being just the top 10) did not raise a finger to help the US or the US dollar, and I see some countries on that list that receive pretty substantial US backing, including South Korea and Taiwan.

Really? your best shot is 'one day in one possible future the US might be able to base troops here'. Wow! I was at least expecting something concrete. Instead I get 'once upon a future time....'. The US has managed to arrange its regional basing needs around Israel's relative geographic uselessness for over 60 years. I imagine it will be able to manage it for a few decades more. Who knows, by tha tpoint the US may not be interested in regional staging areas anyway.

That's also true. I never said it would happen, I said it could happen. And like I said, if I could earn unlimited staging rights while at the same time saving $6 billion a year, I'd go for it. Financially and politically it makes amazing sense. An extra staging area (and a guaranteed one, at that), never hurts.

All of which has nothing to do with Israel's value as an ally. If I was given the chance to get paid to betray my major ally, never commit soldiers to its wars, never provide bases and have our leaders as much as tell my major ally to go f*ck iteslf on their soil I'd jump at the chance. Sounds like a great gig.

So, you're pissed off at the situation, and I'm pissed off at the situation, but for some reason, when I try and change the one element that will make things better, you attack me? Let's go over it again:

"get paid to betray my major ally" - A) I'm suggesting that we remove the payment part, and B) everyone betrays everyone, and you're a naive fool if you think otherwise. Sometimes some people are just stupid enough to get caught.

"never commit soldiers to its wars" - Read above. Israel is frequently told by the US to stay out of it for fear of offending Arab sensibilities (i.e. Gulf War Coalition, among others). To then complain about it is nothing but being a whining bore.

"never provide bases" - The US Navy has made frequent port calls in the past, and US soldiers and Marines can be found nearly every day of the year on Israeli training bases all over Israel.

"have our leaders as much as tell my major ally to go f*ck iteslf on their soil" - Once again, politicians Vs real people. If you were to ask the folks on the street, most of them would tell you that we need America as a trading partner, as a backer and as a strategic ally. Political vitriol is like 99% of the rest of the rubbish that comes out of a politician's mouth: Bullshit.

We dumbfvcks spend billions sending our young men to die in US wars, provide bases & vital facilities & can't even get a crappy trade concession.

And what would you like me to do about that? I'm here trying to come up with a way to solve Israel's problems, I'll let you solve Australia's problems.

To look at it very simply, this all looks like jealousy on your part that you think Israel has it on better terms with the US than Australia (whether they do or don't I'll let someone else decide), and you're upset.

I repeat, geographically America does not remotely 'need' you.

I will grant that perhaps "need" was not the most appropriate word to use. I'll reiterate my point once again: I firmly believe that the US-Israel relationship is strong enough to weather Israel telling the US it doesn't want US foreign aid anymore. I also believe that the ties between the US and Israel are string enough even without the US offering Israel foreign aid. Finally, the US has enough sticks AND carrots to use against Israel should they want to, I see no reason why if Israel has the ability to remove one of those carrots and/or sticks from the US arsenal, it shouldn't do so.

[Mihais]

Dude,get real.Of course the US kept Israel out.Unless your plan was to go straight on against every living muslim,you had nothing to do.So yes,in that sense you are useless.

[bigross86]

I'm not objecting to that. I realize that realpolitik and common sense dictated that Israel stay the hell out. But to then turn around and blame Israel for not participating is a cheap shot.

[Mihais]

I'm not objecting to that. I realize that realpolitik and common sense dictated that Israel stay the hell out. But to then turn around and blame Israel for not participating is a cheap shot.

I don't know if it's blame or just an observation.Fact is US spent money and blood killing enemies of Israel,while Israel was in a very comfortable position.Having others do its killing on their own money and being asked to stay out.
But you are no ally,in the classical meaning of the term.Good for you,for now.

Btw,you turning on PRC at the time US is starting to contain the PRC might not be the most fortunate geopolitical calculation.

[bigross86]

I don't know if it's blame or just an observation

"When you've fought side by side in a few wars, hosted lots of US troops & installations & signed an alliance treaty get back to me....... We dumbfvcks spend billions sending our young men to die in US wars, provide bases & vital facilities & can't even get a crappy trade concession."

That sounds like an accusation to me.

.Fact is US spent money and blood killing enemies of Israel,while Israel was in a very comfortable position.Having others do its killing on their own money and being asked to stay out.

And for the record, the US didn't take on Iraq either time because Israel asked them to, so once again, to say "US spent money and blood killing enemies of Israel,while Israel was in a very comfortable position.Having others do its killing on their own money and being asked to stay out." is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Yes, it is true, but absent all the relevant background info it paints a highly different picture.

