Harris' position on the Middle East problems

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, NEDenver said:

“Hey guys, we can embargo Israel and stop giving them weapons,

Well, it's possible, but not without re-negotiating multiple Mutual Defense Treaties we have with Israel, as well as deal with outraged American citizens who would vehemently disagree with that "divorce". 

The Biden Administration would never entertain such a notion, the next Administration is 6 months away, and I doubt a Harris Administration would entertain such an act either.  The region could be reduced to an enormous, smoldering cinder by then.  I doubt many Americans would consider that a very "stand-up" thing to do, considering all the many other MDT's we have around the world.  The US might consider reducing our footprint in other countries in the Middle East, where we have a number garrisons (with US troops) stationed.

For instance, the countries in the Far East we have MDT's with would wet their pants if America did that to Israel; Taiwan and S. Korea first and foremost.  Imagine the European nations response, if we did that.  The American Government would immediately be considered feckless at the very least, and around the world.  

I very, very much doubt that notion would even be entertained by the American Government.  

[NEDenver]

Like, the difference between Israel and SK or Taiwan is that the latter two aren’t indiscriminately killing North Koreans or mainland Chinese people.  I think they can grasp the nuance.  The larger problem is we can satisfy the treaty with boots on the ground instead of weapons.  The US has fewer options than most of my single-issue Palestine voter friends think.

[hntnhole]

On 8/15/2024 at 6:59 AM, NEDenver said:

the latter two aren’t indiscriminately killing North Koreans or mainland Chinese people

That's true.  There isn't a "hot" war in either of those countries either.  

The US has only a handful (about 70) active-service military in Taiwan.  There are around 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea, and around 30,000 stationed in various garrisons in a number of countries in the Middle East. 

I'm assuming that since Taiwan is separated from China by a decent chunk of the Pacific Ocean, they feel relatively safe, but they still maintain around 170,000 active military, with around 1.5 million in reserve. 

It could be assumed that with those kinds of numbers, the Defense Dept has assumed that Taiwan is more "secure" than S. Korea, and the 30K in the Middle East are enough to at least make Israel's enemies think twice before a substantial attack on Israel.  That figure (30K) is now, of course, supplemented by the recent deployment of US aircraft carriers, troop-transports, etc, so at present there's an expanded US presence in the area.  Whether it does much good or not is yet to be determined.  But, last Thursday came and went - so maybe mass death can be avoided.  I think the US would much rather risk losing ordinance than US lives.  

x = crossed fingers.  

We'll see, I guess.  

Edited August 16 by hntnhole

[topblkmale]

 

Yesterday pagers blew up.

Today its walkie-talkies exploding.

I would caution those guys perhaps in the Middle East or elsewhere cruising truck drivers using CB radios.

 

[hntnhole]

To the OP, I think Harris has been fairly muted in her discussion of the Israel/Hamas issue because she's still the sitting Vice President, and if she has other ideas than what the President has, she's keeping her statements somewhat muted.  That, of course, is entirely appropriate, since she's not President yet - and won't be for a few more months (x=crossed fingers).  

The sitting VP can't be seen/heard to be at substantial variance with the President's policies.  If she's our next President, I'm guessing that she'll announce some very different policies for the area, and relatively quickly, which hopefully won't include Netanyahu. 

I see him as just another trumpette - concerned only with saving his own skin, to the detriment of whoever disagrees with his policies. 

Interestingly. while Israeli elections can be called whenever it's appropriate, they can't be called when the "War Cabinet" is in session.  The War Cabinet is a handful of hardnosed generals, politicians, that are aligned in their views with the PM.  This contrivance is what's protecting him presently, and it's been months since Bennie Ganz quit the W.C. in disgust.  When the day comes though, I think Ganz has a great chance to become PM - if he'll accept it.  

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The sitting VP can't be seen/heard to be at substantial variance with the President's policies.  

Particularly for foreign affairs. It's one thing to put out a domestic policy agenda that will differ from, or go beyond, what Biden has put in place - that's internal to the US. But as a nation we need to speak with one voice (Trump's constant interference with foreign affairs not withstanding). 

[hntnhole]

On 9/19/2024 at 8:07 PM, BootmanLA said:

as a nation we need to speak with one voice

Of course.  

