Eric Cantor and the Israel question

When the US Senate was selected by state legislatures, was the US a “sham democracy with no power”?

The world is not black and white; democracy isn’t an on-off switch that is flipped. Many would argue the US itself is not a true representative democracy thanks to the power of incumbency, gerrymandering, and influence peddling. Iran’s government is repressive (and is by no means unique there) and their elections are problematic at best. However, they do exist, and Iran is more democratic a society than many of our allies.

(By the way, that graph originated with the BBC. They’re a bunch of amateur liars, though!)

None of which has anything to do with “OMG WE MUST SUPPORT ISRAEL NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST THAT SUPPORTS US AGAINST EVIL MUSLIM TERRORS!!!”

There is so much wrong with Timex’s posts and premise that it’s a daunting task to tackle head-on, but I’ll give it a feeble shot.

Despite all of the conspiracy theory crap, the reality of the situation is that Israel provides the US with a solid ally in an area of the world which is exceptionally important due to its oil reserves.

I’ll just take the GCC because I’m more familiar with the status of US military cooperation there.

Bahrain is home to the US Navy’s 5th Fleet, the hub for naval operations in the Gulf.

Dubai’s ports are the largest port of call for American Navy ships in the entire world outside of the US, 2,000 US forces are stationed in the UAE, Al Dhafrah air base provides the US with logistical support and facilities, the UAE has actually taken part directly in some way in US-led peace-keeping operations like in Kosovo, Somalia and has a small number of troops in Afghanistan as part of ISAF, and has the Joint Warfare Centre which allows the US to train regional allies to fly fighter jets.

Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar hosts 2,000 US military personnel in addition to another 1,500 elsewhere in Qatar, and the base is equipped to handle 200 warplanes. It is the main hub for all the US air operations in the region. They moved there after leaving the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia in 2003.

Saudi Arabia provided the US with overflight rights for the Iraq War.

Not to mention the fact that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are consistently in the top 5 countries for arms purchases in the developing world, with most of these procurements from the US. And they actually pay for most of these, they’re not under the auspices of free “military aid” that goes to Israel and Egypt.

Israel’s also the only democratic nation in the region. (one of two, if you count Turkey)

So are Kuwait and Lebanon (despite its faults). Bahrain is developing democratic institutions as well. Also since when is American support contingent on governance? You are overlooking decades of American intervention and support for dictatorial regimes, including going to war for them, and I don’t think I need to actually list that as part of the debate. Read a history book.

Not to mention as well America’s history in delegitimising the results of democratic elections as recently as 2005 after the Palestinian Authority’s legislative elections, without having to go back to the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s. This democracy as a prerequisite thing is a total red herring.

I’d definitely prefer living there over living in most of the other nations in the region.

I’m not sure what metric you’re basing this on, which makes it harder to argue against. The UAE and Kuwait rank a little above Israel in this prosperity index based on economic, social, health, security and economic indicators:

http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx

Their lack of barbaric practices like stoning wins them some points in my book.

Stoning is not an Islamic practice, is not mentioned in the Qur’an, and virtually no Arab or Muslim country actually practices it, even if some countries still have it on their books as a relic. The exception is Saudi Arabia and possibly Iran (although they didn’t even have stoning as a punishment until 1983). Unless you’re lumping the Taliban and al Shabab in Somalia’s practices in with officially sanctioned stoning by Muslim countries.

Ultimately though, Israel provides the US with a presence in the region, and the importance of the region makes that valuable.

If that’s your metric for how valuable an ally is, the Gulf countries combined exceed whatever logistical support Israel gives the US without stonewalling the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, whose consistent failure is, by US acknowledgment, a threat to the national security of the United States. I’ve already outlined some of the support they provide to the US.

