[flagged]
My point is that one can suggest that as opposed to being supportive to Israel like former presidents that Donald Trump is friendly to Israel, giving them what they want without asking for anything tangible in exchange.
Please note that I will not continue to talk to you if you reply again without referencing the additional context I added. Talking past your conversational partner is rude.
>The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37). The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.
Your context is deflecting that this is US law, adopted by more than supermajority in both houses and trying to dump it on trump. This law was essentially the will of american people; and presidents that you enumerated avoided implemented provisions of it.
also, waiver in question was not blanket, but 6 months long and based on "national security" grounds". i guess under trump there were no more national security grounds to get a waiver
I remain perplexed about how that was given up for seemingly nothing, much like how Donald Trump curiously decided to betray the YPG for seemingly nothing too. You got any guesses on that one, given the YPG were the troops that did great work in defeating ISIL for us all? I feel like they didn't deserve that.
and btw, to address "I feel like they didn't deserve that", israel didn't really want embassy moved. because (obviously) palestinians got angry and started a wave of violence that lasted for year or so and resulted in bunch of dead and wounded.
> it can be as simple that there was no more "national security ground" to delay it.
Maybe but what had changed exactly at that point? Without a contextual argument that explains it, I can't help but feel like its a tell that Donald Trump is more friendly to Israel than previous presidents.
another point, arab countries dropped "no normalization without palestinian state" approach (the see in past decade palestinian leadership as corrupt and incapable) and signed abraham accords. saudia was supposed to seal the deal as well but oct7 happened.
Israel considers their capital to be Jerusalem. Was there any other country where we just reject the city they consider their capital?
Like would we tell Germany that we won't recognize Berlin as their capital and would instead tell them we are going to consider Hamburg their capital?
So I'll ask my question again, have we ever denied the capital of a country is the city of their choice?
If there was some sort of precedence for not accepting capitals, I wouldn't have a problem, but as far as I can tell Israel is the only exception. I like consistent standards even if it is bad politicaly.
I don't think a two state solution is possible, at least in the near to medium future. Changing the capital won't extend the war since, in my view, it will be a hundred years until there is any chance at peace, and even that is probably too short. Nobody killing each other then will care that the capital was changed.
Besides this, Trump's muscular rhetoric probably just assumed that Israel was a piece of the US, more or less. I'm sure he also got very solid support at the elections from all the usual lobbies.
“Did they vote for me?” is his first consideration.
1. Jimmy Carter mentioned in his biography that Obama asked him not to speak at the DNC because he acknowledged Palestinians deserved a right to live peacefully in one of his speeches. I revisited that speech, and it was by all accounts tame. He explicitly mentioned Obama's Jewish chief of Staff describing AIPAC as opposing this, and Carter was denied a speech at the DNC for this very reason (including his support for a two state solutions, which the American jewry by all accounts opposes through their actions, despite their rhetoric). A US President was shunned from US elections because he was slightly critical of Israel. Let that sink in. 2. Nixon describing AIPAC influence and Pelosi describing how the US capitol could burn while ensuring Israel thrives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x_zrkJwDs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEpPk1BBFP8
The point of the above is American sitting Presidents or influential politicians describe the pressure they face of subjugating US interests to Israel's because America's economy is dominated by Jews and Evangelicals, who believe Israel must survive at all costs (including to the detriment of American interests). I understand how religiosity can lead to undermining America in favor of Israel. I cannot comprehend how Americans can defend this in good faith. Being America first is incompatible with the conduct of Israel, including its founding, for it is a colonial apartheid state that was founded on the murder and dislocation of families. I think it is difficult for most of us to imagine that the victims of a Holocaust, an abominable crime, can in turn be filled with so much hatred that they resort to the very crimes they were the victims of. I believe we went into Iraq and we fund Israel because powerful forces in these United States wish for us to do their dirty work, including when this work harms American interests, and most importantly, the values most of us hold dear: that every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
If the US's support for Israel ever hurt the USA in places that it genuinely cared about, then I think you'd see its support for Israel diminish or even dissipate. As it stands support for Israel is very convenient for the US industrial military complex and the USA's long-term strategic objectives in the Middle East which IMHO are large factors in its willingness to support it.
The pro-Israel lobby has spent roughly 10-15M per year since 1990 except for the past 2-3 years when it has ramped up due to the war. This is hardly enough to offset the billions of dollars spent in U.S. politics.
For this to be true it would also require Israel to "buy" presidents who acted against Israel's interests (e.g. Obama and Biden who financially bolsered Iran). This seems unlikely.
The U.S. does not unconditionally fund and defend Israel. Most (75-90%) of U.S. Federal military aid to Israel is contingent on Israel buying from American companies. This effectively makes most funding a roundabout subsidy of American defense contractors. There are also human rights conditions and many others.
Israel and the U.S. actually have common interests in the Middle East. Contrary to some opinions, allowing Israel to cease to exist is not in the interest of the U.S. although I do support having Israel be less reliant on the U.S.
sources: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?cycle=All&ind=Q...
