Republicans wrapping themselves in the wrong flag

[Rockfish1]

This is nuts:

"Republicans by a ratio of more than 2-to-1 say the U.S. should support Israel even when its stances diverge with American interests, a new Bloomberg Politics poll finds. Democrats, by roughly the same ratio, say the opposite is true and that the U.S. must pursue its own interests over Israel's."

No wonder Republican arguments about Iran are so incoherent -- most Republicans are elevating (their misconception of) Israel's interests over our own. Am I the only one who finds this appalling? Few in Israel would adopt such a foolish view.

This post was edited on 4/16 8:55 AM by Rockfish1

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

It's not as appalling as it is frightening. . .

All this love and support for Israel has to do with evangelical beliefs concerning the second coming. They are looking forward to the end of the world.

 

[mjvcaj]

Alliances have differences in objectives

Doesn't mean you stop supporting your ally. The U.S. has already taken a step back from Israel politically and it would be in Israel's best interest to continue strengthening its relationship with China, which IMO, is stronger than that of the U.S.

The problem is, Israel has several other choices to replace part of its U.S. relationship that has fallen off. The U.S. has no options in the Middle East, unless you want to follow the Administration to Iran. That is something I am not willing to do.

 

[hoot1]

This is sad

Just another example of how divided we are with politics and political parties only making it harder to reach consensus .

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Who defines what "America's interests" are?

Given the present situation, the results don't surprise me.

Had this question been asked c. 2004 or so, and Israel changed to France, I suspect many Democrats would've answered as the Republicans did here. France was an outspoken opponent of our foreign policy at the time. And so were most Democrats. They had an opposition to our foreign policy in common.

Given the backdrop of Iran, the same goes here for Republicans and Israel. The way they phrased the question, it's a foregone conclusion that everybody agrees what constitutes "America's interests." But, of course, that's hardly the case.

This post was edited on 4/16 9:44 AM by crazed_hoosier2

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Stupid is as Stupid posts....


Every time you post, the window into your mental clown show opens a little wider...

"'They are looking forward to the end of the world".

Pure.

 

[Rockfish1]

Ask the poll's respondents . . .

Who expressly favored Israel's interests over ours if they thought the two diverged. Nor did Democrats oppose the Iraq War because stopping it would have benefitted France. They opposed it because they correctly believed that it harmed us -- as it so obviously has. You're profoundly misconstruing what's going on here.

 

[Rockfish1]

I challenge you to

(1) Identify any country whose interests Democrats would elevate over America's; (2) explain how Obama is seeking to become allied with Iran; and (3) explain what exactly the alternative to a negotiated resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue would be.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Nothing In That Poll Supports Your Post

Nothing in that poll ties - or even attempts to tie - "Republican arguments about Iran" to Republican views on Israel.

I'ma help you out.

Republican views on giving Iran the go ahead on nuke technology is impacted by many things - the spread of nuke tech to radical Islamic terrorist idiotii being at the top of the list.

Regional nuclear wars NOT involving Israel are on the list too.

As is a regional nuke arms race.

As are oil/energy issues.

Etc.

But your ipso ergo conclusion about Republicans, Israel and Iran overstates the poll by a mile.
You are really bad at being a Republican thinker.
Perhaps you should not try.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yes, but . . .

Most Democrats favor our interests, while most Republicans favor Israel's. This isn't an example of "both sides are to blame."

The only thing that surprises me is that only most Democrats favor our interests over Israel's. Our head-over-heels romance with Israel is as unrequited as it is foolish. What has gotten into our heads?

 

[Rockfish1]

I'm sure it's entirely a coincidence

That the Republican view of the Iranian nuclear issue precisely matches the Likudnic view expressed by Bibi Netanyahu (R-Israel), whom adoring Republicans invited to denounce our policy at an unprecedented joint session of Congress. I'll leave it to you to explain why you and so many other Republicans become so incoherent on this issue.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So the respondents decide?

