Western Unity and Security

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
I usually write long posts but I do not want to bore you with a wall of text so I will make it briefly this time. Please share your opinions, and hopefully I will be proven wrong.

2014 - Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some sanctions on Russia, then Russia adapts to them and they're not really renewed. The west is yet asleep. Surely Russia is sated.
late 2010's - early 2020's - Iran approaches nuclear capability. Agreement is made with the aim to merely postpone it rather than actually deal with it. Surely by delaying it long enough the Iranians will forget as much as we did, right?
2022 - Russia invades Ukraine again. New sanctions that in time Russia adapts to once again. Industrial mobilization is hyped but fails to occur. 2 years later the west struggles to provide any more aid.
2023 - Hamas massacres ~1,200 in Israel and kidnaps ~250. Massive support for the massacre in the west highlights the severity of the internal threat western nations face, both from immigrants and from deeply indoctrinated youth.
2024 - Warnings about potential Russian invasion further into Europe are published, and Transnistria invites its annexation by Russia.

Illustration of the threat from within:

What are the western nations thinking? The world's tyrants are coming to get us and we bury our heads in the sand. There is no "other home". There is nowhere left to go. It's as if there is no disaster horrible enough to get the western governments to wake up to meet the challenge, or even wake up the people to elect new task-oriented governments.
Am I missing something? Could there be more positive trends at the moment that do favor the west?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Thanks to American political dysfunction along with a huge waste of money on their war on terror, Pax America is pretty much over. Western greed resulted in some early profits in China but investment and tech transfer has created a new unfriendly emerging superpower. The failure to deal with NK's nuclear program was huge clue on how not to deal with proliferation. Once Iran gets a bomb, containment is impossible.

Western societies can't seem to produce political leaders that can see beyond their own political survival, not surprising considering the non-interest by most of their electorates in issues other than those involving benefits or tax breaks. Every NATO member should be investing 1% of GDP (at least) above their current defence spending on their MIC capabilities. Despite the Ukraine war, minimal investment is occurring. The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and a few others have frigate programs that are years away....meanwhile in China? In short Big_Z, don't think you are missing any positive trends favouring the West.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
Unity?
When the US has applied a failed state strategy all around Israel? And we paid the price in Refugees?
When our main partner is and was Iran but it is directly opposite to Israel and US sentiment? And we pay the economic price?
When the US pushed so hard for the Arab springs that brought such instability? And we pay the price by having terrorist attacks?

Being half Latino, thus familiar with Operation Condor, I bet (no proof at all) that Maidan had also some degree of CIA's work behind it. Just in case not justifying nor saying Russia is innocent, on the contrary they are and they were a great danger (Georgia invasion should have been more than enought)

Nah we aren't allies, we are client states of the empire. Pax Americana has been good, but some specific lobbies in DC, have pushed the limits too far.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I usually write long posts but I do not want to bore you with a wall of text so I will make it briefly this time. Please share your opinions, and hopefully I will be proven wrong.

2014 - Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some sanctions on Russia, then Russia adapts to them and they're not really renewed. The west is yet asleep. Surely Russia is sated.
late 2010's - early 2020's - Iran approaches nuclear capability. Agreement is made with the aim to merely postpone it rather than actually deal with it. Surely by delaying it long enough the Iranians will forget as much as we did, right?
2022 - Russia invades Ukraine again. New sanctions that in time Russia adapts to once again. Industrial mobilization is hyped but fails to occur. 2 years later the west struggles to provide any more aid.
2023 - Hamas massacres ~1,200 in Israel and kidnaps ~250. Massive support for the massacre in the west highlights the severity of the internal threat western nations face, both from immigrants and from deeply indoctrinated youth.
2024 - Warnings about potential Russian invasion further into Europe are published, and Transnistria invites its annexation by Russia.
This narrative ignores everything else going on and often does some selective focusing on things. Transnestria has asked for Russian annexation in 2006 after running a referendum, in 2014 they sent a letter to Russia asking for annexation, in 2016 they had a presidential decree to work towards Russian annexation, Transnestria's new president in 2017 again highlighted that they're working towards annexation by Russia, and somehow the 2024 and only the 2024 invitation is significant to the narrative and falls in line with this idea of tyrants? This is just one example, but we can go into similar levels of detail on many of the other points you raise.

