Jump to content

Talk:Israel–United States relations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

"... 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?

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)


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)

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)

Switch chart with something more reflective.

The current chart does not entirely reflect the scope of US-financial aid to Israel. Using the same source, go to page 24: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

It differentiates between loan/grants/guarantees and total amount. It is the same chart used here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html


I would do it myself because I don't know how.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Table 6, and the table after it? They are updated charts versus the combined chart using info from a 2004 report (the jewishvirtuallibrary.org chart)
In the chart caption we link to http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf as a reference for the current chart. We can tell people to go there for longer timelines and more info. I added some info to the caption.
I could upload the other charts from the 2008 report too. Then we could also link to the charts, or thumbnail them in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable plan to me, and too technical for my skills also. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

Portions of this article appear to be slanted toward Israel. In particular, the section on US-Israeli relations during the Carter administration suggest this. The article notes that Pres. Carter made attempts to scale Israel back to pre-1967 borders, and to make peace with neighbors. And it notes that this was seen as anti-Israeli on Carter's part. Isn't peace the interest of all parties? The section does not give attention to the rapproachment that Carter acheived between Sadat and Begun, and between Egypt and Israel. Egypt has recognized Israel as a result. Thus, I put the POV tag on this section. Dogru144 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, peace has not been the interest of all parties involved. Palestinian leadership has been changing several times a decade, making it extremely difficult to negotiate any tangible contract which would ultimately lead to a stat-state solution. Also, consider the many opportunities provided by the state of Israel, Egypt, and Western countries to the Palestinian people and their empowering "governments" that have been rejected time and time again. And with the recent election of the de-facto leadership of Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas, an internationally recognized TERRORIST organization, the concept of a two state solution is practically unobtainable, and peace...well...highly unlikely, especially with the recent airstrikes (see Operation Cast Lead)...

To be perfectly honest, almost every Israel-related article seems to be considerably pro-Palestinian, such as Al-Durah, Apartheid Analogy, some sections of Israel, recently edited Internment, and many others.

But to return to your statements about Carter, he was hardly a productive president in terms of obtaining "peace" among Israel's neighbors. At the time, Israel was experiencing several wars and a highly biased UN (led by Nazi Kurt Waldheim), and a conflicted Palestine.

Israel did return some of Gaza, parts of the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (neutral territory now), and East Jerusalem (not officially). Each of these trade-offs has been party off various "peace treaty" terms, with the "this will bring peace" lingo. We all know how that turned out.

At this point, the only thing the Palestinians want is Israel GONE. That is what will bring peace. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

East Jerusalem? Since when is that on the table? Israel doesn't consider it part of the Palestinian territories, despite the UN decrees that divided the Holy Land (which made Jerusalem international and NOT Israeli territory, let alone the capital).
Gaza? Sure they gave it up - it's a meaningless desert with no religious significance to the Israeli religious fanatics, unlike the West Bank which they consider "Judah and Samaria." But through various arrangements with the international community, Israel ensured that despite the "withdrawal" from Gaza, the strip was closed off and economically more under their thumb than ever. See the decision to cut power to Gaza last year, which did a lot to starve local hospitals and, of course, did nothing at all to affect the people firing rockets whom Israel was supposedly targeting.
The West Bank? When did Israel ever "give up" parts of the West Bank? The colonization of the region continued unhindered throughout the Oslo peace process; every time peace looked even remotely achievable, the colonists merely accelerated their activities, aided and abetted by friends within the Israeli government. Last month, Livni publicly stated that Israel was going to have to stop the colonies in the West Bank; the very same day, the expansion of one of the largest settlements in the area was announced. The so-called "peace process" has never been anything but a stalling tactic allowing them to gobble up more and more land.
Even at Camp David as I recall, Barak refused to negotiate with Arafat if he didn't, from the outset, agree to give away 10 percent of Palestinian land. (This is not including the land directly stolen by Israel since 1947 in blatant landgrabs that have continued since, like the new "security wall," which contrary to the way it's advertised does not separate Jews from Arabs but cuts across broad swaths of Arab territory). After negotiations, Arafat had to concede that "some" Israeli settlements remained under Israeli jurisdiction; this would not have meant a scaling down but rather a shoring up of said settlements, who would have been consolidated in such a way as to make an independent Palestine geographically unable to function. Add to that the fact that Israel does not consider East Jerusalem part of the West Bank; that Israel demands full control of roads between them and their colonies; and that they reserve the right to expand the borders of these colonies at any time they see fit, as we just saw with Livni...
Israel has no intention of allowing a viable Palestinian state to emerge under any circumstances, no matter what the Palestinians do or don't do. The very best the Palestinians can hope for is a couple of mutilated, walled-off, constantly shrinking enclaves under the complete economic dependence of Israel, in which Israel will proceed to make life so unlivable for the Palestinians that they will have no choice but to leave one by one. By the end of this century, I predict that the entire West Bank and probably the Gaza strip as well will be Israeli territory, with no Arab population beyond a small class of menial laborers living in the same condition as illegal immigrants in the southwestern U.S. Anywhere else in the world, this would be called ethnic cleansing. But we know it's not that, because Jews don't do ethnic cleansing. Jews, in virtue of being Jewish, are victims, and if anyone opposes them, it can only be because they're Nazis. Seductive logic, isn't it? And America will continue to play by it until the end of time. Hell, it worked with the Indians, why should the Palestinians be any different... 147.9.225.165 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that some have expressed their beliefs and povs, I would suggest that they attempt to bring relevant sources, RS'd and V'd, for those povs into the article, where they also might be of some benefit for the readers. Personally, this one[1] seems to be somewhat appropriate, both for documenting the US's position, as well as possibly providing y'all with a warm and fuzzy feeling. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The article seems quite balanced to me. You would expect the tone to be positive. After all, the purpose of most countries is to maintain good relations with other countries. The US also tries to be friendly with most countries, as does Israel. I always get suspicious when articles accentuate bad relations between country X and country Y, when they are mostly good. Wallie (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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) 1 trillion = 1000 billions.. you mean if its reached 100 billion.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadave (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1973 war

