A simple poll about US-Israel policy

[HamdenRice]

I have read many posts over the last week about Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and one common complaint is that both the Republicans and Democrats pledge unconditional support for Israel, pretty much regardless of what it does, and also provides a vast amount of funding in the form of military and development aid.

There also seems to be a great deal of frustration that the Democratic platform does not reflect the sentiment of the party's constituency; but it is hard to gauge the extent to which people would like to see that policy changed.

So this poll asks about two aspects of US-Israel policy -- funding and unconditional diplomatic support. Please note that if you vote for any of choices 2, 3, 4, or 5, you are voting for a dramatic change in US-Israel policy.

[uppityperson]

1. kick for more votes

[BillZBubb]

2. Support Israel when Israel is right, but not blindly.

Cut funding enough to force Israel to seriously consider peaceful altenatives to its bullying tactics, but not so much that it cannot defend Israel proper.

[Poll_Blind]

3. To those who voted for "Unconditional Diplomatic Support". You do...

...realize, don't you, that you don't even give your own county's government "unconditional support"? Olmert and Bush are very conservative politicians- I don't get how a Democrat can be critical of their own conservative government yet recommend "unconditional diplomatic support" for another country, especially when they are extremely open and upfront about their commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity- which, by the way, are not with such frequency and verve inherently a byproduct of a military campaign.

  If "Unconditional support" for Israel is always offered, what will ever cause the Israeli's to challenge themselves to conform to a higher standard, to better their actions and impose on the world the Israeli exception like Jefferson's American Exception?

  If you are conscious about the decline in Jews making the aliyah, does unconditional support for a conservative government and their military adventures work to increase or to further decrease Diasporic Jews making the ascention?

  Furthermore, how does "unconditional diplomatic support" for a very conservative government, if you care about Israel, cause anything which might get a Liberal government elected in that nation? Does it matter? Does it really matter to those who give an unconditional pass to Israel if it has a conservative or liberal government?

PB

[HamdenRice]

5. funny, we posted similar questions at the same time! nt

[HamdenRice]

4. To those who voted for unconditional support/continued funding ...

Could you explain that position? We don't provide unconditional diplomatic support for Canada (trade conflicts), Great Britain (northern Ireland) or Mexico (immigration, human rights), arguably our closest allies. Why is Israel different? And why does a wealthy country deserve development aid? Are such levels of military funding helpful to the search for peace? Please explain, I'm genuinely curious.

[Wonk]

6. 3 votes for that so far, and based on who's posting on DU this morning

I bet I could name all 3. That might be construed as "calling them out" though?

Here's a kick hoping they'll explain their position.

[Guy Fawkes]

7. If we completely dropped Israel...

the surrounding countries would instantly destroy it. It would be giving them a green-light to attack the Jewish state. I can't support that- and I am mortified that anyone here could consider it. I don't support war, but I don't support the killing of more than six million Jews living in Israel- which is exactly what nations like Iran and Syria would do if we let them.

[HamdenRice]

8. No one said "completely drop Israel"

I hope that's not a rhetorical strategy to confuse the issue. The issue is conditional support: we support you when you do what we like; we criticize you when you do what we don't like.

It's what the US does with respect to every other country on earth.

Only Israel has managed to convince both parties that there must be "no daylight" between the US and Israel diplomatically, and yet Israel routinely does things that the US has stated it doesn't want Israel to do, or that are counter to the strategic interests of the US. It seems this is very one-sided.

[Guy Fawkes]

11. This: "The US should actively oppose Israel diplomatically..."

Would be dropping Israel and endangering the country. As for Israel doing things against the US's wishes- doesn't the US do things against the wishes of their other allies? The Iraq war, for example?

[HamdenRice]

16. That's one choice

I was asking for an explanation of unconditional support. What about conditional support and/or reduced funding?

[Poll_Blind]

9. Isn't "The Weak Jew" a Jewish stereotype, though? They have nukes, they..

..have the most modern army in the region by far, they have their own arms industries. When you say "completely dropped", I'm assuming the several 3+ Billions we give in foreign aid to Israel every year. Do you really believe that that is the 'thin blue line' between Israel and destruction? Isn't that more than a bit oversimplified?

  How do you think an Israeli would feel about your comments?

PB

[Guy Fawkes]

13. They "may" have nukes...

Israel is suspected to have nuclear weapons- but remember, people "suspected" that Iraq had them, too.

I think that any Israeli would recognize that without the backing of the United States, they sit at a significant disadvantage in the region. That is why the government tries to keep ties with the US so strong.

[Poll_Blind]

19. Not a may, Israel _does_have nukes. The developed them with the...

..South African government and tested them with the South African government. I reread your post before typing these next sentences because I really wanted to be sure I understood what the intent of your communication was: To imply that the Israeli nuclear program is a phantom as the Iraqi one was beleaguers the facts at hand. I'm not trying to be confrontational when I say this but claiming that Israel's nuclear capabilities are even possibly non-existent is not a comment that I or anyone, American, European, Arabic or Israeli could take seriously.

PB

[Guy Fawkes]

24. Sources, please.

Where do you find that Israel developed nuclear weapons with South Africa? Please, give some sources. This is something that I have never heard before.

[Poll_Blind]

27. This is the tip of the iceberg as far as information goes...

Israel and weapons of mass destruction & South Africa and weapons of mass destruction plus keywords "vela incident" & 1979 or "vela" AND "nuclear" AND Israel.

This page, from the Federation of American Scientists, gives a good overview with some more detail than WikiPedia.

PB

[Guy Fawkes]

28. While I don't like Wikipedia for info. like this...

that last link was good. I think that this: "By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates." Pretty much makes the point. Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. IMO

IMO, the truth is somewhere between the sentiments you two posters expressed.

