"No! You're wrong!"

[TheBear]

When has the US ever said this to Israel?

 

[LogicChristian]

The 1981 Osirak raid, when Israel encircled the 3rd Egyptian Army in 1973 and wanted to finish them off, the US made Israel give their enemies food and water.

 

[TheBear]

Anybody else have anything to add?

 

[LogicChristian]

Clinton nearly cut Israel off of its supply of US military equipment over a proposed sale of a Phalcon AWACS system to China. Luckily for all, Israel didn't allow the deal to go through. Bush jr. kicked them out of the F-35 project at least temporarily for arms sales to China.

 

[TheBear]

Clinton nearly cut Israel off of its supply of US military equipment over a proposed sale of a Phalcon AWACS system to China. Luckily for all, Israel didn't allow the deal to go through. Bush jr. kicked them out of the F-35 project at least temporarily for arms sales to China.

Do all the research first, then put it all in one post. (unless you're going for the post-count uppage. )

 

[LogicChristian]

Do all the research first, then put it all in one post. (unless you're going for the post-count uppage. )

Sorry, I was at work when I posted the first two, and was pretty much doing it as I thought of new things.

Nevertheless, here's a good article from the NYTimes. The US hasn't always been so conciliatory towards Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Sycophant]

Doesn't seem like it...

It's a bit irksome, because terrorism didn't magically appear from nowhere in September 2001. Many part of the world (including, obviously the Middle East) have been dealing with terrorism for a long long time.

The US has even supported what would be best classified terrorism when it supported their needs. But in the wake of one attack (which was big, certainly) suddenly it is seems to be the one focus of all US foreign policy. Anything can be justified if it is against the poorly defined 'terrorism'.

As for the US/Israel... It would be nice if the US took a more reasoned approach with Israel, rather than seeming to approve and support all it's actions without question. Other countries which have been long supporters of Israel are still willing to speak up when they feel it is stepping over the line.

I guess the US approach is at least in part driven by the willingness of many people in the US to scream "anti-semite" in response to any critisism of Israel regardless of it's validity. No politician wants to be on the receiving end of that.

 

[TheBear]

As for the US/Israel... It would be nice if the US took a more reasoned approach with Israel, rather than seeming to approve and support all it's actions without question. Other countries which have been long supporters of Israel are still willing to speak up when they feel it is stepping over the line.

I guess the US approach is at least in part driven by the willingness of many people in the US to scream "anti-semite" in response to any critisism of Israel regardless of it's validity. No politician wants to be on the receiving end of that.

I agree.

 

[SolomonVII]

Anybody else have anything to add?

Suez Crisis, 1956. Eisenhowever went against what Britain, France and Israel were doing.

 

[SolomonVII]

The American Veto

Many people believe the United States can always be relied upon to support Israel with its veto in the UN Security Council. The historical record, however, shows that the U.S. has often opposed Israel in the Council.
In 1990, for example, Washington voted for a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's handling of the Temple Mount riot earlier that month. While singling out “the acts of violence committed by Israeli security forces,” the resolution omitted mention of the Arab violence that preceded it.
In December 1990, the U.S. went along with condemning Israel for expelling four leaders of Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group. The deportations came in response to numerous crimes committed by Hamas against Arabs and Jews, the most recent of which had been the murders of three Israeli civilians in a Jaffa factory several days earlier. The resolution did not say a word about Hamas and its crimes. It described Jerusalem as “occupied” territory, declared that Palestinians needed to be “protected” from Israel and called on contracting parties of the Geneva Convention to ensure Israel's compliance. It was the first time the Security Council invoked the Convention against a member country.
In January 1992, the U.S. supported a one-sided resolution condemning Israel for expelling 12 Palestinians, members of terrorist groups that were responsible for perpetrating violence against Arab and Jew alike. The resolution, which described Jerusalem as “occupied” territory, made no mention of the events that triggered the expulsions—the murders of four Jewish civilians by Palestinian radicals since October.
From 1967-1991, 82 resolutions and drafts dealing with Israel were voted on in the Council. Sixty-nine were critical of Israel. The U.S. supported these resolutions 28 times. By abstaining on 26 more votes, the U.S. effectively joined in the Councils condemnations. Hence, the U.S. opposed Israel on 78 percent of the critical votes.11 In that time, the U.S. used its veto 15 times.

http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/unisrael.html

 

[Sleeker]

The United States would've severely dropped support and supplies if Israel had launched another pre-emptive attack in 1973. However, war came soon enough.

 

[CHARLES H]

U.S. kept Isreal from completing their drive to Cairo.

 

[k]

From all I've read, it appears the US has near complete control over Israel.

 

[LogicChristian]

The United States would've severely dropped support and supplies if Israel had launched another pre-emptive attack in 1973. However, war came soon enough.

Yup, Kissinger mentioned that they would have gotten nothing if they had attacked.

 

[Harpuia]

Sorry, I was at work when I posted the first two, and was pretty much doing it as I thought of new things.

Nevertheless, here's a good article from the NYTimes. The US hasn't always been so conciliatory towards Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Actually, I think the US fought Israel once (and winded up with a draw, I believe?)

 

[StMatthew2429]

From all I've read, it appears the US has near complete control over Israel.

Or vise versa

 

[LogicChristian]

Or vise versa

Various examples I've posted throughout the thread as well as others indicate otherwise.

 

[LogicChristian]

Actually, I think the US fought Israel once (and winded up with a draw, I believe?)

When was that?

 

[vipertaja]

When was that?

Something I too would like to know.

 

[k]

Or vise versa

Israel has some leverage but ultimately the US has the bigger boot. Desert Storm is my favorite example.....Saddam was dropping scuds on Israel like a nervous freshman drops the football on tryouts....and the US ordered Israel not to respond....it obeyed. If the US was bombed by someone and Israel told us to not respond....I'm thinking the laughter itself would be enough.