The goals of that war are not as straightforward as what CasualObserver has written. On one extreme, there are many who believe that the goal was to destroy Israel. On the other extreme, there is ample evidence that the goal was far more limited than "gaining back lost territory", that it was intended to achieve some limited military success and force Israel to the negotiation table, or to force the US to embrace Egypt. Still other theories (described in the Yom Kippur War article) maintain that the goal was to deflect domestic criticism over Saddat's policies. The various theories can be discussed din detail in Yom Kippur war article - but in an article like this we can't just state one of them as "the truth". Same goes for the nuclear strike preparations story - Many sources describe Nixon's decision to launch the airlift as a response to a Soviet airlift to Syria, w/o any reference to Israeli nuclear strike plans. Israel has further never acknowledged having nuclear weapons, let alone a plan to use them - so putting this in an article like this as "the truth" is not appropriate. Millmoss (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia content in the I/P arena is seldom straightforward, but it is considered proper etiquette not to mention editors’ names, when noting such, but thank you for your edit summary, which alerted me to your concerns. You note manyvalid additions and I appreciate your mention of them. There are many other notables related to Israel-US relations, which are now not included however; they should be and would improve content, as well as understanding of an important period. As an inclusionist, my outlook is that editorial involvement is best when content is expanded, rather than when limited. This was the net result of your edits, despite your acknowledgment of their notability; that, and a seemingly one-sided nature concerning what is included, makes me wonder. As you are obviously aware of the general notable content, it would benefit Wiki, if you took your shot and added it in the article.
I have made a specific edit concerning your latter concern, to address your concerns, improve content, show good faith and illustrate a more productive editing method, as you delve into this particular arena. Your other stated concerns will take some more time and entail more involvement than I had originally planned, but since you have brought these up, I will work on it more. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip regarding editor's names (where can I read more about this, BTW?). Your recent changes address my concerns. They introduce undue POV when describing "Israel's unwillingness" vs. "Egypt's willingness". Israel did not accept Rogers' Plan, but that is not the same as "unwillingness to negotiate". I'll reword that so that it is more neutral. Millmoss (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think the map is actually very ironic. Israel is a tiny little speck of dust compared to the rest of the Middle East, and yet at every turn the United States is willing to compromise relationships with the other Middle-Eastern countries in order to enable the Israeli's to secure the tiny little non-strategically important country. The map is a testament to our stupidity in The United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.200.87 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear threat rewrote history

Somewhere in the sixties, Israel got Da Bomb(US were very, very disapointed), forcing US being nice with them(because of its achille's heel:oil...), rewriting history about their relation with them, and US history books, dictionary about middle-east and many other things. USA was loved by muslims, arab nationalists, terrorists, was their anticolonialism champion, until that strategical change, which was also good for European economy, particulary France(who supplied nuclear technology to Israel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.23.214.139 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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)
Exactly. I think most mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. are also more balanced on the matter (the Presbyterians for example do not consider the State of Israel and Biblical Israel to be the same entity). But these churches have become very weakened since the seventies; the people who matter most in American religion are the whole nebula of fundamentalist and evangelical churches (more of a movement than any organized denomination). These guys do indeed support Israel unconditionally, partly for the reasons above and partly because of a joint opposition to Islam, which has replaced communism as the religious right's new "Antichrist". 193.253.237.223 (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that "mainline Protestant churches in the U.S." "have become very weakened since the seventies?"--TL36 (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

