Trump considering possible defense treaty with Israel

Global News ^ | September 14, 2019

[2ndDivisionVet]

U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday he had spoken to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about a possible mutual defense treaty between the two nations, just days before Israelis go to the polls.

[Magnum44]

Since Israel is essentially at war continuously, I think what Trump and Netanyahu are discussing may not be a conventional defense treaty, as that would make no sense for us. So before you say no, maybe we should wait for details? I suspect it may be more along the lines of ensuring that if Israel needs to buy weapons, they can do so in a little more streamlined way if present or future congress is not so supportive.

[CondorFlight]

Let’s do it. With Israel on our side, we won’t spend years fighting no-win wars like Vietnam and Korea and Afghanistan. We’ll fight to win, and do it in a week!

[Long Jon No Silver]

The U.S has a defense treaty with Australia. Why not Israel?

[gaijin]

1. Small government

2. No foreign entanglements

WHICH of those two is he conserving, here, I wonder...?

I love him but hey, this is the very most foolhardy proposal he has had.

How would this benefit us, or are we not supposed to ask that..?

[Long Jon No Silver]

The U.S gets quite a lot out of its defense treaty with Australia. Spying bases. Training areas. Same would happen with a defense treaty with Israel. The U.S would get treaty sanctioned naval access to the Eastern med. In a country far more pro U.S than many others the U.S has defense treaties with. Like a lot of Nato countries

[gaijin]

Plucky, democratic, entrepreneurial, determined, little Israel is HALF the size of San Bernadino County and I yugely admire them.

Yet this is a formula for everlasting war.

This is breathtaking in its recklessness.

[Jumper]

The US is fully linked and has integrated billions of dollars in war reserve stocks located in underground storage in Israel for American forces use... And in addition there is more designated lend-lease equipment for Israel’s use.

Microsoft and numerous top companies have R&D and production there.

There are over 600,000 Americans with dual citizenship.

Simply stated, US citizens represent nearly 10 percent of the country’s population. It is a vital US interest to protect US Citizens.

Iran needs to be made to clearly understand that American will not tolerate its attempt to destroy Israel and by making these statements on linked treaties Trump has essentially made a moot point of involving the Senate... or unlike Obama sidestep a treaty because after the attacks by Iranian proxies in Saudi Arabia, and against Israel this week Iran was just put on official notice that the US had separately informed Russia and Iran we would not object and further the we might provide a hand in retaliation upon Iran and her proxies.

Freepers might object but the unresolved issues from 1979 are going to settled by Trump just as he is dealing with the 1953 NK issue.

[PA Engineer]

Something else certain knee jerk reactions failed to consider, “Mutual Defense” is a two way street.

[mbrfl]

While that may be true, I see no evidence that Trump plans to involve us in any more quagmires around the world, whether in Israel, Afghanistan, Iran or North Korea. I’d say his general foreign policy philosophy in this regard is pretty clear by now. This is just a headline at the moment. No details have been revealed, and it may never go beyond informal discussions. More likely Trump is mentioning it publicly to try and reassure those who have concerns about a possible peace deal with Iran (i.e. any U.S. peace deal with Iran will not be at the expense of the security concerns of our allies).

[Leaning Right]

> If the crypto-Nazis don’t like it, end NATO agreements with Germany and Italy <

People can be against a treaty with Israel without being a Nazi. Anyhow, you do make an interesting point. For example, Albania is a member of NATO. So we are committed to defend Albania. It’s hard to see where Albania is more vital to US interests than is Israel.

[familyop]

Because we could benefit from more intel in that region, for one.

[familyop]

Yes, if there are specifics that one might disagree with in a treaty for purposes of national interest. Many who disagree with any treaty at all have the attitude that lurks behind BDS efforts, though. We need intel sharing and other support from Israel.

[nathanbedford]

Evidently I am afflicted with a greater degree of snarkiness than I find flattering to my self-image, I want to ask, "what percentage of the population is JaVanka?"

How many of the 600,000 dual citizenship individuals are combat ready, either for the wars that America needs to fight or for the war that Israel might be forced to fight? Why should my sons be sent into harm's way on their behalf? My sons should go to war for Microsoft because their globalist reach extends to Israel?

My point is concededly snarky but these reasons you adduce do not strike me as adding up to a national interest worth committing America to war for.

Rather than the justification let us consider the procedure you envision which is not clear to me from your reply, is this to be submitted to the Senate to be ratified in the normal course as a treaty? If so I doubt it would pass. If submitted and it does not pass, it isolates and exposes Israel the more. If not submitted to the Senate for ratification, we would be reverting to an extra-constitutional practice of entangling ourselves with other nations who are thereby empowered to drag us into war. I ask rhetorically, why do we have 28,000 men on the line in Korea? As a tripwire.

Why would we turn Israel into a tripwire which we cannot control but which commits us to war, like Germany in 1914? Why do we do this without the constitutional requirement of advice and consent of the Senate. That we have done it on behalf of other nations, with or without the Senate, is not persuasive, I do not buy the proposition that one misstep justifies a second misstep.

If done without the advice and consent of the Senate it is a commitment which the next president can repudiate just as Donald Trump repudiated the misbegotten deal with Iran. When the next anti-Semitic Democrat president in the mold of Barack Obama takes office and repudiates the agreement, where would that leave Israel-all the more isolated and exposed.

My Bible tells me that the "unresolved issues" concerning Israel have existed for millennia long before 1979 so, if Donald Trump can resolve those issues, he will deserve a place not in history but in that very Bible.

[9YearLurker]

Is Trump compromised by the Mossad? Is Kushner his handler?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Rachel Maddow, is that you?

[9YearLurker]

Go ahead, keep your eyes and ears closed.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Unlike most people here, I’ve dealt with the Mossad, although as a lowly spear carrier. They wouldn’t do what you’re describing because of the likelihood that it’d blow up in their face and lose them the yearly aid they get from us. This is likely Trump shoring up the hard shell Christian vote since they’re very concerned about Israel.

[9YearLurker]

Riiiight.

[Dogbert41]

To me, it’s the only country we should have a pact with.

[Vermont Lt]

Not only no, but hell no.