As I see it though, the crux of the issue is yet another two-faced pol mouthing one thing, but doing something quite different.  These past few days, Israel has advanced the chances of general war exponentially (the radios, walkie-talkies), to the point that there's a distinct possibility we could see a repeat of 1978.  With no noticeable progress in the negotiations, and overt aggression on both sides, Israel's main, most important ally should indeed speak with only one voice.  

With the looming elections in the US however, I don't see how both sides in the current trouble can be equally handled.  We have substantial populations of both sides residing/voting in a few weeks, and apparently the margins are razor thin (with Harris rising and SH receding).  While there are roughly twice as many Jewish folks than Palestinian, both are important to each candidate.  Stupidmouth does himself no favors with his inane spewings, and Harris simply can't be seen to stray too far from the President's policy. 

It's possible though, that as the situation deteriorates, someone close to her campaign could make "surrogate" statements without her actually doing it.  Not the best by any stretch, but it might work to make her positions less hazy.  

The anniversary of the initial rampage is close upon us, and I anticipate something deleterious soon.  Somehow, these two groups of folks have to want this shit to end, and in some equitable way.  At present, I think the only hope of degrading the war fever resides in Tehran, in the fear that if a general war breaks out, Iran would get nuked.  

One thing I wonder is, where on Earth are they going to put all that junk - the destroyed buildings, infrastructure, mega-tons of it - before they can start to rebuild.  Maybe divide the junk in two - make one tower of it in Israel and one in Palestine - so coming generations of residents can see what happens when hard-headed politicians exercise their hatreds of each other, and maybe learn to support each other, rather than murder each other forever.

For all our troubles in the US, at least we're trying to deal with our issues without open battles in the streets.  That's at least something - at least for the moment, anyway.

[hntnhole]

It seems things are turning for the worse on almost an hourly basis now.  

The IDF has managed to kill the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon the other day, which act is deepening the chances of general war.  Chances seem to be increasing hourly, and we hear only the same old statement (singular) from the President.  I realize he prefers to conduct foreign policy personally, and make only a few statements publicly. 

I'm not sure that's better than waiting for even more consequential events to take place over there, before the President makes some kind of weighty statement to Americans.  We won't get one from Harris, and that's as it should be.  But I wouldn't mind if she gave the PM of Israel a genteel little kick in the balls.  I'd like it a lot more of Biden did it, but that won't happen either.  I don't expect the Harris Administration to radically alter the existing ties to Israel, but a little whisper of something would be welcome.  This sitting on the razor's edge won't go on for months and months.  

The confounding issue is, our President will fulfill our treaties, MDA's, with Israel, despite the reed-thin support for war with Iran in the American citizenry.  The Iranians already know that the previous President threated to nuke them to smithereens - and would do whatever drifted into his stunted mind on a moment's notice, if empowered.  

I just don't see much in the way of good options; hopefully some of you guys can .... 

[PozBearWI]

The progression of Israel/Hamas war is troubling.  It is however, their war, not ours.  Giving up on our ally in the middle of its conflict will show the world we aren't true to our word.  

NATO as a group might choose to intervene; but on it's own the US needs to uphold our alliance, even though it is resulting in unhappy consequences.  

Our option is to encourage our ally to find a resolution; and/or to engage all NATO countries in working out a solution.  

[hntnhole]

Yes, Israel does have treaties with a number of NATO countries, but hardly deep enough to go to war with Iran on Israel's behalf.  Those NATO treaties are more "supply"-type treaties.  In the event of an Iranian attack (nuclear), I'm sure the NATO countries would do what they could, but that wouldn't be a whole lot.  

I can't imagine a scenario wherein NATO would enter the Israel/Iran (+ proxies) conflict.  NATO has it's hands full with Ukraine and the associated issues.  I would be surprised by anything more than a statement or three out of NATO.

 

10 minutes ago, PozBearWI said:

Our option is to encourage our ally to find a resolution

  Yes, I agree, and our only option (short of entering a prospective war with Iran).  Encouraging Netanyahu to do anything constructive to peace, however, has been as slippery as an eel.  He's only interested in himself, his future.  

Thanks for your always interesting perspective !!

[PozBearWI]

I agree, if Israel declares war with Iran they might be on their own.  Then too, we could very well be on the verge of a new world war.  I hope not, but...