I have tried to introduce some quotes from each of the mentioned US governments. I believe that they have encyclopedic value and that they support the narrative given in the article. They highlight the concerns that the US has expressed regarding GOI approaches the territory they have occupied. Unomi (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the settlements are not the defining issue for Israel/US relations. Cherry-picking quotes from administration officials and pasting them at the very top of their presidency section is blatantly undue. You have chosen these quotes to paint a specific narrative. These sorts of issues belong in Israeli settlements, not here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that you say that, because it strikes me that the quotes highlight exactly the US position on the settlements and that they repeatedly state that they are an impediment to the peace process. Unomi (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This belongs in Israel settlements or the dozen Israeli-Palestinian peace process arguments. Israel-USA relations are not predicated on the settlement issue. It is a relatively new phenomenon and didn't become a serious concern until the early 90s. Settlement construction was never a condition in Oslo 1 or 2 - the Palestinians never demanded it. Anyways, it is you, Unomi, who has cherry-picked quotations and pasted them to the intro of each presidential summary. This is clearly undue and violates NPOV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the administration has held a public stance on the settlements since at least 1968 seems to deny that this was only a recent concern. It also highlights the fact that the US position has always been that these settlements were illegal and indeed, constitute a war crime. There is nothing undue about quoting statements that exemplify this. What the Palestinians did or did not demand is not of critical relevance to the US position on it. If there are specific quotes which you feel run afoul of undue then I am happy to discuss it, but I see no reason to remove the quotes wholesale. They have valid encyclopedic value and they represent they serve to underscore the consistent consensus opinion held. Unomi (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Settlements a war crime? What? Look Unomi, you, an editor, have cherry-picked quotes (clearly to meet an agenda) to summarize each administration's POV of the settlement issue. The problem is grabbing select quotes and pasting them at the top of his each section is simply undue. This article is about US-Israel relations, not settlements. These sorts of edits belong Israeli settlements or peace process articles. The quotes need to be removed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the settlements constitute a war crime. There is nothing controversial about stating that, this is the consequence of:
  • a. deporting the population of an occupied territory.
  • b. importing a different population to that occupied territory.
  • c. making economic use of occupied territory above and beyond what is strictly necessary for the upkeep of the occupying military force.
Please see Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories for confirmation. You may also refer to the quotes I have added which substantiate just that, and consider that if you as an editor did not realize this beforehand, it could be because our articles do not state the facts in a clear enough fashion. Unomi (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<-This is a problem Unomi. It is very clear you have a narrow POV and are looking to represent the settlement issue in a way inconsistent with NPOV. As I said before, you - the editor - have specifically hand-picked a series of quotations and made them the banner headline for each administration. The problem is the settlements do not define the US/Israel relationship. Such a disproportionate presence in the article is an indication of bias. These sorts of edits belong in Israel settlement or the many dozen peace-process related articles, not here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have self-reverted, I don't consider the NPOV issue to have merit, I believe that the sources and indeed the ICJ, ECJ, US policy statements and UN resolutions indicate that my interpretation is aligned with the NPOV. I admit though that the article will have to have more supporting material before the quotes appear natural in the text. Unomi (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The settlements issue do warrant a solid mention in this article, see thearticle on the matter by Daniel C. Kurtzer. Unomi (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I don' see how that somehow warrants a "solid mention" in this article. Israel-USA relations are not defined by settlements. This source of discussion belongs in the relevant articles I listed above.

What is this argument about, exactly? Zerotalk 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure the references are being written correctly. I tried to verify the appropriation of US aid to Israel (reference 35), but am directed directly to the white house's office of management and budget website, which does not specifically confirm the statements referencing the website. Unless I'm expected to search the entirety of the website to confirm the claims, I believe the reference is in an inappropriately format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.162.243 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla clash

What kind of effect (if any) did Israel's raid on the Gaza aid flotilla have for the relations of our two countries? Lesswealth (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

The sentence shouldn't be there at all. For starters, I'd like to see the question. You can get a poll to say anything. Second, the US populace is the most misinformed public in the world -- evidenced by the very fact they consider Israel to be AT ALL friendly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.152.249.253 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