And this is without going into other things like intelligence cooperation provided directly by countries like Saudi Arabia that have prevented terrorist attacks (you have a case in point from three weeks ago with the cargo bomb plots), intelligence, economic and logistics cooperation that are allowing the latest round of UN and unilateral sanctions against Iran to actually have an effect. The UAE for instance is going to lose $4 billion in trade annually because of its compliance with sanctions against Iran, despite previously being one of Iran’s largest trading partners and having the second largest Iranian population outside the Islamic Republic after the US.

No it’s not. It’s a theocracy.
Having pretend elections doesn’t make you a democratic government.

Again, this is a red herring because the US doesn’t care what your form of government is.

Ignoring everything else, do you believe that if the US just turned its back on Israel, that any of the Islamic countries in the region would then look favorably upon the US? Because they wouldn’t. The US, totally aside from Israel, is the great Satan. Those people who hate you are going to hate you regardless of what you do. You can’t win them over. In all likelihood, they’d just see your actions as a sign of weakness, and hate you more.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this imaginary demand that Arab countries want the US to completely abandon Israel. First of all yes, American handling of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the primary reason for negative sentiment towards the US, because it is seen as partial and unfair. I am pretty confident that most negative sentiments towards the US would disappear if it arbitrates a just solution to Israel-Palestine. But you also picture an Arab world that is decidedly anti-American and would throw tomatoes at you in the street if they find out you’re American, which is pathetically stupid.

But the Arab countries don’t even need that cooperation between America and Israel to end. Egypt and Jordan already have peace treaties with Israel and the Arab countries have offered normalisation and recognition of Israel if it returns to the 1967 borders. And in any case Israel maintains military superiority over Arab countries.

I will ignore your posts about Iran’s political system because I’m not sure how it’s relevant given the historical context of US support for regimes around the world.

What exactly are you measuring reliability on? Imagine what the ground invasion and bombing of Iraq would have been like without Saudi and Kuwaiti support. At least the Arab countries don’t bomb other countries when told by the US not to do so, like in the case of Syria’s nuclear facilities (let’s hope Iran doesn’t turn out the same way.

On top of all that, there are also major industrial players in Israel, like Intel.

You should probably Google the vast number of companies with regional headquarters in the UAE then, for example. Including tech companies. But since you’re randomly throwing out tech companies, Mubadala, the investment company owned by the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, is helping keep AMD afloat (obviously not out of mere generosity):

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_122154.aspx

Ultimately, I tend to get the impression that many of the nations in the region just like having Israel as a scapegoat that they can use to distract their populations from their own state.

This is the only sensible/correct thing you have said in this thread, amidst a sea of wrong.

Regardless of that though, I think that having a stable Palestinian state would be tremendously beneficial for everyone involved. But the reality is that they’re not going to push Israel into the sea. That plan has failed for decades now, and if they want to get their own country then they need to accept that Israel is going to be there next to them.

Saying throwing Israel in the sea as if that is currently the goal of the Arab world and the Palestinians is simply bullshit, in light of the fact that the PA already recognises Israel, two Arab countries already do, and the rest have promised to do so if a peace agreement based on 1967 borders is reached (ALL of the fucking Arab countries. Do you know how hard it is to get anyone in the Arab League to agree that the sky is blue?), and Israel’s military superiority.

I hate to say this, because you are probably just regurgitating a meme that is attractive to your point of view, but think about it: It’s racist. You are basically saying Arabs hate you if you show weakness. This is as racist and dangerous as saying “don’t trust blacks they will rob you if they get an opportunity.” It’s racist, and used as an argument to support harsh action against them, i.e. “you can’t compromise with Arabs you must smash them with military might - if you don’t they will hate you anyway for your weakness!”

Yeah, I missed that bit.

That plan has failed for decades now, and if they want to get their own country then they need to accept that Israel is going to be there next to them.

The Israeli right wing isn’t demanding that “Israel is going to be there next to them”, they are demanding “Israel expand and annex the West Bank, the Palestinians should just conveniently leave to other countries, and the rest of the Arab world needs to accept that.”

