Talk:Israel–United States relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"... with the U.S. superpower trying to balance competing interests in the region." This is POV. The United States certainly claims this is the case, but implying that it is in fact some kind of neutral party is highly POV. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that the US tries to project its own interests in the region?
- I don't think the statement is POV or implies that the U.S. is trying to portray itself as neutral. I think the statement is referring to balancing America's own competing interests in the region (ex.- have a close relationship with Israel, but also with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.).--MorrisGregorian 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- They do balance interests - the Palestinians would certainly have been thrown out by now if it wasn't for U.S. diplomatic leverage. Joffeloff 05:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The United States hasn't done JACK to keep the Palestinians or anyone else who isn't Israeli from being thrown out of anywhere. The United States is biased to the point of blind idiocy in its support of Israel. When you see the country committing crimes against huamnity vs. Lebanon, where is it protecting them? Doing a good job of bettering relations in the region and making itself look good, huh? And where is the United Nations?
[edit] Christian conservatives?
I was wondering about the role of US christian conservatives on this matter. I don't know if it fits into the article, but I'm curious. As I understand it, christian conservatives has a strong role in US politics, and they strongly support Israel. Is this right? Is there any explanation for this support, as christians elsewhere usually support the Palestinians, and critisize Israel? (That goes for both the Vatican and the protestant church of Sweden which I read about in my newspaper here in Sweden.) Also, the christians in Israel are Palestininans. --Battra 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well evangelicals in the US see the creation of Israel as a heralding of gods prophecy and an important precondition of Armageddon they also tack the old testament literally that the Jews are gods chosen people.--J intela 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kissinger and Nixon
This article is missing a massive amount of information concerning Nixon's aid to Israel during the late 60's and early 70's.
[edit] Grand total of aid?
I don't know if the statistics here http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm are accurate (or what the biases of the site may be) - they're also out of date. If the total aid in 2001 was about $91 billion, I wonder if it has reached $1 trillion yet? Where might there be current stats? Шизомби 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
Oppose Why don't we have this article be for non-controversial information (or as non controversial as possible), and the other article be for things like the Gore Vidal citation or other, more controversial aspects of the U.S.-Israel relationship? MorrisGregorian 03:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have redirected that article to this. That article had absolutely nothing that this article does not have. Aran|heru|nar 14:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources for "Miscellaneous facts and alliance benefits" sections
All of this is unsourced, is there any sources for any of the information? Specifically the first and last points. Volksgeist 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I removed that section from the article since it seems POV and unsourced. Some of that information, if properly sourced, might be better in other parts of the article. I took out some unrelated things that were, in my opinion, also POV or non-notable criticism (like what Gore Vidal alleged about Truman's motives). MorrisGregorian 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] US support
Hello, As I mentioned in my edit-summary, I don't think that citing one poll out of a hundred is the most accurate way to present the data, especially when a broader statement can be supported. Granted that that statement is support in the polls, which is why I modified the line. The broad "peace" opinion is equally well-supported, and so I restored that as well. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USS liberty
I'm adding two references for the USS Liberty. One that supports that it was a mistake, and one that argues it was not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.77.106 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Israel-United States military relations
Following the AfD debate and DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created Israel-United States military relations in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:
- The new article has a wider scope, covering military relations in general, military aid, procurement, joint military activities and significant controversies.
- The article is intended to be the prototype for a series of x-United States military relations articles; I've written it around a template that can be used for any article of this type. See Talk:Israel-United States military relations for an explanation of the template.
- The article parallels the existing Israel-United States relations article as a spinout and expansion of the military relations aspects.
- All the content is referenced. :-) It's a combination of expanded relevant bits from Israel-United States relations, merged content from United States military aid to Israel and a substantial amount of new content, mostly from Jane's.
I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged).
Please take a look at the new article and leave comments on the talk page. -- ChrisO 10:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] name change
I changed this sentence; "Recent polls suggest that Americans feel that Israel is one of their friendliest close allies, third only after the England and Canada." to this "Recent polls suggest that Americans feel that Israel is one of their friendliest close allies, third only after the United Kingdom and Canada."
Obviously England does not have seperate foreign affairs, as it is part of the UK.
Kaenei 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NixonandMeir.jpg
Image:NixonandMeir.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What Nixon said better not stay.
> President Richard Nixon "Americans admire a people who can scratch a desert and produce a garden. <
I think this comment should be removed, because it shows Nixon wasn't exactly a bright mind. Everybody has long known that jewish kibbutzes "make gardens in the desert" by exploiting the underground water reserves under the Holy Land. The problem is, they do it at a pace magnitudes faster than natural replenishment arrives. That water took aeons to accumulate and the arabs have been telling jews no to spray it like crazy for ages. Arabs do not live that poor because they are stupid monkeys, but rather they learned in centuries what little the land can give them in the long term and adopted their lifestyles accordingly.
The jews have almost sucked up all the reserves, about 2 feet left and that's it. They have gained forced control of most palestinian water sources, but that is still not enough, so they are now looking to build dozens of sea-water desalinization nuclear reactors. Considering the small size of Holy Land, one such accident and the desert will be radioactive and un-inhabitable for decades to come, if not centuries, that's stupid...
The popular idea of jewish magicians turning sand into flowers should be purged from american public's fantasies, because this is not a naturally maintainable situation and not even Nixon or other president can change that. It is also a big obstacle to peace with the palestinians. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- ummm....no? That is what President Nixon believed, and it is what most Americans believe. Israel is a stable democracy amongst a land of less-than-perfect (shall we say) democracies, theocracies, and (1) absolute monarchy. I would think that the former President's statement was metephorical; but either way, it should stay. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Main image
Im suggesting that someone create an arrow to isrial. For god sake i had to enlarge the image and even then it was bitch to see the whole dam country. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)