CNN polls 2011

Sorry, forgot about this step. Is the poll that User:PeteyParrot put in a scientific poll? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I think we have to be careful about how we select and present information from polls, I don't at this time have a strong comment on whether it was scientific or not (as was the initial reason that the dubious tag was added), though I will say that I find it odd that the 18-49 population is not represented and that only people in the South were asked (this is probably a question best asked at RSN or similar). I do think that we need to discuss how we present it should it merit inclusion.
The full poll results are at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/31/rel9e.pdf and it contains a fair bit of additional data, even for the specific questions referred to in our article. It is interesting reading in any case, my gut reaction is that we should try to find a way to include all questions regarding Israel, perhaps grouped as (very+, mostly+) vs (mostly-, very-), in any case, we should try to be consistent in how we present it for those that we do include. I hope to hear your thoughts on this. un☯mi 01:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I just walked down to the WTC for a total trip of over five miles, so I'm somewhat exhausted, but I'll try to be useful. =p Yes, that is quite strange, but you are absolutely right that if it is included, we should discuss how we include the info in a way that is not exhaustive, and there should be definite consistency. I have not read the whole poll yet thoough, and am quite tired, like I said. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Geez, the Likudis. Science and the WTC in one discussion? How about a scientific examination of "Strained relations under Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama." One of the greatest political double-games in history unfolding. Einstein was just a talker, too, and now his "theories" are being debunked. Leave NASA to play with miners in Chile.
I just watched an interview with Herman Rosenblat, and rather amused.
Petey Parrot (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Petey, not to be a bore but I think that everyone involved - not to mention the article, would be best served by keeping the discussion focussed. There is a lot to do, so lets get it done :) Leaving the matter of this particular poll for a moment, how do you feel about us working out a structure for poll presentation in general? un☯mi 02:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It was added because it was the most modern reflection of public opinion in the United States concerning this topic.
Petey Parrot (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a poll of just people in the South though, and so it does not reflect public opinion in the United States, but a region, and even then it is just of white people (notice non-white is N/A) excluding anyone below the age of 50 (the majority of people in most countries). It's not a very useful poll really Sadly, I can't find any guideline for dealing with polls in Wiki. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a poll of Americans nationwide. 44 is not 52. Stop bringing down the curve.
Petey Parrot (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Please review the actual poll, which was linked, carefully. In none of the Israel-related questions are those polled in any other group than White Southerners above the age of 50. Upon closer examination, I see that none of those polled self-identify as liberal. What the heck? O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the very question that currently has that citation in the article is set up that way. Look, here is a screen capture with relevant parts highlighted: [2] I also see, upon viewing Southern_United_States, that Black Americans still make up a very significant portion of the population (not including the smaller groups they don't mention). Not only is this a lousy poll, but we're misrepresenting the source material in the article now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CNN_Poll_2011, as I believe that it could benefit from more eyes and (hopefully) a final decision either way. As for the discussion on the general presentation of polls, should we continue that here or take it to perhaps a WP:MOS talkpage, WP:NPOVN or WP:CNB? These are just suggestions, I am fine with keeping it here, though I think that 3 voices aren't enough for an outcome that could later be pointed to as holding a wider consensus. Best, un☯mi 06:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

MOS would be just peachy. There should be established a setup whereby review of the poll itself is strongly encouraged. ESPECIALLY the demographic info going by what we have here. Otherwise we just misrepresent the RS. I am fine with keeping it here if we say it is a poll among Southern Whites above the age of 50, which would look a bit silly, but is more accurate than what we have now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh go back to your state-run television, you won't have to worry about seeing it there.
Petey Parrot (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

`

Well it is gone now and replaced with a Gallop poll, so we no longer have to discuss the issues with it. Though I think they're important for future use of polls. How does one start an MoS thing again? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Leon Panetta not notable?

The SecDef never gets any respect. Hcobb (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the Secretary of Defense is notable, but rather it's whether his visit to Israel is notable. Things don't become notable just because they involve the Secretary of Defense. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Leon Panetta in Israel: Will his urgent messages bring action? Christian Science Monitor - 2129 related articles

World other than Wikistan seems to find the trip very notable. Hcobb (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
That something is reported on the news doesn't make it notable. Feel free to drop the sarcasm and personal attacks at any time, mate. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)."

Exactly what has indeed happened with the SecDef visit and his chilly reception. Hcobb (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Except not. No impact has been established, for example. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, please see WP:RECENT. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Tishrei 5772 05:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

RT Headline: Israeli ads implore Jews to not marry Americans

See article - anyone think it might be sufficiently relevant to the article? un☯mi 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The ads were pulled within a day of your article posting, so i'm guessing not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that - The tv campaign seems to have been stopped - but was discontinued due to the amount of criticism. See more: The Economist, Daily Beast, JFNA Letter stating: "While we recognize the motivations behind the ad campaign, we are strongly opposed to the messaging that American Jews do not understand Israel. We share the concerns many of you have expressed that this outrageous and insulting message could harm the Israel-Diaspora relationship."
The Atlantic containing: "Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has ordered the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption to immediately shut down the ad campaign." Some of the reports also mention existing billboards across the US, NY Times blog with "the campaign also includes billboards with the message “Before Abba Turns Into Daddy, it’s time to come back to Israel,” which have been spotted in American cities, including Boston, Los Angeles, New York and Palo Alto." More on Netanyahu pulling the plug here. And some novel info at digitaljournal un☯mi 07:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with Israel–United States relations. Might be worth a very brief mention in an article like [American Jews]], but even there, it would be a huge stretch. Jeff Song (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I found no reference to the polls mentioned in the first few sentences of the "Public Opinion" section of this article, can someone find that reference? If no one can I am going to delete those unproven statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredDead (talk • contribs) 08:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Party view on Israeli foreign aid

"This view is countered by that of the U.S. Libertarian Party, which argues that "[a critical view of U.S. FMF to Israel] is not an analysis of what we have gotten in return from our relationship with Israel as it is an adherence to the principle of non-intervention. There is great wisdom in remaining disconnected from the problems facing other nations, especially when these problems are complicated and have negative consequences for getting involved."

I removed this section as it given undue weight to the libertarian party. And WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This does not counter the views of the department of state. It doesn't really seem to serve a purpose than to advocate for the Libertarian Party of the USA. WP:GEVAL Giving Equal Validity to the opinion of the LP in contrast to the facts represented by the Department of State only stands to unduly legitimize the LP. I think can do that all on their own.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Pollard's treason justified by U.S. bad faith?