Right now the primary opponent of the two-state system is Israel, not the Palestinians, not Hamas, not the Arab world. Israel’s current government is undermining any possible Palestinian state by seeding settlements throughout the West Bank, ensuring that it’s politically impossible for any Israeli government to conclude a peace deal that results in a Palestinian state since it would result in the forced removal of tens of thousands of militant and heavily armed Israeli colonists.

But I’m sure this is somehow Iran’s fault.

Governments and people in the region are just like all the other governments and people in history - they have desires and values, and evaluate others based on them. Some of those are irrational or insane, as they are in all countries. For example, lots of the US public seriously thinks its important to make everyone else on the planet Christian, by force if necessary; lots of the Middle East’s population is bigoted against Jews.

That doesn’t change, however, that 90% of public opinion is in response to concrete, non-insane interests. Like, for example, the US history of supporting unpopular dictatorships, overthrowing governments, and supporting Israel’s policies towards Palestinians. “They hate us no matter what we do” is bullshit, sold by elites trying to pretend there’s no possible alternatives to the status quo.

One of the arguments for the US pressing Israel into a two-state solution is the very fact that it is integral for the security and continued existence of Israel. A one-state solution, by current demographic trends, would probably become majority Arab in about two generations.

Unfortunately, the Israeli right’s solution to this problem isn’t to cede the Arab-majority West Bank/Gaza, but to (depending on how extreme the politician speaking) either limit citizenship to Jews or to physically eject Arabs from Greater Israel.

Lum, what makes Iran’s government non-democratic, is the fact that the supreme leader basically calls all th shots… there have only been two, ever. While he is technically “elected” by the Assembly of Experts, he gets to decide who is eligible to run for election to the Assembly.

When the current government gets to decide who is allowed to run for government offices, then it’s just a sham. For instance, the communists in Russia had “elections”, but they weren’t considered a true democracy, because their elections were rigged in various ways… ensuring that the “correct” people always won.

Even if my senator was elected by my state legislature, it still wouldn’t be the same thing we’re describing here, because anyone can run for the state legislature.

It’s not the level of indirection in making the ultimate election that separates it from a democracy, it’s the fact that the government itself controls the outcome of all of the elections. There’s no entry point by which the populace can inject its own will if that will goes against the will of the current government.

This is the fundamental core of a democratic system. If you remove it by allowing the government to control all of the options presented to voters, then those votes don’t mean anything because they do not reflect the will of the people.

Honestly, I can’t see how we’re even arguing about this. I thought it was pretty well accepted, regardless of your political leanings, that Iran was a theocracy rather than a democracy. This isn’t some kind of neo-con idea. They had an Islamic revolution, and instituted a system of government run by religious leaders.

If you want to argue that Iran has elections, rigged though they may be, and that makes them a democracy… fine. At that point, our difference appears to be one of semantics, where my definition of democracy implies that the government has something less than ultimate control over outcome of the elections.

When the current government gets to decide who is allowed to run for government offices, then it’s just a sham.

You mean like Israel?

Shh, pointing out that Israel is only a democracy for some isn’t as important as pointing out that Iran’s democracy is a sham in… a thread about US support for Israel.

Well, this crap has been going on for decades now. And the longer it drags on, the worse it’s going to be for the reasons you present here. I think that we agree that Israel should cease building new settlements in those regions, as it will continue to make the option of a two-state solution less and less likely.

As stated above, I support Israel stopping their expansion in the West Bank and Gaza, but at the same time, I think it’s a mistake to ignore the influence of a country like Iran on the political process in Israel.

I assume we can agree on the fact that Iran provides support for Hezbollah, who then goes about presenting anti-semitic (not merely anti-zionistic) propaganda materials, and attacks Israeli citizens both in Israel and abroad (ie. the conflict in 2006, or the more recent plot in Egypt last year).

Much as you are suggesting that Israeli (and US) actions drive resentment towards them by “otherwise reasonable” people, surely you can see how the actions taken by groups like Hezbollah against the Israeli citizens would have a similarly polarizing effect on the Israelis. This effect then shows up in the government that the Israelis elect.

