Okay, but that's not really Israel's fault. I mean, Israel wasn't trying to hurt the U.S., they were just looking after their own interests.

The U.S. supplying Israel with weapons isn't Israel screwing the U.S. over, it's the U.S. screwing the U.S. over.

Or... you know... Israel blackmailing the US. Whichever you want to pick.

Care to expand on that?

You really shouldn't take me seriously, even though I am dead serious. I could provide you with articles from websites you wouldn't take as reliable information, so I'll just give you this, which should show Israel really does like the US.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/23/liberty.attack/

In addition, ever heard of AIPAC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

It alone is enough - and its influence has caused the US to be forced to act in Israeli instead of American interests multiple times.

You do not know what sources I will or will not consider reliable. You do not know my political agenda or leanings. Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, both your link, and Adamgian's don't really look like 'blackmail' to me. Adamgian's at least could be spun that way, but by that spin one would have to assume that all lobies are engaging in blackmail.

Seriously though, if there were more specific instances of blackmail, I'd be most interested to read 'em.

Quotes like this from the Wikipedia article:


In addition, get a hold of the London Book Review version of the "Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy" booklet. According to their polls, AIPAC ranks as more powerful than the NRA and the AFL-CIO, and is only overtaken by the AARP. Considering what many have said, that isn't very farfetched. Goole Search the paper and read it if you have the time, its an eye opener.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. In any case I was wondering if you read the related article on AIPAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC_espionage_scandal

If you want to really explore this line of thought, you are going to dark, dark places. Really, you can't expect the government to to be unaware of certain things that happen. Why do they support Israel so much, when all it causes is trouble? You have to come to your own conclusions.
http://judicial-inc.biz/False_Flags_summary.htm

I can't back this up at this time, but I've seen references which indicate that Israel would feel more compelled to use nuclear weapons in a war should the U.S. stop supplying them with military tech. Besides, without obvious American support, Israel would be more vulnerable as a target.

If Amenidijad or whatever his name is wants to wipe Israel off them map, he's not increasing his chances with his rhetoric which is only serving to bring Israel closer to the rest of the world.

What about selling AWACS to china?

Nobody is going to attack Israel because they know that Israel has a good 200 nuclear weapons of its own. No matter how crazy leaders may seem, they are not suicidal and will not turn suicidal unless threatened to that point.

AIPAC killed AWACS sales to Saudi for years for no apparent reason, theres no way China is going to get them. Besides, all the Western countries still have a arms block after Tianamen Square.

Israel is a geographically tiny nation. Its not one well equipped to have a MAD defense. One well timed suprise nuclear attack and israel would be incapable of retaliation no matter how many nukes its got. So its not as suicidal as it may seem for iran to threaten and possibly carry out an attack.

Yet you make a gross assumption that Israel would be the only one to come to it's own defense.

Well, assuming Iran could perform a quick and decisive strike against Israel using nukes, in that event there wouldn't be much of an Israel left to defend.

Of course, Iran wouldn't last long against the reprisal from the rest of the civilized world. The danger is that some of Iran's anti-Israel fundies might not care... so long as Israel is gone.

Wesker, Israel has a number of our boomer subs sitting out in undisclosed national waters. Should someone be foolish enough to nuke Israel, one of those subs has a large enough payload to destroy most (if not all) of the major cities in every country in the Middle East.

Where did you get the info regarding israeli nuclear subs? This is the latest on Israeli subs

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/sub/index.html

Small diesel powered boats is all I see.

What Gumby said seems to be implying that the Israelis have our ballistic missile subs on call to avenge them in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel.

Though I fail to see why Israel would need them to do their retaliating; Mossad is quite capable of smuggling Israel's own nuclear weapons around to insure a response to a nuclear attack.

Indeed Mossad is very capable inteligence outfit. Didnt they recently get into trouble because some of their agents got arrested in Italy with fake Canadian passports.

Wow, if that's true that sounds like some pretty sloppy work on Mossad's part, considering their fearsome reputation. Besides, don't they know that all Italian police accept bribes? :)

Well, to be honest, Israel's response to a nuclear attack is unclear. Israel has never tested a nuclear bomb, and they haven't announced that they do have the bomb. As a result, Israel has no discernable nuclear policy, as it can't put one forth. Would the Israelis strike pre-emptively? Where do they even have their nukes?

China, which has a similar small amount of nukes retains its deterrent by moving them around, which keeps a first strike from guaranteeing the destruction of their arsenal. They have neither the economy, nor the desire to facilitate a nuclear buildup, and neither does Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, has not only no discernable location for their nukes, but it has no nuclear policy, as I've mentioned before. That means that whether or not the Israelis have an offensive or defensive nuclear policy is impossible to determine.