As of 14 December 2010 our content on Israel's spying activities on the United States read this way:

In November 1985, Jonathan Pollard, a civilian U.S. naval intelligence employee, and his wife were charged with selling classified documents to Israel. Four Israeli officials also were indicted. The Israeli government claimed that it was a rogue operation. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison and his wife to two consecutive five-year terms. Israelis complain that Pollard received an excessively harsh sentence, and some Israelis have made a cause of his plight. Pollard was granted Israeli citizenship in 1996, and Israeli officials periodically raise the Pollard case with U.S. counterparts, although there is not a formal request for clemency pending.


Right now, 23 August 2011, due mostly or entirely to edits by user Reenem, it reads as follows:

In 1984, Lekem, Israel's scientific and technological intelligence agency, recruited Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish employee of U.S. naval intelligence, to sell secrets to Israel following the United States' withholding of intelligence which Israel was entitled to under a Memorandum of Understanding. Pollard sold Lekem tens of thousands of classified documents, beginning in June 1984. His removal of documents was reported by a co-worker, leading to his arrest and conviction. Four Israeli officials also were indicted, but all remained in Israel to avoid possible arrest. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison and his wife to two consecutive five-year terms for having assisted him. Pollard received a stronger sentence than many other spies from less-friendly nations in order to discourage allies from spying.[81] He was granted Israeli citizenship in 1996, and Israeli officials periodically raise the Pollard case with U.S. counterparts.

 81. ^ Ross, Michael: The Volunteer: The Amazing True Story of an Israeli Spy on the Trail of International Terrorists (2007)


I just deleted the part of the first sentence that reads, "following the United States' withholding of intelligence which Israel was entitled to under a Memorandum of Understanding" because it was uncited and it implies that Pollard's treason was justified by some act of bad faith on the part of the United States. It was immediately restored by User Wikifan12345, who said in his edit summary that the memorandum of understanding, "is a real agreement".

I don't doubt that some kind of memorandum for intelligence-sharing does exist between Israel and the United States. What I very much doubt, however, are the implied or asserted claims in what I deleted that:

  • The alleged bad faith by the U.S. ever occurred,
  • Israel was "entitled" to the information that Pollard stole,
  • There is some causal connection between Pollard's recruitment and the alleged bad faith.

Also, user Reenem's final-sentence's assertion that "Pollard received a stronger sentence than many other spies from less-friendly nations in order to discourage allies from spying" could be upheld as actual fact only if the judge who sentenced Pollard actually said so. I greatly doubt the judge would have made so ridiculous an assertion. The citation that Reenem supplied for this assertion is to a book by former Israel-apologist and former Mossad officer Michael Ross, with no page number given.

Even if Ross made the claim somewhere in his book, it would clearly be nothing more than his own opinion. This sentence needs to go, as well; I suggest a revert to the previous version, viz. "Israelis complain that Pollard received an excessively harsh sentence, and some Israelis have made a cause of his plight."  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have problem with WP:RS you should go to the relevant board.About the phrase "Pollard received a stronger sentence than many other spies from less-friendly nations in order to discourage allies from spying" on what policy you base you assertion that it should be based on what Judge said the WP:RS can make such kind of assertions too.--Shrike (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly familiar with RSN, thank you, but it's not a relevant suggestion here. Because a Mossad agent opines that Pollard received too harsh a sentence, and believes the sentencing judge was trying to send some kind of message does not make the belief reportable as a fact. ( IIRC, the edit claiming that the U.S. withheld intelligence that Israel was "entitled" to was made well before the final-sentence claim about why Pollard received a life term penalty; the Ross book was added only as a claimed citation for that final sentence, it seems, not for the entire paragraph. ) We'll see what other editors have to say, I'm sure.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
P15 of the book says "The U.S. government wanted to make an example of Pollard, one that would discourage more serious acts of espionage by other allies. That's the only way to explain his receiving a prison sentence and gag order worse than those meted out to some convicted terrorists and Soviet-era communist moles." Citing this as a fact is unacceptable for several reasons. (1) the author is not a third party due to his history (and is highly partisan as anyone can see), (2) the author's words "That's the only way to explain" clearly indicates that it is an inference made by the author and not a fact known to the author. So the only way this could go into the article would be something like "Former Mossad agent Michael Ross surmises that Pollard received a harsh sentence because...". But then we'd have to ask why only the theory of one partisan writer should be featured and not the opinions of any others. I think it should go altogether. Zerotalk 13:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is par for the course; there is a propaganda campaign to portray Pollard in a positive light, as an Israel patriot instead of a greedy traitor who offered his services to multiple countries. There are editors like Shrike and Wikifan12345 who don't have a problem with dubious unsourced propaganda being added on Pollard's behalf. But they have a tantrum when when it's taken out. --32alpha4tango (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. it seem both these editors have been topic banned at some point - can someone point me to the details? thank you. --32alpha4tango (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is now 2014, and this section is non-existent however User:shrike is still alive and running in supressing information that would make Israel look at all responsible for wrongdoing. I find myself another victim, as I was reported by him of edit warring. I do not know if anyone else is still actively trying to make this section possible, but It seems to me IT MUST NOT DIE OUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by User50.14.223.132 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Image has an error