Can we at least agree that these negative factors from groups like Iran actually exist within the situation, or is there really zero common ground between us?

Be fair, Tim; they knew even when they made the ruling it was going to get reversed by the Supreme Court.

Which is pretty much the only (and incredibly faint) praise I’ll give the situation.

Yes, Israel definitely has severe limitations on its democracy compared to a system like that in the US, stemming largely from its identification as a Jewish state.

However, their limitations are also significantly less than those seen in Iran, in that while they are banning groups which seemingly oppose the existence of the nation itself, all of the participants in the election are not literally hand picked by the current government. I would point out though that while the banning of certain groups is obviously bad, it’s also received criticism from the government itself. This is something that you don’t really see in a government like Iran, and something that indicates that the policy can change and evolve.

Ultimately though, I cannot excuse the practice, as it’s undemocratic.

EDIT:
Ah, I hadn’t realized that Israel’s supreme court overturned that, as Aaron just pointed out.

So, that is a pretty good separation then from nations like Iran.

And you should also know that I think Israel has a very strong democracy… at least in Israel itself.

Really? I don’t think they have a very strong democracy. I just think that it’s factually inaccurate to claim that the government decides who can run.

grins

Hezbollah exists in large part because Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and then never left. For some reason the Lebanese were unamused about this. Eventually, yes, Iran funded and armed Hezbollah, which then gained tremendous popularity in Lebanon for fighting Israel until they finally did leave in 2000. At which point Iran was left with a proxy army in Lebanon which was more popular than the government, and eventually became part of the government. Whoops.

Context, you maybe should learn some.

Does this excuse Iran’s actions, through Hezbollah, in attacking Israeli citizens with rockets?

Actually, scratch that… maybe you think it does, but it doesn’t matter given the context in which I presented it (ironic, given your last sentence there).

I presented those attacks on Israeli citizens as an example of an external force which would, given your assertions regarding how the US actions could motivate anti-US sentiments, encourage Israelis to vote for more hard-line politicians.

Do you see how this affects the situation, or are you unwilling to even acknowledge that anyone other than the US and Israel is at fault here? I have to assume that’s not your position, but if it is then the conversation isn’t going to find any kind of common ground.

Israel completely flattened southern Beirut through overwhelming and repeated airstrikes on civilian neighborhoods in 2006, while Hezbollah attacked Israel with rockets. Does that excuse Israel’s actions?

Oh, wait, Hezbollah attacked first.

Oh, wait, Israel invaded Lebanon first.

Oh, wait, the PLO attacked Israel from Lebanon.

Oh, wait…

See, that’s the thing. You seem to think that if you can just label people as “at fault” then everything is justified. EVERYONE is at fault in that part of the world. EVERYONE. There is ALWAYS a justification that some maniac can point to for whatever atrocity they commit. There are no “good guys” and no “bad guys”. There’s always enough blame to go around, and there are no white hats and black hats, no matter how hard you try to envision them.

See, that’s the thing. You seem to think that if you can just label people as “at fault” then everything is justified. EVERYONE is at fault in that part of the world. EVERYONE. There is ALWAYS a justification that some maniac can point to for whatever atrocity they commit. There are no “good guys” and no “bad guys”. There’s always enough blame to go around, and there are no white hats and black hats, no matter how hard you try to envision them.

I think we’re in total agreement here. I fully admit that Israel has made many poor decisions in their handling of the situation over the years.

I merely disagree with the assertion (not by you) that Israel is the “bad guy” in the situation. As you point out, both sides have continually fanned the flames, which has continually built up a wall between the two sides. Hell, we can take the wall itself as an example. Separating Palestinians from their places of employment is a horrible solution, but at the same time, the Israelis are faced with a very difficult problem of protecting their population from crazy bombers.

There’s not going to be a solution until both sides are willing to make concessions. One of those concessions is going to have to be agreeing that Israel be allowed to continue to exist. If that is not taken as an assumption going in, then the problem isn’t going to ever be resolved.