IMO, this question is merely a reflection of support or opposition to American foreign policy -- in particular as it involves Iran. Context matters. And, here, that is the obvious context.

Where the question says "American interests", replace those words with "Obama's foreign policy, in the ME in particular" and the result will probably make more sense. Because that's probably how the respondents interpreted it.

And you're missing the point of my comparison to France c. 2004. I didn't say anything about the Iraq War or why Democrats opposed it. I said to simply change the timing and the country of the exact question posed here -- make it 2004 and change Israel to France. Say nothing about the Iraq War or any of that.

"France is an important ally, and we should support it even if our interests diverge."

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that, had this question been asked c. 2004, most Republicans would've said "Screw France" and a lot Democrats would've said "Yes."

But that's because context matters. In this instance, and in the instance of France 2004, it becomes a proxy question about support for America's foreign policy.

So.....meh.
This post was edited on 4/16 11:05 AM by crazed_hoosier2

 

[Rockfish1]

Believe what you choose, but . . .

You apparently have no idea how Democrats think, and you disbelieve the polling because you don't like it it says. You claim that Republicans are expressing fealty to Israel because they oppose our policy, but it seems much more likely that Republicans oppose our policy because they're in fealty to Israel. I welcome you to supply some other reason for the incoherence of the Republican opposition. Maybe it's just THANKS OBAMA!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The mistake you're making, Rock...


...is taking the question on face value. Devoid of any context of actual events.

It's a stupid poll question.

 

[Rockfish1]

It's not a stupid question

It's a straightforward question with responses that illustrate the stupidity of the Republican opposition. Again, I welcome you to offer some other explanation for Republican incoherence on this issue. Is it just visceral opposition to anything Obama proposes to do? Do Republicans love Bibi because they hate Barack? It shouldn't be necessary to point out that this is a dangerously infantile view.

Also, note that Democrats conspicuously didn't invite Jacques Chirac to speak against the invasion of Iraq at a joint session of Congress. This is not business as usual. It's Republicans coming unhinged.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think it's a dumb question.

And dumb questions beget dumb answers.

Also, it's not just Republicans being wary of what Obama's trying to do here. I'm guessing you've been following the news lately regarding the Corker bill. It's kind of fascinating -- because essentially it means that, rather than requiring a 2/3 vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty, they'll now require a 2/3 vote to reject one (albeit a de facto one, of course). Hmmm.

The committee vote to move the bill forward was 19-0 -- at which time the administration withdrew their veto threat (because, obviously, the veto would've been overridden).

So you're fooling yourself if you think it's just Republicans.

 

[Rockfish1]

No, it's not just Republicans, but it is all Republicans

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I already did.

As I said, given the context of what's going on over there, and the lack of any explanation about what constitutes "American interests", it seems natural that a question like this would simply be approached as a proxy question of support or opposition to American foreign policy in the region.

It's hardly any secret that the US and Israel are at loggerheads right now regarding Iran....or that most Republicans, including elected ones, are either opposed to, or quite wary of, Obama's approach to Iran. That's the only logical context that could be placed upon such a question as this one. And, I'm sure, that's the reason it was answered as it was.

In some other context, I've little doubt the question would be answered quite differently.

 

[hoot1]

Most Republicans believe...

...our interests and those as framed by Israel's Likud Party coincide almost completely.

Rock, you and I disagree with the Republicans and the Likud Party. The question remains about who decides what is in our best interest. Do we as a nation side with the Likud Party or its opponents?

To date, I suspect most Americans lean with the Republicans and Netyanhu's Lukud Party.

Is this subject to change? You better believe it, especially in the long run as attitudes in both Israel and the United States aren't static.

 

[Rockfish1]

As you just demonstrated. Again.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Corker-Menendez passed committee 19-0, Rock.

The president swore he'd veto it -- but he wasn't going to do that if he knew the veto was likely to be overridden. And it is becoming increasingly clear that it would've been overridden.

He's the one who's isolated here.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yes, but . . .