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL3322...
Those $10-15 mil are given to politicians and the billions are spent from US tax payers money.
> For this to be true it would also require Israel to "buy" presidents who acted against Israel's interests
You might want to look into campaign contributions made by AIPAC and similar isreli institutions to these presidents.
> Most (75-90%) of U.S. Federal military aid to Israel is contingent on Israel buying from American companies.
Which effectively makes these weapons free for Israel. US is literally funding Israeli army.
regardless of where the money comes from, my point was that money is not enough compared to the rest to claim that Israel has "bought" candidates.
> You might want to look into campaign contributions made by AIPAC and similar isreli institutions to these presidents.
The pro-Israel lobby certainly donated to them, it was just not enough to justify the claim that Israel has "bought all previous US presidents." And the fact that those presidents acted against Israel's interests shows that if there was an attempt to "buy" them, it failed with respect to policy.
> Which effectively makes these weapons free for Israel. US is literally funding Israeli army.
You are right that the U.S. is funding Israel's military, but my point was that there are in fact conditions to the funding and the U.S. does get something in return if you consider the indirect subsidy of the American defense industry.
I don't think the US ever had a president who cared less about Israel than Trump. The few times Trump has been on the Israel side seem to be only because Israel was "winning" some conflict, and Trump just prefers being on the winning side. He doesn't seem to care (or understand) the slightest whether Jews have a state, whether they can defend themselves, etc.
This is a self-defeating and untrue meme.
Most Americans don’t say Israel is very important to them, favourably or not [1]. Historically, Israel was popular in both parties; that has now changed. As a result, being anti-Israel was dumb not because of some APAC [EDIT: AIPAC] conspiracy but because voters generally don’t respond to foreign policy issues (versus kitchen-sink ones) and the voters who would tended to were predominantly pro-Israel. So the safe electoral strategy has been, until maybe the last year, to say something nice about Israel and then move on.
So no, there isn’t some undefeatable (and frankly, steeped in historically-racist characterisations of Jews) shadow government. This is basic electoral incentives. Incentives which are shifting. Because if there is an undefeatable shadow government, there are better things to talk about and focus on.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/08/how-ameri...
This is not a binary of either NWO conspiracy or paranoid antisemitism . AIPAC is a lobby, just like many other lobbies. They boast on their website[1] that they've paid $53M to politicians. Just like any other lobby, the electorate has a right and responsibility to judge whether the influence it has bought is in their best interests.
Sure. One among many. They’re influential, but not deterministic.
> that they've paid $53M to politicians
No, they don’t. They’re reporting campaign donations.
There is a tendency, when we disagree with an election, to tally up the donations made to the other side while ignoring all the times the best-funded candidate got trounced. (Jeb!) The influence of money in politics is one of sharply-diminishing returns. It is invaluable for name recognition. It doesn’t swing people on fundamental issues.
Israel has had unique sway in America because for most of its history it has been uniquely popular. Partly because of our Jewish diaspora. Partly because they were a reliable ally. And partly because they give us a lot of money. But two out of three of those factors also apply to the Gulf states, and we tend to be a bit less deferential to them because they’re just not as popular.
aipac is boasting about funding majority of congress and is openly forcing candidates to pledge loyalty. If they dont pledge, they unleash the usual tools: funding the competing candidate, non-stop smearing campaigns via israeli-loyal media outlets and ethnically jewish journalists (==all mainstream media), bogus accusations of "antisemitism" and etc
Sure. The NRA does the same. There are various pro-Palestinian groups who also did the same last cycle; they may have helped swing Michigan for Trump.
Spending money doesn’t change minds, it helps activate latent sentiment. Particularly on low-priority issues, which foreign policy usually is for most electeds.
for example the most recent bogus "IHRA definition of antisemitism" was heavily lobbied and coordinated. This is the prime example of what money can do in politics
You can raise and lower magnitudes. But you can’t change the sign of a position. Not unless it’s an issue the elected has literally never heard of before. (Or cannot remember. Lots of geriatrics.)
Also, $50mm nationally is simply not a lot. There are individual leftist donors with strong pro-Palestinian views injecting that much into the media stream.
Just tells you how thrifty they are
This part is true.
> There is a tendency, when we disagree with an election, to tally up the donations made to the other side while ignoring all the times the best-funded candidate got trounced. (Jeb!)
While this is too specific to a particular type of election to hold true in general (no pun intended). The POTUS election is almost by definition the most high profile election in the US, therefore the money does the least to boost your name recognition, as evidenced by $2B in "free" media publicity for the 2016 winner.
However, the WH is not the only race that matters. According to https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c... "For house seats, more than 90 percent of the candidates who spend the most win."
This article goes into great length to explain why correlation does not mean causation, but it also makes the case that a lot of the races that are indeed somewhat low-profile, and that's where money makes the big impact.
I will amend my prior statements to be constrained to national politics. You can absolutely buy policy at the state and local level, because if you’re a candidate’s sole sugar daddy you have obvious influence over and goodwill owed from them.
