1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Allowing Israel to define the New Administration is a Big mistake.

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Octoldit, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. Octoldit

    Octoldit Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    8
    What message is being sent to the Middle East countries and the world when the chief of staff of the new Administration is an Israeli, and the son of a known terrorist? Moving in the direction of impartiality in terms of Israel would have certainly been a wiser and much needed symbol of change.

    The opportunity to establish a more cogent position in terms of diplomacy was missed. An “America first” policy is something that cannot in any way be overlooked, and allowing any country especially Israel to define American as a nation can be reasonably referred to as the opposite of Change.

    If America allows the enemies of Israel to become our enemies we may as well reinstall Bush in the White House. Some expression of equity has to be made clear to restore the tattered image of America and make a fresh start more believable.

    Rahn Emanuel was the lone holdout for Hillary Clinton amongst the Governmental official of Illinois how than does he become chief of staff so quickly? Congressman Emanuel being named to this key position and the announcement being made so soon one can only hope despite the appearance of continued undue influence of Israel an underlying foundation of change becomes a reality.

    One can only hope the careful evaluation of a broad range of factors are carefully considered, and corrections made in the future.

    http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Emanuel.html
     
  2. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Did you really expect American foreign policy towards Israel to really change all that much regardless of who won.
     
  3. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    It makes me feel better. I have been very worried that obama and co. would not protect Israel, I still am not totally sure but this is the first thing he has done that I really feel good about.

    I dont like the fact the guy he picked is a bully and a party hack but I like that he is Orthodox Jewish very much
     
  4. Unite Our Nation

    Unite Our Nation New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like you, I'm focusing on the fact that this shows absolutely "NO CHANGE obama" is sticking with supporting Israel.

    I am relieved.
     
  5. oceanenvy

    oceanenvy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He never said he would change his viewpoint on Israel.
     
  6. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Well he did technically before he changed back to not. It should not really be a surprise to anyone though.
     
  7. oceanenvy

    oceanenvy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you be specific as to exactly what you are referring to?
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    He stated that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel.

    US policy is to do nothing in terms of Jerusalem and let Israel and the Palestinian Authority work it out.

    After the backlash he then backed off that and made it an issue of just negotiation, which the US does not really need to be doing anyway.

    Now call it clarifying positions whatever, but it would be a major change in our policy towards Israel and the PA to pursue a undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
     
  9. Unite Our Nation

    Unite Our Nation New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for explaining Big Rob! Before long, do you expect to see very little in the way of change from this guy? The reason I say that is because of more than a few articles I've read the past two days in the WSJ...
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I have said, and thought, all along that really no matter who is in office the overall grand strategic strategy of the United States will stay relatively the same.

    Each new President can make some changes here and there, such as starve a weapons system of funding for example (Congress can do this too), but overall we will continue to conduct ourselves abroad in a similar fashion as we always have.

    World opinion might change on the matter here and there, but overall, our strategy is mostly the same.
     
  11. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    ....Expectations around the globe would seem to be at odds with that. The smart money is on a more intelligent approach to international relations and less of the shoot first think......well no thought at all really.

    As for Isreal, I agree there will be no change at all and never will be until you get the Isreali lobby out of the beltway which ain't gunna happen.
     
  12. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Expectations around the world are misguided then in my opinion. When have we really seen a change between administrations in the overall grand strategic strategy of the United States?

    As for a more "intelligent" approach to foreign relations, that really has no bearing on the grand strategy of the United States. Our approach might differ in small ways, but the goals that we want and demand will remain the same.

    We will always be involved all around the world, furthering the US "empire" so to speak. Obama is not going to change that.

    As for the Israeli Lobby, yes they are powerful, but take them totally out of the picture, and Israel still looks like a pretty good ally, there would be reason to change the status quo in that regard.
     
  13. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Your involvement around the world is welcomed and thus not at issue. What is at issue is the how US interacts with the rest of the world and the consequences of those interactions. A good example is the so called missile shield and its effect on relationships with Russia. There was no reason to give Russia a cause to revert to type to become a belligerent again, all that has done is fire their pride and caused them become resuregent. Consequencial damage is this ridiculous idea that they can somehow ally themselves with that wanker Chevez in order to gain an influence in south/central America again! Its as if everyone forgot the rules of the old game...you piss in our yard, we'll piss in yours!!

    I would cautiously suggest a less hamfisted approach to relations with allies such as undermining a newly established government in Pakistan for example. Whilst the more belicose amongst you will wave the flag and yeehaw as the missiles go whomping into the villages of Wasiristan etc. its this sort of industrial idiocy that recruits yet further nutters to the cause. Thus, hopefully I think there will be a more intelligent and targetted approach in the field of international relations....hopefully.

    .........but....this thread is about Isreal so one should really concentrate on Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Russia in order to gain some insight into the potential pitfalls that Obama is going to face.
     
  14. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So your theory is that by not having any way of stopping an ICBM... that because we are defenseless to an incoming nuclear attack... This will cause Russia to be loving and caring and nice, and apparently not attack an ally of ours? But if we do have a defense system... then and only then will they get angry and attack people.

    Yeah I've heard something on this same level of stupidity before with gun control. Results are in, and federal gun free locations are the most hit with mass shootings, and locations where citizens are armed have the lowest crime rates.

    Nations go nutz when they think they can get away with it. And stop when they don't. And us having a defensive shield is not a bad thing.
     
  15. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    .......no it was an illustration of the law of unintended consequences not a dissertation on strategic defence systems.
     
Loading...

Share This Page