Republicans can offer no coherent alternative to a negotiated resolution. They really don't even try. I've asked over and over and over. Both "sides" aren't equally to blame here.

 

[Rockfish1]

Corker-Menendez is procedural

And it would only prevent Obama from moving forward if a veto-proof majority disapproved of the final deal. Obama acquiesced because most of the really silly stuff was stripped out, and he knows he'll ultimately get enough Democratic support to move ahead.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I saw what was stripped out.

It was only enough to be able to allow him to save face during his about face. For instance, the review period was changed from 60 days to 52 days. Eight days. Silly stuff.

He didn't want any Congressional review at all. But he wasn't going to prevail in that. You know it, I know it, and he knows it.

 

[Rockfish1]

No, you didn't

You argued that Republicans express fealty to Israel because they oppose our policy. As I responded, it's much more likely that Republicans oppose our policy because they're in fealty to Israel.

But I'm asking a different question: Why are Republicans acting out so incoherently? Why can they articulate no viable alternative to the policy they viscerally oppose? If it's not fealty to Israel, is it hatred of Obama? Apart from unhinged kookiness, what's on the other side of the foreign policy debate?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Yep.


"The question remains about who decides what is in our best interest."

This is the key point about this question. We "as a nation" don't side with Likud...nor do we side with Zionist Union. We have very profound disagreements about what's in our nation's best interest. So asking a question where it's assumed that there's a broadly accepted notion of what American's interests are is pointless.

If the very same question (which, as it is, is devoid of any contextual filter) asked in a completely different context, I have pretty much zero doubt that it would elicit a completely different response.

As such, it's just a proxy question for support or opposition to current American foreign policy in the Middle East. And the answer is unsurprising.

 

[Rockfish1]

Of course he didn't want any Congressional review

What rational President would want this Congress to review a deal with Iran? The Republican caucus opposes any deal, and not just this deal, and even Chuck Schumer is an Iran hawk. But the crucial difference in the new version is that Obama only has to certify that Iran is complying with the nuclear deal and doesn't have to certify Iran's good behavior on other issues, a requirement that was originally included as a poison pill.

Once again, though, if not fealty to Iran or hatred of Obama, what accounts for the incoherence of Republican opposition to a negotiated resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue?

 

[Rockfish1]

So once again . . .

Why is Republican opposition to our policy so incoherent? What is the Republican alternative?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So....

....let's suppose that Zionist Union had prevailed in the recent Israeli elections, Isaac Herzog was now the PM, and he more or less got on board with Obama's approach to Iran.

In such a context, you really think that Republicans would drop their opposition to Obama's olive branch to Iran? That's what you're saying. They're in fealty to Israel -- and this fealty is why they oppose the Iranian policy. So, I'm guessing the fealty would've remained in the event of a Herzog victory. The fealty is to Israel -- not merely sympathy with the current Israeli government regarding US foreign policy.

You believe that?

 

[Rockfish1]

So once again . . .

What accounts for the incoherence of the Republican opposition to a negotiated resolution? Why can Republicans offer no viable alternative?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Ah, yes. That old chestnut.

I said much the same thing regarding Democratic opposition to the 2005 Bush SS reforms. We knew they opposed the reforms. What we didn't know is what they proposed to do instead. They were pretty steadfast in refusing to say.

In other words, you can't oppose one approach to a problem unless you offer alternatives. Except they didn't offer alternatives, SS is still going broke, and the Dems won the next election.

So it goes here. I don't know what Republicans would do in the alternative, because they're playing the same game. Netanyahu, for his part, made a number of suggestions on the subject in his speech. And they made sense to me.

As for me, I think we should insist on Iran formally recognizing Israel's right to exist. We should insist on their dropping all of their various kinds of support to terror groups (most notably, of course, Hezbollah). We should insist on no nuclear facilities being underground. And we should insist on absolute transparency in all facets of the operation of their nuclear activities.

And, in putting forth these demands, we should remember what George Shultz said about these kinds of negotiations: Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This is non-responsive.