The moment a candidate gains a profile, however, that channel becomes a two-way street. Donors will donate to maintain access and goodwill. Refusing to donate means being cut off; the elected has the leverage.
Israel's sway has more to do with the power it holds over the political classes rather than because of its "natural" popularity. It spends billions trying to sway public opinion, which is increasingly ineffective, but despite this their vise like hold over the American political class remains firm.
This includes not only lobbying bribes and Epstein-like blackmail and lavish funding for anybody who wants to run against an anti genocide candidate.
Russia behaves very similarly in countries it seeks to influence and plenty of naive people are driven to believe that that their relative success at doing this just means that theyre naturally popular there.
Not what I claimed.
Vocal, motivated minorities who are willing to back a primary challenger, show or not show to off-cycle elections and potentially even switch parties over an issue command in American elections. What the majority loosely believes is irrelevant; this should be common knowledge given how our partisan primary system works.
The loose majority in American elections doesn’t care about foreign policy. A motivated minority does, and that minority has historically—in both parties—broken decisively in favour of Israel. This issue, moreover, was one that was important enough to enough of them to be a deal breaker. (And “them” doesn’t just mean American or even Israeli Jews. It encompasses a wide variety of liberal, neo-conservative and evangelical interests, for example.)
Not everywhere. But in enough places that if you’re a politician from one of the majority of places where Israel is a total non-issue, you don’t want to alienate your colleagues for whom it is an issue. Because there was no upside to fighting a battle against Israel, again, nobody in your district was going to reward you for going de Blasio on out-of-scope problems.
> Israel's sway has more to do with the power it holds over the political classes
Sure. The point is the “political classes” are those people who are willing to back a primary challenger, show or not show to off-cycle elections and potentially even switch parties over an issue. It’s far more similar to how NIMBY politics work than Russia’s election interference, which has a track record of backfiring more than helping.
Yet what you directly claimed hinges upon this fallacy.
>Vocal, motivated minorities who are willing to back a primary challenger
Or foreign countries.
(is Russia also a "vocal, motivated minority" in Moldova...? or is it just plain and simple foreign meddling? Russia believes it's motivated minorities).
>What the majority loosely believes is irrelevant
Sure. But, this would make your clain of "Israel has had unique sway in America because for most of its history it has been uniquely popular" uniquely self-contradictory.
No. It doesn’t. It’s why I never cite general popularity for Israel. Only strong favour for and against.
> this would make your clain of "Israel has had unique sway in America because for most of its history it has been uniquely popular" completely untrue
Nope. Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it. Most people don’t care, and when they gave a view on caring, it was mild support. That’s a unique popularity profile that I don’t think any other country, other than maybe Cubans, have held.
Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio. Several would for a pro-Israeli one.
It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies. Sometimes that is true. In this case, the theory requires a level of coördination across decades and the American public that borders on anti-vaccine levels of delusion. (It’s also, again, a self-defeating mythology. If Israel’s influence is untouchable, it isn’t worth touching.)
Yet you cited "Israel is uniquely popular" as a reason for why they get their way.
Which is not true.
>Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it
It not only had a vocal minority that hates it it had a vocal minority of Jews that loathe it.
The minorities arent the point though, the money and the foreign influence over America's government is.
Remember the "vocal minority" in Moldova who fight for pro Russian policy? Theyre not "vocal minorities" thats just Russia.
Israel is no different. It's a foreign country taking control over the American government.
>Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio
That's probably increasingly less true these days (genocide isnt a historically popular policy) but beside the point.
The "minority" which operates on behalf of a foreign government is getting real close to ramming $200 per barrel oil down everybody's throats not because theyre "motivated" but because America is run along plutocratic lines and is fully captured by that foreign government.
>It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies
I assume that'd where the "uniquely popular" thing came from.
take aipac, which barely scratches the top 10 of single-issue focused organizations. Aipac donated 43 mil to campaigns in 2023-24. The League of Conservation Warriors donated 50 million. Is the U.S. gov't being captured by environmental advocacy groups?
If you look at foreign agent registered spending, Israel spent 5.7 million in 2024. Compare that with China who spent 5.8 billion with a B.
The problem is that Florida hasn't been a swing state in a long time, and yet we continue to embargo Cuba. In fact, Biden made things worse [0]
The reality is that we don't live in a Democracy but an Oligarchy. The American oligarchy includes people who want to keep the boot on Cuba until a Batista-style regime is back in power. Likewise, the oligarchy supports Israel and therefore, so will the US government and it doesn't matter who you vote for.
[0] https://jacobin.com/2024/05/biden-trump-policy-cuba-embargo
Policy has inertia. There are practically zero votes to be gained by going pro-Cuba. If there were evidence of it existing, we might see a policy change. But especially against the background of anti-immigrant sentiment, going pro-Cuba doesn’t make rational sense. No oligarchic conspiracy needed. (Also, oligarchs like trade. Especially if it requires an extra-special White House exemption to participate in.)