[hntnhole]

It seems that lately there have been plumbing problems in the Oval Office.  Leaks are seeping out here and there, and one of those leaks offers reports that the President is mightily pissed off at what's going on with Yahoo.  

If that's true, I can only guess what will happen if Nettie invades Lebanon in a more substantial way.  He's already sent troops beyond the border, but not enough to actually take the country (yet).  If that happens, it would put Harris in a tight spot - but she'd have to have some kind of reply ready.  Clearly though, the President is not at all pleased with the PM of Israel.  

I haven't heard a peep in the major media about the many military "bases" the US maintains throughout the Levant.  Any attack on any one of them, in any of the nations in the area would put the President (and by extension, Harris) in a rather tight spot - and I can't imagine Iran would willfully attack an American outpost.  But, it's the Middle East - surprise nightmares break out in that corner of the world regularly.  

Now.  So there's this hurricane bearing down on the West Coast, and it will be simply terrible over there.  So first and foremost, allow me to express my concern for the safety of all our brothers over on the West Coast. 

Returning to the theme, the prognosticators seem to think it might take a slightly southerly route once onshore, and aim directly at ..... one guess ..... Maga Blargo !!!  So, maybe the Turd grabs his sharpie, a map, climbs up in that silly tower to watch all the action, and Mr. Milton blows that tower into the ocean with Once & never again President right into the drink.  It would poison the fish in the area of course, but they'd recover quickly.  The water might turn black for a while, but no one swims in the ocean around there anyway.  Eventually there would be nothing left but the hellish memories.   

[PozBearWI]

I think for this coming month we are going to hear all sorts of "odd" things.  Many will be disproven over time, some might be true.  But better right now to consider the most controversial stuff as "planted".  

[BootmanLA]

So: everyone who thinks Harris is so awful on the Middle East, did you catch the news?

Miriam Adelson, the major Trump donor whose SOLE interest is promoting Israel - and who, with her husband, gave over $100 million to Trump's campaign and PACs in 2016, and who gave 172.2 million to Trump's campaign and PACs for the 2020 election, has already donated more than $100 million to him for this year's election.

Nearly $400 million dollars from a family whose sole interest is promoting Israel. They're the ones who convinced Trump to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, despite warnings from everyone in the diplomatic community.

As bad as the Biden administration may have been in handling the Israeli-Palestinian situation - and as bad as you think Harris might be - neither of them can hold a candle to the disaster that will befall Palestinians if Trump is re-elected, particularly if Netanyahu holds off calling for new elections. Trump is likely to endorse all-out massacres - not just airstrikes, but just outright massacres - in both Gaza and the West Bank. And he's likely to provide Israel with whatever weapons it needs to defend itself against its neighbors.

There is no "good" candidate on the Israel issue, sadly (not with any chance at winning). But if that issue is important to you - if, as it seems to be, it's the MOST important issue for some number of you - then not trying to defeat the candidate who's bankrolled by the biggest pro-Israel donor in the nation, bar none, seems a foolish choice. 

[hntnhole]

Agreed.  

At this point in his devolvement into dementia, I doubt anyone thinks the Orange Comb-Over thinks about the Middle East at all.  He'll take money from literally anyone, tell them anything to get it, and forget it immediately after.  Just because he said whatever a minute ago doesn't mean he'll live up to it a minute into the future.  

As to Harris' position, I think she's holding back.  She knows she can't be seen to be at major variance with Biden's position on the question, at least in any substantial way.  She doesn't want to lie either, so she just murmurs something mushy and changes the subject.  I'll bet when Jan 20 rolls around, she'll kick Nettie in the balls though. 

I agree as well that Biden could have handled all of this better.  When the first "you do X and I'll do Y" fell through, I'm surprised that Biden kept up the charade to the extent he has.  While the major media says every so often that they've been "friends for many years", I can't help but wonder.  That said, if Nettie is going to do something really dramatic, it has to be before Jan 20th.  I don't think Harris will accept aggression, let alone underwrite it.  She's more interested in figuring out a workable solution resulting in (at least semi) permanent peace.  

Oddly, some of the guys on BZ think that Biden is shoveling money at the Israeli's.  That's hardly the case.  The Israeli Military isn't getting truckloads of money; they're getting a "credit", against which they can draw for US military equipment.  It's not like the US is paying them to buy military equipment from other countries.