One could also point out that Iraq was well on it's way to a nuclear reactor with the stated intent and purpose of building nukes, and the US sat by and did nothing while Israel finally went and destroyed the reactor before it could go hot. Again, true, but a misrepresentation of the facts. It was in Israel's best interests to destroy the reactor, but without the background information, the US are big at talk but can't walk the walk, and Israel had to step up and do the job because the US couldn't.

See where I'm going with this?

But you are no ally,in the classical meaning of the term.Good for you,for now.

True, but be that as it may, our two countries still have a strong relationship and are still entwined in many different fields. Not so much that if we were to separate that it would be disastrous, but enough to call the relationship close.

Btw,you turning on PRC at the time US is starting to contain the PRC might not be the most fortunate geopolitical calculation.

I wasn't advocating that, I was merely pointing out that there are more markets out there for Israeli goods besides the US. The Phalcon deal wasn't so far back, when Israel was forced to abandon a $250 million sale to the PRC specifically because the USA threatened to withhold the $2.8 billion in foreign aid. Either way, as it stands, Israel is one of the PRC's main arms suppliers behind Russia.

[astralis]

BR,

from my own personal perspective, actually, i agree with you: i'd rather see the military aid to israel changed into your regular foreign military sales program.

but i do it because i think israel's worth as an ally is minimal, born more out of cold war history and general mutual distaste for her enemies than any real assessment of actual value.

where i think you and i part ways is your belief in how israeli foreign policy would be changed afterwards. you believe that simply by the virtue of not taking the money, israel will no longer be a "vassal state". frankly, i simply don't see what type of extra freedom or flexibility the israelis would gain-- what can she do the day after that she can't do today? what does israel get out of the deal, other than to salve her masochistic nationalism?

[bigross86]

I'm not saying Israel will no longer a vassal state, she will be less of a vassal state. This is what I wrote several posts ago:

"...the US has enough sticks AND carrots to use against Israel should they want to, I see no reason why if Israel has the ability to remove one of those carrots and/or sticks from the US arsenal, it shouldn't do so."

Allow me to please repeat myself for the umpteenth time: Israel is not, has not been and never will be the US' greatest ally. We are not even allies in the strictest sense of the term. However, that does not change the fact that the US and Israel share close ties, ties that are strong enough to withstand the cancelling of US foreign aid to Israel. Israel can use the US far more than the US can use Israel, this is true, but that doesn't mean that Israel is useless or worthless to the US. Again, perhaps "need" was the wrong word, but I argue that if the US and Israel were to sever ties tomorrow, after a period of tumult and turmoil Israel would be able to find a new backer in Russia and/or the PRC. The US would also be harmed, though not as much as Israel.

Israel still does hold a unique position in the Middle East as the only real democracy. This means that Israel is stable and not prone to the government being overthrown as we saw in many other places in the Middle East. I'm pretty sure that neither Russia nor the PRC would particularly object to accepting Israel into their sphere of influence once the US were to leave, especially if it meant gaining a safe, secure and steady foothold in the Middle East.

With regards to extra freedom or flexibility, I once again refer you to the Phalcon deal where the threat of withholding foreign aid kiboshed the deal with the PRC. The US may still end up holding up future deals with the PRC, but they won't have that particular stick to beat us with. If you ask me, that's a good enough gain in the plus column.

[Doktor]

What democracy are you talking about?

Palestinians vote in Israeli elections? Israel claims the territory, but the people are not citizens.

[astralis]

so your conclusion is that doing so WILL harm the relationship, but not too badly; but if it goes badly then israel can depend on Russia and the PRC (lol, good luck with that) which as you say will definitely hurt israel more.

and the big plus to flexibility is being able to sell some more stuff to china-- assuming the US doesn't try to block the deal by other means?

frankly all i see is that the only real reason why israelis don't want the money is because it's a (somewhat) physical and constant reminder that they're a vassal state...a status which you admit will not change much without it. i suppose other nations have done dumber things for pride's sake...

[bigross86]

What democracy are you talking about?

Palestinians vote in Israeli elections? Israel claims the territory, but the people are not citizens.

Palestinians vote in Palestinian elections, Israeli Arabs vote in Israeli elections. Seems pretty fair to me.... But let's not derail this thread any more than it already is?

[bigross86]

so your conclusion is that doing so WILL harm the relationship, but not too badly; but if it goes badly then israel can depend on Russia and the PRC (lol, good luck with that) which as you say will definitely hurt israel more.

and the big plus to flexibility is being able to sell some more stuff to china-- assuming the US doesn't try to block the deal by other means?

frankly all i see is that the only real reason why israelis don't want the money is because it's a (somewhat) physical and constant reminder that they're a vassal state...a status which you admit will not change much without it. i suppose other nations have done dumber things for pride's sake...

I don't know how much it will or won't change, but again, if I can remove one carrot or stick from the US' arsenal, and Israel can afford it, then why not?