Would Republicans still be in fealty to Israel if Herzog was the PM and Israeli foreign policy, specifically regarding Iran, more or less was in sync with US foreign policy?

You saying "they have no viable alternative to Obama's white flag!!" is not an answer to this question.

Couldn't it just be that Republicans are more sympathetic with Netanyahu's position than Obama's?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Presidents always want to do what they want to do.

And, invariably, the other side always bitches and moans about it -- and not without reason. We aren't a dictatorship. And there's a reason the framers gave Congress a role (with a supermajority, no less) regarding treaties.

The point here is: he was going to lose. And it wasn't just Republicans -- despite what you keep saying.

It's true -- and hardly news -- that Republicans have little trust in Obama. But I think the key driver here is that they (and many Democrats) have a far more profound mistrust in Iran -- and feel like, perhaps, Obama is being a tad too generous towards them.

Really, we should just be treating this as we would any other treaty.

 

[Rockfish1]

So we should "insist" then

And we should "insist" on maximalist demands -- mostly unrelated to Iran's nuclear program -- to which we know Iran will not accede. And after we kill this deal, what then? Well, Iran will continue on with its nuclear program, and the sanctions regime will collapse. Either Iran will get the bomb, or we'll go to war with Iran. This is the Republican "alternative", and it would be a terrible outcome for us. I think it would also be a terrible outcome for Israel, but since I'm not a Republican, that isn't my chief concern.

I have no idea what you think the "shadow of power" might be in this context. Do you think we should call on Lamont Cranston?

 

[Rockfish1]

Having started the thread . . .

I'm pretty sure my posts are responsive.

I postulated that the Republican opposition is incoherent because Republicans elevate (what they mistakenly regard as) Israel's interests over ours, as the poll says they do. You said that the poll results shouldn't be taken at face value and that the poll merely reflects Republican antipathy to our policies. But this doesn't explain why that opposition is so incoherent -- why Republicans viscerally oppose a negotiated resolution without any alternative. Maybe they just hate Obama, and they hate Iran. But those infantile reactions aren't any more defensible than fealty to Israel.

So once again, what accounts for the incoherence of Republican opposition to a negotiated resolution?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

"Either Iran will get the bomb..."

Either Iran will get the bomb, or we'll go to war with Iran.

I've long been of the mind that this will eventually be where we end up, no matter what we do or don't do. It's interesting, because some people -- bizarrely, IMO -- see this as "wanting" to go to war with Iran. Well, no. I can't speak for anybody else. But what I want is for them to dismantle their nuclear program entirely, which would avert almost certain war. But failing them doing that, the question ends up becoming what we're willing to do to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

If the answer is nothing, then why even go through the motions? All that would do is make any threat we ever make have no credibility.

American foreign policy has long been -- and continues to be today -- that we would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So what happens when they eventually do (and I'm pretty certain they will)?

 

[Rockfish1]

So . . .

You think Republicans are acting irrationally because that's just what The Other Guys always do? I keep asking the same questions over and over again, and I keep not getting answers.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

To my question, Rock.

You said Republicans were in fealty to Israel. I asked if that would still be the case if Israel had a different government and a different foreign policy.

There's an obvious explanation for this. And you're dancing around all over the place to avoid it: Republicans are more sympathetic to Netanyahu's general outlook on Iran than Obama's.

That doesn't mean their loyalties lay with Israel over America's. It means their opinions on this one subject more closely mirror Israel's PM than America's president.

 

[hoosboot]

I'll answer it directly...

Yes, Republicans would be less hostile to the Iranian negotiation if Israel was on board with the approach being taken. There would still be some opposition, but it wouldn't be as strong, vocal, or angry.

And your characterization of the negotiation as "Obama's white flag" is childish.

 

[Rockfish1]

So . . .

Since you think a negotiated resolution would fail, we should just give up on the idea that we can prevent Iran from getting the bomb? I would charitably call this an idiosyncratic view.