"Table from an April 11, 2013 Congressional Research Service report titled "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel"."

decimal point is in the wrong place for the year of 2011 in the military grant column — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalbendini (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israel–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Israel–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Kennedy and Johnson administration (1961-1969)

I want to add this: In 1962 the Kennedy Administration finalized the sale of the HAWK missile system to Israel. This deal was made because it was agreed by the Pentagon that the Israelis air defense displayed a need for the HAWK missile system after the UAR acquired Soviet TU-16s. Leading up to this deal, Kennedy had tried to have a neutral approach to the issues in the Middle East. Kennedy had tried to improve upon the Palestinian refugee issue by tying The Johnson Plan, which called for Israel to accept 100,000 refugees in the next 10 years, to the HAWK missiles sale. The Johnson Plan would later be rejected as a part of the deal by Foreign Minister Meir of Israel. Along with the Johnson Plan, Kennedy had also pressed for reassurance from Israel that there was no development of atomic weapons from the Dimona reactor. In 1963 Kennedy would get agreement on Dimona visits from the United States by David Ben Gurion and also reassurances of the peaceful intentions of the nuclear reactor in Israel’s possession. This agreement came only after the HAWK missile sale and also the United States affirmation of military assistance in case of any attacks on Israel. [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thernndez (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Little, Douglas. American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 2002. Print.
  2. ^ Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Charles D. Smith. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007. Print.
  3. ^ Cohen, Avner, and William Burr. "Kennedy, Dimona and the Nuclear Proliferation Problem: 1961-1962." The National Security Archive. The George Washington University, 21 Apr. 2016. Web. 31 Oct.2016.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Israel–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Israel–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2017

I am unfamiliar with the procedures involved with how to web-archive sources. I was wondering if one of the authorized administrators or editors for this Wikipedia article could web-archive the sources for notes 8, 146, 147, 149, and 150. They deal with the use of Israeli sites as war reserve stocks by the United States military to store American weapons and ammunition for the use of American military bases in the Middle East in a wartime contingency. Thank you. Suspended Time (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Already done as below. — IVORK Discuss 00:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Israel–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem Capitol

Seems appropriate to have an update on the page about U.S. President Trump acknowledging Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhtregorn (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

He said he will, he hasnt yet - GalatzTalk 13:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There's now violent protests in Jerusalem in response to the comments. [2][3] Uhtregorn (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Now into day three of clashes. [4]

References

  1. ^ US to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital in world first; BBC News; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42246564
  2. ^ Jerusalem row: Clashes erupt over Trump move; BBC News; December 8, 2017; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42278644
  3. ^ KARIN LAUB AND ILAN BEN ZION; Angry worshippers lash out against Trump across Muslim world; ABC News ;http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/palestinians-rally-prayers-us-jerusalem-move-51663632
  4. ^ Trump's Jerusalem move: Palestinian protests rage for third day; BBC News; December 9, 2017; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42294409

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israel–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

My proposed change applies to the footnote citation of the following sentence found at the end of the page's introduction/summary section:

Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East", when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year.

The existing citation for the above sentence should be replaced with the following citation of the transcript of the full interview with Senator Helms (so that there is only one citation for the above sentence):

Helms, Jesse (January 11, 1995). "Jesse Helms: Setting the Record Straight". Middle East Quarterly (Interview). Vol. 2, no. 1. Interviewed by Daniel Pipes; Patrick Clawson. Middle East Forum. Retrieved 2018-06-01. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: interviewers list (link) markmatney (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge the article Qualitative Military Edge into Israel–United States relations. Proposer's rationale: QME is a two-to-three sentence article despite being created in 2014, and has no problem being added under or as a sub-sub-header under the Strategic Cooperation subsection, where it is already mentioned. Pinging proposer @TheTiksiBranch: Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

Add information on the Trump Administration and the recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory (25th of March 2019) 86.168.130.195 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. [3]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2019

Please amend the line:

"Since the 1960s the United States is been very strong supporter of Israel,"

to

"Since the 1960s the United States HAS been A very strong supporter of Israel," 95.144.192.191 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

Please amend the line:

"Since the 1960s the United States has been very strong supporter of Israel,"

to

"Since the 1960s, the United States has been considered a very strong supporter of Israel,"

Please note the comma after "1960s".

Recommend negative. "is considered" by some uncited anonymous people?? Better leave as it--the point represents consensus of experts and is not controversial. Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Gilad Erdan

Surely he is now the Israeli ambassador to the US? I don't have extended confirmed rights so I cannot make any edits. The template near the beginning of the article has not been updated yet. Roman Biggus (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Seventy-four percent of these funds must be spent purchasing US goods and services"

The reference given for this figure is the following news article from the Jerusalem Post: https://web.archive.org/web/20130104080827/http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=298336

The news article states the following: "Israel receives some $3 billion in annual US military assistance, some 74 percent of which is spent in the US."