For example: in the Big Boy's Nuclear Club, nuclear power forms into a trifecta. The first, ICBMs, are easily located, and once they are launched, are impossible to recall. That makes an ICBM a purely offensive weapon that is launched in a first-strike, or in reaction to a confirmed First Strike by ICBMs. The second comes in the form of nuclear subs. Subs can be recalled, but the range of their missiles creates a necessity for their proximity off of enemy coasts. That presence is both defensive, and offensive, as Nuclear subs can discretely launch their missiles, and then re-submerge, and one can never honestly know where they are at any given time.. That is why Sub Hunters were so important to the USN, since if we couldn't keep track of Russian subs off of our coasts, there was no means of destroying them and their payloads in the event of a nuclear exchange. The third comes in the form of Strategic Bombers. Strategic Bombers are mostly defensive, as you need a couple in the air at all times, and they can be recalled. Having bombers in the air guarantees your ability to react to a nuclear strike, and whether armed with ballistic missiles or air-burst bombs, so long as you have a sizeable bomber force in the air, it's impossible for the enemy air defence to intercept all of them.

The Russians focused on ICBMs and submarines to project their nuclear policy, which gave them an offensive nuclear stance. The Soviets also developed a Civil Defense network, which would have allowed the Russians to maintain as many people and resources as possible in the event of nuclear exchange, which implies that they have a backup plan, giving them an offensive edge.

The Americans, on the other hand, focused on Strategic Bombers and nuclear subs, which gave us a purely defensive Nuclear stance. If our ICBMs were eliminated in a first strike, we would still have bombers in the air, and subs in the water, which would guarantee a reactionary strike. The Americans also never developed a Civil Defense, which means that our position was purely reactionary, and that we relied completely on the deterrent effect of our nuclear arsenal.

We don't know, however, what the Israelis are arming their nukes on. That means that Mossad could be maintaining a device in Tehran for all we know. It's because of this impossible discernability that Israel's neighbors have kept their mouths shut, so as not to disturb the hornet's nest. Iraq and Iran, however, don't share a border with Israel, so they've been able to afford to talk shit, as the prospect of a military buildup against Israel is politically infeasible.

We support Israel so much because they are our aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Which is our number one priority region for more then one reason. Also, we sell a great deal of arms to Israel. Which sometimes get sold to our enemies through Israel. But money is money and hey, our bombs have to go somewhere when they're not flying in Baghdad yeah?

No rational debate is possible when talking about Israel and the US's foreign policy concerning them. Because if you're not pro-Israel you're a anti-semite!

I was under the impression that we support Israel so much because otherwise all the Jews in America would cry about how we're going to let another holocaust happen, as impossible as it maybe, then proceed paint whoever proposes a withdrawl of support as a pro-Nazi/Anti-Semitisc. As evidenced by this article.

We have other more important reasons besides that. Government(s) do not dictate their foreign policy out of the kindness or sympathy of their hearts. The American government's apathy to the jews getting gased in concentration camps is a good example. There was no public outcry or even acknowledgement about it. Even though accurate and detailed intelligence about the concentration camps came via the Polish resistence.

Israel would not exist as a state without it's "little brother" American mandate. Israel has defied twice as many UN resolutions as Iraq did under Saddam. But as long as they play their part we'll let that slide.

It's not just the proposal of the complete withdrawl of support that draws the anti-semitic label. The advocates of strengthening the Palestinian position often draw that label. Even though, ironically enough Palestinians/Arabs are a semitic people.

Honestly I can see why the Palestinians were upset over the creation of Israel. There is a misguided idea that the Jews have some sort of a birthright to that land. When Biblical Judaism was being practiced, the Jews needed to go to Jerusalem because the temple was there. True Jews had to make a sacrifice to atone for their sins at the temple. The priests in the temple were the only way for the Jews to have contact with God. When the temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 Judaism..as it was practiced in the time of the Torah, ceased to exist. There was no longer any reason for Jews to remain close to Jerusalem, so they dispersed around the world. The establishment of Israel was a Zionist idea, with the ultimate hopes of reestblishing the temple.

All that being said....whats done is done, and Israel now stands as the only free democratic state in the Middle east and has every right to continue to exist They are a staunch ally of the U.S. and for reasons wide and varied the U.S. is and should continue to be counted on to come to the defense of Israel.

Are they?

Disregarding Israel's numerous unfriendly actions towards the United States, what treaty of alliance is there between the United States and Israel?

For that matter, what has Israel ever done for us?