During the debates, each candidate was asked their position (in one form or another) about Israel, and their personal policy. Without missing a step, they all answered the same way. It’s like pulling a string on a doll. "Israeil is our friend in the Middle East, we “won’t let Israel get pushed into the sea.”, “we will defend Israel at all costs”, etc. I didn’t hear anyone ask any candidate for a policy on South Korea or Taiwan, as far as I remember, so clearly Israel is a special case that needs to be vetted out in public, rather than behind the scenes or implied by our actions.
Are we the only country that requires its elected leaders to jump through this particular hoop (aside from Israel, of course)?
Does Canada, Britian, or any other country that votes directly for their leaders demand a full-blown guarantee from their candidates for the continued safety of Israel?
If so, which? And if not, why not? (If the answer is jewish lobby money being poured into the RNC or DNC, I guess this will be a short thread).
There was a recent thread on this (like a few days ago). All U.S. candidates have to express themselves as supporting Israel no matter which party they come from. That is the only right answer. The reasons for this are semi-complicated but do a search on Israel in the thread titles and you should find lots of good commentary as to why this may be.
I didn’t realize there was a question on this already, so my apologies for the overlap. I will try the search.
If I don’t get the answer I need, I’ll ask again.
However, I would like to know why it’s the only right answer. I know they all give the same answer, but I think an honest debate would be much better than a rubber stamp answer. After all, I already assume that the response will be in the affirmative, therefore a waste of time to “debate”. Perhaps the question I ask from your answer will end up in GD, but that’s ok.
Quite frankly, the question annoyed me as much as Obama’s pronounciation of Pakistan (even if it IS correct).
Nitpick,Britain doesn’t vote its rulers directly,we vote for the party candidates and the majority party elected representatives choose among themselves who becomes P.M.
This is why we don’t have a leadership circus like the U.S.
(Though we do find yours quite entertaining on occassion.0
In theory that is true, but at election time many voters don’t know or care very much about their local candidates, perhaps not even their names. They do know about the party leaders and prospective PMs and usually do care quite a bit.
The US is Israel’s only real ally. We are the only major country where the government, the military, and the populace tend to support Israel no matter what. As such, those of us who are generally pro-Israel feel that we have an obligation to continue giving our unyielding support to that nation. It’s a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, etc., etc. The point is, we’re the only ones who really care, so it’s important to us that we elect leaders who will continue to carry out the will of the people in this matter. Israel’s policies are probably more controversial or less important in other democracies without those historical ties.
BTW, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Israel, but as international as that country is, the one constant is Americans. Americans are everywhere all the time. I think just about all Israeli and American Jews feel an intense sense of brotherhood between the two nations, and Americana in general is all about it. Whether it’s “gentile guilt”, our national obsession with the Holocaust, or what–well, I’m sure it all plays in.
I think there’s a place for healthy debate on anything, especially issues as controversial as Israeli policy. But IMO, from an American Presidential perspective, it should (and pretty much does) always come down to the facts of our two countries’ brotherhood, our interests in Israel/vice versa, and the tremendous importance of Israel to the American people. If the American zeitgeist turned against Israel, I would be disappointed on a personal level, but would expect national politics to reflect the paradigm shift.
Think about it this way: the US has a long and friendly relationship with the UK, despite our differences in centuries past. If the UK were in the middle of a war zone, constantly besieged on all sides by larger, fanatical enemies, we would probably ask our national candidates to pledge their support to the UK.
I guess it’s kind of like asking your daughter’s date what he’s going to do with her tonight: you know what the answer is probably going to be, but you’d better ask, because–what if it’s not?
Why does the lack of a debate over the US commitment to Israel’s security bother you more than the lack of a debate over our commitments to S. Korea or Taiwan?
If the true qualities of Israel’s relationship with the US were widely known, there’d be rioting in the metropolitan high street.
Which is why pro-Israel propaganda is so pervasive. And similarly the US - Israeli relationship is the largest public policy issue in the fight against ignorance. Yet this board’s membership has an unaccountable reluctance to go there. Quite probably this is as you say, because the sentiment is pervasive and antithetical to evidence-based argument.
Except that polls show the American people as a whole really do not care much about Israel and many believe to hpolicy of unqualified support towards Israel does America more harm than good. But there is an influential segment of the population who is pro-Israel and they manage to dictate America’s policy. Israel has very powerful propaganda and lobbying and it yields results.
Of course, America is a very special case in other regards as well. Candidates have to parade their families and show they have a nice family and family life. In most palces I know in Europe the people could not care less who the candidate sleeps with at night or if he goes to church or not. Whether they are hiring a plumber or a politician they look for the guy who they think can best do the job. In Spain a candidate who talked about his belief in God or about his beautiful wife and lovely daughters would be laughed at and ridiculed. American elections are seen as a circus rather than serious political debate.
The largest? Well, that’s your opinion, I suppose, but I’m just not seeing it. US-Israeli relations aren’t a result of an international conspiracy, they’re the result of a lot of Americans and Israelis feeling a bond that crosses international borders and oceans. If we’re to support freedom and democracy in the world, as a nation with as much money and power as the U.S. is obligated to (IMO), propping up free nations is a much better way to go about it than tearing down other nations and trying to set up ad hoc democracies in their place. Unfortunately, our policy is to do both.
Of course, when I say “free nation”, I mean that citizens have the basic, fundamental rights that they deserve, much like the USA pre-Bush. You may cite the Palestinian refugee crisis, which is a perfectly valid point, but that’s a whole 'nother ball of wax which deserves to be argued in its own thread.
I’m willing to believe you, but I’ll need a cite.
I can certainly see that Israeli policy wouldn’t (and, IMO, shouldn’t) be high on the list of most people’s political priorities right now, what with our own domestic problems. But as I noted earlier, while popular support is an important consideration, it’s not the only one; we also have to consider the long tradition of mutually beneficial U.S.-Israel relations, the state of democracy in the Middle East, and the American interests in Israel and vice versa.
You make it sound like there is a devious Israeli conspiracy to run our country from afar, and Real Americans, who are actually against Israel, are silenced in the process. This argument reads like it came straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I am a real American with no more influence on public policy than any other interested voter, and I support Israel and think that we should be their strongest ally. I am not the only one, by far. Do our opinions not count?