Saying that "some 74 percent of which is spent in the US" is obviously completely different than saying "Seventy-four percent of these funds must be spent purchasing US goods and services". This needs to be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A streetcar named ire (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions

Can you name a continuous US policy defending Israel from Syria? Israel can handle them, and had been able to for a long time. The US also has more strong statements then actions on the Iran issue.

Also, I think ideas exemplified by things like this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/american-military-aid-israel-context/585988/ That money over men as a reason for giving should go somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:211B:3335:AE82:27E (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Under “Foreign Policy of the US Government” there is the following sentence

“By 1961 there were 1.2 Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.” 

Should it be 1.2 million? 2600:8800:2303:8B00:15B6:79D7:EFFB:1C7 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done But a citation would be nice. Zerotalk 07:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Blatant Innacuracy

The overview contains this sentence: "Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to other countries.[2]"

This is blatantly inaccurate. The US spends about the same just to keep forces in Japan alone (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/23/heres-what-it-costs-keep-us-troops-japan-and-south-korea.html). The article cited is an opinion in a place where their shouldn't be any, and its frankly wrong. Whats different is the US tends to focus on money rather then arms, but even then, Jordan gets almost half of Israel's cash, and the US ally in the Afgani government eats up more by a large margin. And this ignores mass US aid to countries like Japan regularly (https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/JPN), which factored in mean Japan, for example, has more money from US support than Israel.

You really can't see the difference between money a country spends on its own armed forces and money it gives to another country? Zerotalk 07:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"united" Jerusalem?

To editor Zeex.rice: You cited a newspaper article written several days before the formal announcement. The actual announcement says nothing about united Jerusalem. Instead it says the opposite: "The United States continues to take no position on any final status issues. The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties. The United States is not taking a position on boundaries or borders." Zerotalk 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

criticism

is there no section on criticism of this relationship? god knows, there's plenty of it. Both from right-winged groups and academics in the usa. then you can other sources too, but the first 2 certainly bear relevance. See Mearsheimer. Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I would like to second your statement. This piece is essentially one sided. A modicum of objectivity is needed which is severly lacking in the article. I can not believe there is no mention of immense cost the relationship places upon the American government and its people. There is also no mention of how US foreign policy on israel is greatly influenced by AIPAC and related zionist lobbies. When I have more free time I will try to add a criticism section because there is plenty written. If anyone else has the time, I would be grateful if you could do it. Mbcap (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful about adding your own pov into that section because considering the way you are describing the relationship you obviously have your own pov but just remember not to let that seep into your editing. - SantiLak (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Santilak for letting me know. It was not my intention to put my pov across but I appreciate that my section above may have come across that way so I shall endevour to avoid doing that in the future. I thought that since there was so much about the positives of the relationship and the good reasons about why the relationship is important, wikipedians should also have access to the entire spectrum of analysis regarding us-israeli relations in order to make their own informed judgement regarding the issue. This is bascially what I wanted to say. The points above regarding AIPAC, related zionist lobbies and cost of the relationship were made because they are the only issues I have read about in credible sources. Regardless I will improve my interactions in the future. Mbcap (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you there should be a section about this especially in light of former president Donald Trump's interview with Ari Hoffman on 10/29/2021 in which the former president said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually."[1] MYS1979 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ KHODORKOVSKY, NATAN. "Trump says 'Israel literally owned Congress' in interview". Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2 November 2021.

Why is this protected?

I was wondering why this is protected? -2600:1005:B126:D014:38A1:A6D:2D67:4F1 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See the very top of this talk page. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

To make such a broad statement of ‘the us promoting good relations’ in what has been a tumultuous history of yes, some good, but also some horrible decisions that have had lasting impact have been made as well. To just simply say it as it’s currently written is misleading and one could even argue biased. It’s far more complex… Ramahamalincoln (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Major non-NATO ally

"Israel is designated by the United States as a major non-NATO ally, and was the first country to be granted this status alongside Egypt in 1987; Israel and Egypt remain the only countries in the Middle East to have this designation."

No longer true since Qatar is a major non-NATO ally of the US. 74.101.253.193 (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

For the USS Liberty Incident: US politicians and Navy personnel who believe the incident was deliberate at the time should be added as a reference.