They aren't ten feet tall but neither are they four feet tall.

[Poll_Blind]

22. A reasonable conclusion which I'm comfortable with. Thanks. n/t

PB

[Guy Fawkes]

26. You win. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I'm Not Looking For Wins Only Truth And Common Ground

Peace

[endarkenment]

12. Israel is quite capable of defending itself.

There is no reason for us to be pouring billions of dollars into Israel's defense budget and there is certainly no reason for us to be supporting Israel's intransigence and belligerence.

We should step back from the middle east altogether. If Israel was forced to live within its means, its defense budget would have to be reduced, and Israel would have to once again think realistically about how it could live in peace with its neighbors. As Israel is a nuclear power with a credible survivable deterrent force, it is not threatened with annihilation. It is time to drop the charade of poor beleaguered Israel.

[Guy Fawkes]

15. Once again...

Israel is only suspected of being a nuclear power. But Iran, Syria, Pakistan... plenty of countries that hate Israel are also suspected of being nuclear powers- and some of them are crazy enough to use their nukes.

Does Israel need to think more realistically about war? Yes- hell yes. A peaceful nation doesn't require a forced 2 year stint in the military. But should we completely stop funding them? No. Who knows how the country would fare economically without the US?

I don't support war- let me say that again- but I just don't want to see US backing of Israel taken away (as the last poll option suggests).

[HamdenRice]

18. Unfortunately, you won't answer the question

and I'm worried that you seem to be using rhetorical strategies rather than addressing the core question. Let me ask again:

Why should Israel not receive conditional support just like every other country on the planet?


And as for nukes, while it is true that Israel will not explicitly confirm it has them for reasons of international law, no one doubts that Israel has a nuclear arsenel. It is an established fact.

[Guy Fawkes]

23. In the current situation...

if we were to show any wavering of support for Israel, I believe that Iran and Syria would be emboldened enough to attack the country- as they have repeatedly stated that they would. After this crisis has passed, then support for Israel can (and should) become more conditional (condition: no more war mongering).

As for nukes, it isn't an established fact- its a speculation. Yes, there is a (very) good chance they have nukes, but don't rely on that as a "fact," because in the end we really have no idea.

[endarkenment]

31. That is simply a dishones argument.

No credible sources are seriously arguing that Israel does not have a nuclear force nor are any credible sources arguing that Syria and Iran do. Nice of you to throw Pakistan in there though, as it is of course a fact that not only does Pakistan have a nuclear force, but that it has tested its weapons. Israel is a nuclear power. If you want to argue about that you are just making yourself out to be a fool.

[IA_Seth]

36. Israeli Economy

Uh...

"But should we completely stop funding them? No. Who knows how the country would fare economically without the US?"

I can't answer that, but I can tell you how THIS country is fairing right now, and it ain't pretty. How about we improve our healthcare system, improve our education system, and work to reduce poverty here at home before we worry about a MODERN country that should be perfectly able to sustain itself.

[HamdenRice]

37. Some Israeli economists say that US aid distorts the Israeli economy

and that they would be better off without it. That is putting aside the political issues, and settlement issues, it just is impossible for the Israeli economy to pick rational, efficient losers and winners in the market because there is so much economic distortion caused by aid.

[genie_weenie]

10. Unfortunately, the "People" have very little say

on this issue. Remember the only say you have is every 2, 4, or 6 years, when you pick someone to rule you. During the interval the GOD-APPOINTED RULER can do as he pleases, even *slightly* reinterpreting laws you thought were cherished.

After all the Constitution is a *Living* Document and should be updated to more formally underscore the fact that you are a slave to the interests of the State.

[Laughing Mirror]

17. No. 5, & not one penny more for that apartheid terrorist state

:patriot:

[HamdenRice]

20. Not one person will provide a coherent defense of choice 1???

I find that amazing that no one will provide a coherent defense of unconditional diplomatic support and sustained funding, but several will nevertheless vote that way.

[Poll_Blind]

21. Such is the nature of a secret vote which allows all to speak their....

...mind without fear of reprisal. I chose the second-to-last option: I don't feel that my choice needs any particularly-detailed explanation given the events in the military campaign and given my Democratic Party affiliation. I do, generally, get the idea that those who voted for option 1 are doing so because they believe, sincerely, that something less could be extremely detrimental to Israel vis-a-vis "the Jewish nation". As I stated in my questions in original response, I believe that there are some real problems with conflating, ultimately, Israel with "Jewishness", especially when their government is under the control of the very conservative militarily-adventurous Olmert.

  I also question how much "unconditional diplomatic support" of an aggressive conservative regime really, ultimately, helps Jews (both in Israel and in the Diaspora) if they are so conflated.

PB

[HamdenRice]

25. Another interesting aspect of the poll results

is that a big majority of DUers have voted for change, including a very dramatic change in the policy of the Democratic Party. Yet that viewpoint is nearly invisible in the mainstream media or national political debate.

I understand the poll is anonmymous, but what amazes me about no one defending choice 1, is that it is an admission that the current policy of both our government and party is almost impossible to rationalize coherently.

[Poll_Blind]

29. Kick for more votes. n/t

PB

[BooScout]

30. I didn't vote.....

Why should we fund Israel at all? Why should we even give them conditional diplomatic support?

[HamdenRice]

32. There was an option for you

the last option is diplomatic opposition and no funding.

[BooScout]

39. Thanks.........

I must have missed it earlier. I went back and voted.

[HamdenRice]

33. Still stupified that no one can explain "unconditional support"

A costly policy that has no articulable explanation.

[Wonk]

34. Faith based foreign policy :/ nt

[IA_Seth]

35. Kicked....

I'd like an explanation too.

Why do we offer unconditional anything to anyone? That doesn't make any sense.

[Poll_Blind]

40. Kick! n/t

PB