“Biden realized that Netanyahu was lying to him about the hostages,” the official told Haaretz. “He’s not saying it publicly yet, but in the meeting between them, he specifically told him, ‘Stop bullshitting me.’”
On Friday, a senior member of the Israeli negotiating team told Haaretz that Israeli defense chiefs believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not interested in a hostage deal/cease-fire with Hamas. Israel’s Channel 12 also reported on a tense exchange between Netanyahu and the defense chiefs, in which Shin Bet head Ronen Bar said, “It feels like the prime minister doesn’t want the framework that’s on the table.” Turning to Netanyahu, he added that if that is the case, “you should tell us.”
Mossad chief David Barnea stressed to Netanyahu, “There is a deal on the table. If we delay, we could miss the opportunity. We have to take it.” Netanyahu, per the report, reacted angrily, accusing the defense chiefs of being “soft.”
That is absolutely a factor, but there are also absolutely people who view this as an important part of American power projection. While I don’t think that supporting Israel has been making the US stronger in this era, it has historically been a key strategic location due to how close it is to the suez and global oil trade.
It is darkly funny how cheaply American politicians can be bought, meanwhile we shovel endless piles of money to Israel, which it then uses to shore up political support for continuing to send them money and ammunition.
Egypt controls Suez though. We just overthrew their government and installed Sisi as a dictator to control it. Israel had little to do with that. Same with Iraq. We use Saudi Arabia as a base.
Israel as a strategic partner is a great excuse on the surface because really blurs the line of the true motive. But in reality we now see America supporting israeli actions which are contradictory to our interests in the region (unless we really want WW3). Having a strategic partner requires that partner to obey you, not the other way around
I’m not gonna start debating you on this, I was referring to the historical reason for the occupation of Palestine, quoting Churchill:
I say that Palestine is all the more important to us in view of what is happening, in view of the ever-growing significance to the British Empire of the Suez Canal; and I do not think £1,000,000 a year […] would be too much for Great Britain to pay for the control and guardianship of this great historic land
There was no AIPAC then, unless you’re suggesting that there was some other lobbying at play.
US strategic planners wanted Israel because it’s an unsinkable aircraft carrier parked right next to the Suez (among other things). That doesn’t mean that it’s actually useful at the end of the day, but that’s absolutely the stated logic behind things.
I certainly don’t disagree that it is an advantageous piece of land. Which is why it was one of the best OG Hasbara points.
The problem is that we already control Egypt and have military bases over the entire region. Israel wants to be autonomous. We can give israel weapons but we are not allowed to control what they will do with said weapons. Whereas with other countries we just topple their regime if they don’t listen.
Then there’s Incidents such as the USS liberty. Israel tries to make America go to war with Egypt by committing a false flag attack on an American ship and blaming it on Egypt Or how israel is currently desperately trying to pull us into a war with Iran. This is not how a having an ally in the region works.
There is no denying that Palestine has great placement geographically but the amount of flak we are currently taking because israel acts like a rabid attack dog while we still provide them weapons “against our will” goes directly against israel being a strategic ally. This only leaves israeli lobbies such as AIPAC controlling our politicians as a real explanation of israel still receiving weapons.
Unless we’re trying to evoke a war with Iran ourselves, but I don’t see that as a possibility.
The ‘lot of flak’ the US is getting is hurting them a lot less than more concrete things like the trade disruptions due to the red sea shipping attacks. The occupation failing to keep a lid on things has absolutely put its immediate strategic value into question, that has not always been the case.
I am aware that the US government is completely beholden to financial influence, however I don’t care for the narrative being ‘the real explanation is that israel is controlling our politicians’ that’s really the reductive angle. You can point to the numbers of donations to politicians, but there’s also a tremendous power wielded by the military industries. They are often the sole or anchor employers in cities across the country and any cut to buying weapons gets framed as cutting jobs for everyday Joes. Those weapons then get gifted to people who use them on civilians.
Which also is caused by America not forcing israel to stop their Genocide for some reason…
Of course politicians aren’t solely beholden to israel. There are plenty of other lobby organizations which get what they want because they bribe politicians. Oil lobbies, Agro lobbies, Pharma lobbies etc. Military Industrial lobby of course loves what israel is doing right now.
It’s just that when it comes to israel, the politicians act the way israel wants instead of in a strategically advantageous way for America. There’s not much of a case that can be made for the current government actions other than “Our politicians are bribed by israel”
Past israel did a far better job appealing to politicians to make a case for their existence than current israel though I’ll agree with that. Hasbro game is weak these days.
For some Americans, the perception that they’re a settler state fighting off the brown horde is reason enough for common cause.
And ironically much of the the anti-Arab propaganda also has its roots in israel. (and this article for a deeper dive)
But of course racism is not really a realpolitik objective.
I could never understand the guys appeal and always found his movies pretty offensive.
yeah