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.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

No.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Guenevere]

Bttt

[aloppoct]

He certainly does walk thetalk.

[gcparent]

Israel “has never had a better friend in the White House”.

[nathanbedford]

One can hardly imagine a riskier, more foolhardy foreign policy blunder then committing the United States to war on behalf of a country which has been at war about four or five times since its birth in 1948.

Israel is a magnificent and heroic story but it is not our story, it is not our destiny and it should not be considered in our national interest to risk nuclear holocaust on its behalf. It is one thing to recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel-that can be considered to have been a moral and decent action by Trump. Likewise, recognition of Israel's strategic need of the Golan Heights Is a practical understanding of reality.

At a time when America is threatened with the end of its superpower status partly because it is overextended and has engaged in bootless and seemingly endless wars without accomplishing any recognizable advancement of our security interests, why would we compound these errors? Why double down? Israel is one of the hottest spots on earth, surrounded by hundreds of millions of enemies bent on its destruction. One can only think of the consequences of Germany issuing a "blank check" to Austria to make war on Serbia in 1914. There is no upside for us and the downside could be utterly catastrophic as it was for Germany.

A decision to make war is an element of sovereignty and every mutual security obligation constrains our sovereignty to some degree. If an occasion arises in which a beleaguered Israel requires our assistance, even our alliance in war, let us make that decision on an ad hoc basis, let Congress decide, let the judgment be made about what is in our national interest at the time. It would be folly to commit now to circumstances unknowable in the future.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Totally agree. But the neo-con wing of FR will scream that you’re anti-Semitic for merely suggesting that we shouldn’t be constantly sticking our noses into the Middle East.

[frank ballenger]

U S will only have to get involved on any day when there is unrest in the Middle East region.

Maybe 4 days off for a truce every twenty years. Tops.

American entertainers can go over to entertain the troops and improve morale-—of the Muslims.

American troops can watch old Bob Hope DVDs.

[familyop]

Good! It’s about time! If the crypto-Nazis don’t like it, end NATO agreements with Germany and Italy, and stop relations with the Vatican.

[nathanbedford]

Regrettably, racist demagoguery has only become worse since Nathan offered his first maximum of American politics:

All politics in America is not local but ultimately racial

[MachIV]

“All politics in America is not local but ultimately racial”

Pat Buchanan once pointed out in fuctionally the same method that politics was not local but ‘tribal’. I like Pat on some things and dislike him on others but he hit the nail right on the head with that one.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

No. Enough Americans have already lost their lives for Israel’s advocated wars. Israel has nukes and can defend itself.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

What you said.

[JudyinCanada]

Likely a move to help Netanyahu. Hope it works, even if it’s not done.

[chajin]

One can only think of the consequences of Germany issuing a "blank check" to Austria to make war on Serbia in 1914. There is no upside for us and the downside could be utterly catastrophic as it was for Germany.

This was my first thought, and it is a valid concern.

My second thought was that the purpose of such an agreement is to cower the enemies of Israel, since they will know that to attack Israel is to invite our wrath.

My third thought was that jihadists aren't cowered by anything, since they would rather die than have a world which includes Israel, so the agreement wouldn't accomplish its intended purpose.

My fourth thought is that Israel is God's chosen land and its people are God's chosen people, and those who bless Israel are blessed by God, while those who curse Israel are cursed by God.

Given the divine implications, the agreement is risky but has its upside.

[Parley Baer]

“Likely a move to help Netanyahu. Hope it works, even if it’s not done.”

That is how I see it.

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Host country bases.

[TheDandyMan]

Why is it about time?

[steel_resolve]

That’s a 10-4. +10000