[papertyger]

The only way to get Israel to subscribe to our post WWll, “nuanced” version of winning military conflict is to play sugar daddy to them.

Otherwise, they would kick the crap out of many whose crap we would prefer remain internal.

And the rub is, they’d be doing it under a legitimate claim of self-defense.

Furthermore, the private ties between Israel and The United States preclude any kind of psyops campaign to sway American public opinion against Israel in any substantive way.

[nathanbedford]

I take it your thesis is that the United States has a security interest in preventing the Middle East from disintegrating which would result in a disruption of oil supply, proliferation of terrorism, or even nuclear exchange. In order to keep the lid on the pot, the United States pays off both sides and appeases where necessary.

There is another explanation which I recite but do not endorse to the effect that until Obama American policy towards Israel has been shaped by domestic politics much like America's policy toward Great Britain we shaped by Irish immigration. Do you accept this explanation?

Whether you accept it or not, what do you have to say about the motivation for Obama abandoning Israel? Is it because he is simply pro-Islam? Does he really believe that building a few buildings on disputed territory threatens peace if the Palestinians have even a modicum of goodwill? Is there another explanation, for example, the left sees Muslim expansion as the wave of the future to which they want to be allied to bring America down and open the way for oneworldism at which point the left will turn on Islam?

In other words, before Obama what was the motivation for our policy and under Obama what is the present motivation for his policy?

I would welcome your thoughts.