Was he tapping his foot?
In international affairs we should generally look to our interests first.
Getting a reputation for selling one’s ‘friends’ out to pursue some immediate advantage may, in some circumstances, be a bad idea from a strictly realist perspective.
it’s also important to remember that there really is a divide between the urban and rural citizenry. There is both a more westernized and moderate urban population and a rural population that tends toward the hardliners. The reporting that focuses on the moderates tends to be the equivalent of visiting New York and LA and commenting on the political opinions of all Americans. A lot of the harder news focuses on the hardliners in power. Iran is both.
The Iranian political system combines aspects of both theocracy and democratic elections. There is real political support for hardliners in Iran for the hardliners. Mahmoud “burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury” Ahmadinejad got elected … twice.
There’s starting to be some interesting looking stories on the effect of this deal on the internal political balance between moderates and hardliners. I haven’t had a chance to look though.
I can see Israel as a “friend” of the US, have always thought of them that way. A troublesome cantankerous friend, to be sure. Saudi Arabia isn’t even really a country, in my eyes, they are an entity, an artificial installation, a royal family with a vast number of employees. Clearly, the Wahhabi fanatics in their midst are not our friends, and their delicate balancing act of sucking up to them is a major problem. The only reason we put up with them at all is that our oil somehow got stuck under their sand.
Cool story, bro. I’m sure Israel is relieved you think of them as a friend. Meanwhile Congress passed the US-Israeli Strategic Partnership Act.
I got a plan, dude. I’ll tell you the truth as best I can, and you believe whatever you damn well please. Works for me.
Thanks for the permission to believe what I want. Was waiting nervously for your say so.
You do know, right, that I was responding to Malthus comment about “…Getting a reputation for selling one’s ‘friends’ out…”? About the distinction between friendship based on shared history and affection, and friendship based strictly on commercial concerns? Rather a pedestrian observation, frankly. A commonplace, really, but I’d like to suggest that other nation’s response to a perceived disloyalty will likely recognize that fact, that turning you back on a friend is a betrayal, but changing your vendor is not. You do get that, right?
How, then, is your perception of my sincerity in attesting a friendly attitude towards Israel even remotely relevant? Indeed, how would the actual fact of that sincerity be relevant? What’s your point?
Earlier someone said Israelis are not monolithic. Which is true, but on this issue Israel’s political parties almost all agree: this deal is not good for Israel.
Now the question becomes: Is AIPAC as powerful as its critics say? A two thirds vote ends this deal. If anyone can scare enough Democrats into voting against the deal, it’s them. And speaking of allies, what of J Street, who supports the deal even though no mainstream Israeli political party does? Will this destroy what little credibility they have and pretty much end them as an alternative to AIPAC?
They never had any credibility. They always were the appendage of Democrats’ left wing and any correlation, if it exists, between their advocacy and Israel’s best interest is just a coincidence.
It works the other way too – if this deal goes through, and a Democrat wins in 2016 (after, presumably, AIPAC attacks the Democrats), then the Israel lobby (and AIPAC in particular) will lose a huge amount of influence – politicians will no longer fear them.
AIPAC isn’t going to run against the Democrats. They are going to lobby against the deal. As will Israel’s Labor leader, although he refuses to call what he’s going to do lobbying.
Your statement makes little sense. The NRA isn’t able to make Republicans win every election, but the NRA is still genuinely feared. AIPAC’s goal, like the NRA, isn’t to have any particular party win elections, although I’m sure they have their preference. It’s to get both parties on their side. Which both the NRA and AIPAC are very good at, which demonstrates their power.
AIPAC has been known to attack politicians, if perhaps behind the scenes. If they’re lobbying fails, and the deal passes, then I think it’s likely they’ll help (surreptitiously, perhaps) the opponents of Democrats who supported the deal.
I don’t think they’re comparable. The NRA very openly attacks Democrats, quite frequently – but Democrats don’t fear them that much, I don’t think, at least not at the national and probably state-wide level… the ones who fear the NRA are Republicans facing primaries.
Sez who? Are you offering us the premise that J Street is a deliberately malicious organization, with a covert goal? That they are committed to opposing such men as Netanyahu not because of a sincere disagreement about what is best for Israel, but a hidden and unstated agenda of destruction and subversion?
Well, OK, does anyone sincerely oppose Netanyahu and his policies? Are we to take it that anyone who pretends such sincerity is lying?
You know this? How?
The goal is not covert. It’s an organization that is an appendage to the left wing of the Democrats, with the goal of perpetuating the pretense that Democrats are friendly to Israel (yes, yes, friends who criticize because they are friends blah blah blah). When the fact is that Democrats are not.
The second, again, very much not covert, goal is to split the US Jewish organizations in their support for Israel - from inside. Most Jews do see through the pretense and see that goal, and it won’t work.
Really? You’re citing a poll by this guy?
:rolleyes:
Yes, this guy. Frank Luntz is a very good pollster and a world-renowned PR expert. He works for the Republicans, so is is hated by liberals, but that does not make him incompetent. If he was, he’d not be hated as much.
I do disagree with his analysis of his results in the article. Well, not disagree precisely, since it is pretty much on point, but I would refuse to try to appease anti-Semites by hiding or changing the word “Zionism”.
****Yet he’s still an impartial pollster?
Bolding mine.
Do have any illusions about what “innovative” means in this context?
Without seeing the details of the methodology used, it would be foolish to accept results from a hyper-partisan such as Luntz at face value.
It’s sorta like “enhanced interrogate”, except less painful and more deceptive.