The then United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Chief of Naval Operations at the time, Admiral Thomas Moorer, some survivors of the attack and intelligence officials familiar with transcripts of intercepted signals on the day, have rejected the US conclusions as unsatisfactory and maintain that the attack was made in the knowledge that the ship was American.[1][2][3] JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ John Crewdson (2 October 2007). "New revelations in attack on American spy ship". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007.
  2. ^ Tim Fischer, "Six days of war, 40 years of secrecy", Archived 10 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Age 27 May 2007.
  3. ^ Quigley (2013), p. 93 Cf. Dean Rusk, As I Saw it: A Secretary of State's Memoirs, W. W. Norton, 1990, pp. 386–388

Biden Administration section needs an updated information

With the new netanyahu government US relations with Israel have gotten more tense.The state department has condemned smotrich and the US is refusing to work with ben gvir. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction

In the kennedy and johnson administrations' section, during the part of the six day war, there is a mistake in a paragraph, stating the "six-war days". 37.143.55.247 (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Request to add Antisemitism in the United States under the section Israel–United States relations#See also. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that relevant? This is an article about the formal relations between the nations (basically, the governments of) Israel and the United States. Antisemitism in the United States is a far broader topic that largely is about bigotry against the Jewish people in general and more specifically Jews living in the United States, the vast majority of whom are not Israeli citizens and thus have nothing to do with the topic of relations between the countries of Israel and the United States. Sure, some of that antisemitism is rooted in the beliefs among said bigots regarding either US relations with Israel (false or otherwise), conspiracies about Israel controlling the US (which are false and have no bearing on the reality of US/Israel relations), or the bigoted belief tying all American Jews as having dual loyalty to Israel (which, again, isn't true and therefore has no bearing on this article either). So, for the most part, it isn't really relevant, in my opinion. Feel free to disagree and argue for its inclusion, though. I'm certainly open to hearing justification, and I would think other editors would be as well. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Visa Waiver Program.

As of September 27th 2023, Israel is part of the visa waiver program. Please update. Steveonsi (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

Change X:

Then senator Jesse Helms, argued that the military foothold offered by Israel in the region alone justified the expense of American military aid; referring to Israel as "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East".[1][2]

to Y:


Then senator Jesse Helms, argued that the military foothold offered by Israel in the region alone justified the expense of American military aid; referring to Israel as "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East".[1][3]

According to the political analyst Martin Kramer, Israel because of its status as a nuclear weapons power has helped in keeping the nations of the eastern Mediterranean region or Levant militarily manageable for The United States of America, and that Israel's nuclear arsenal has helped to prevent by way of nuclear deterrence a major Arab-Israeli war since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when the then Soviet backed nations of Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. The nations bordering Israel, including the occupied Palestinian territories, are Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.[4] Suspended Time (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Suspended Time: is this to be understood that you aren't looking for a change but an addition of the second paragraph? A change to the lead would require a little more consensus, and personally I think this is too much ({{leadtoolong}}). Is there another place you think this content may be more appropriate? microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I was originally looking for an extension to the first paragraph. Maybe the second paragraph could be placed after the section in the Wikipedia article dealing with how Israel increases the geostrategic power and influence of the United States in the Middle East, or in the current section already dealing with Israel's nuclear arsenal. Suspended Time (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe my original request could be placed after the sentence ending with footnote number 9, or in the paragraph dealing with Israel's quantitative military edge. Suspended Time (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Correction: I meant qualitative military edge. Suspended Time (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Top Secret American Military Installations in Israel". Jonathanpollard.org. 2004-01-28. Retrieved 2015-11-08.
  2. ^ Helms, Jesse (January 11, 1995). "Jesse Helms: Setting the Record Straight". Middle East Quarterly (Interview). Vol. 2, no. 1. Interviewed by Daniel Pipes; Patrick Clawson. Middle East Forum. Retrieved 2018-06-01.
  3. ^ Helms, Jesse (January 11, 1995). "Jesse Helms: Setting the Record Straight". Middle East Quarterly (Interview). Vol. 2, no. 1. Interviewed by Daniel Pipes; Patrick Clawson. Middle East Forum. Retrieved 2018-06-01.
  4. ^ Martin Kramer, "The American Interest", 21 September 2006, in The Washington Institute for Near East Policy ,
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lead is also already very long. Lewcm Talk to me! 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2024

In the "Sources" section, source 152. should link out to The Congressional Research Service, but instead links out to Project on Government Secrecy.

The same PDF is produced, but CRS is the primary source.

Proposed URL: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33222/44

Current URL: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf Ericispublius (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks. NotAGenious (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Export dollars per job

The article states "The free trade agreement with Israel creates the most American jobs per export dollar of all of the United States' free trade agreements [4]". The reference states "exports to Israel generate the highest amount of export dollars per job" and gives figures backing this up. It look to me as if 'jobs per export dollar' in the article should be changed to 'export dollars per job'? [4] https://www.thetower.org/article/israel-gives-much-more-to-the-u-s-economy-than-you-imagined/ DaveA1967 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of subjective language

In the section on Kennedy’s presidency, the article contains the sentence 

‘ The United Nations General assembly was generally anti-Israel, but all decisions were subject to American veto power in the Security Council. According to international law, UNGA resolutions are not legally binding while UNSC resolutions are.’

I would like to suggest removal of the first part of this sentence, as this “anti-Israel” phrase is a subjective personal judgement.

An alternative edit could change the first part of the sentence to ‘[unga] adopted many resolutions critical of/opposed to Israel‘ or something similar.

Either way, it is my view that the current language is not objective. 145.15.244.217 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–United_States_relations/Archive_1&oldid=1260051168"