What are the western nations thinking? The world's tyrants are coming to get us and we bury our heads in the sand. There is no "other home". There is nowhere left to go. It's as if there is no disaster horrible enough to get the western governments to wake up to meet the challenge, or even wake up the people to elect new task-oriented governments.
Am I missing something? Could there be more positive trends at the moment that do favor the west?
I think the west is having a major problem. The middle class is dying, wealth is becoming increasingly more concentrated in a few hands, and birth rates are at dangerously low levels (I suspect in line with the economic issues). Without a strong middle class there is no liberal democracy. And the political leadership seems to be responding to the economic powers that exist rather then to their own citizenry.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Declining middle class, absolutely and yes this is partial reason for a low birth rate. As for political leadership responding to economic power elites, certainly true for the US. The huge costs in the US running for office makes sucking up to elites essential, especially for House members that stupidly have to repeat the process every two years. Wealth concentration in Canada….not so much, wealth draining by junior is a bigger problem. Not sure about Europe, SK or Japan. The service industry versus manufacturing debate is settled, manufacturing is more important IMHO.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Unity?
When the US has applied a failed state strategy all around Israel? And we paid the price in Refugees?
When our main partner is and was Iran but it is directly opposite to Israel and US sentiment? And we pay the economic price?
When the US pushed so hard for the Arab springs that brought such instability? And we pay the price by having terrorist attacks?

Being half Latino, thus familiar with Operation Condor, I bet (no proof at all) that Maidan had also some degree of CIA's work behind it. Just in case not justifying nor saying Russia is innocent, on the contrary they are and they were a great danger (Georgia invasion should have been more than enought)

Nah we aren't allies, we are client states of the empire. Pax Americana has been good, but some specific lobbies in DC, have pushed the limits too far.
I'm not really sure what perspective you're writing this from and what exactly are you trying to argue, to be honest.

This narrative ignores everything else going on and often does some selective focusing on things. Transnestria has asked for Russian annexation in 2006 after running a referendum, in 2014 they sent a letter to Russia asking for annexation, in 2016 they had a presidential decree to work towards Russian annexation, Transnestria's new president in 2017 again highlighted that they're working towards annexation by Russia, and somehow the 2024 and only the 2024 invitation is significant to the narrative and falls in line with this idea of tyrants? This is just one example, but we can go into similar levels of detail on many of the other points you raise.
You are correct that it's not the first occurrence, but the timing is important and regardless of how many times it's repeated - it's still some form of threat to nations that border Transnistrtia and rightfully fear having a border with Russia. The bigger picture is that the west does have reasons to fear, but it's not reacting with either flight or fight, rather just freezes.

I think the west is having a major problem. The middle class is dying, wealth is becoming increasingly more concentrated in a few hands, and birth rates are at dangerously low levels (I suspect in line with the economic issues). Without a strong middle class there is no liberal democracy. And the political leadership seems to be responding to the economic powers that exist rather then to their own citizenry.
Yes, I agree with that. Low birth rates partially due to skyrocketing costs of living. Any other major factors for a dying middle class?
Because when coupling that with concentration of wealth - it doesn't make that much sense. Even billionnaires don't hold all their money in a bank account. It's spread out over different investments and properties that ultimately breathe life into the economy. Perhaps the issue is more related to the governments and their relative lack of action regarding deflation of prices?

Perhaps a larger focus on personal affairs - how to complete education, how to survive a month, how to finance a child etc, serves as some inhibitor of activism?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
You are correct that it's not the first occurrence, but the timing is important and regardless of how many times it's repeated - it's still some form of threat to nations that border Transnistrtia and rightfully fear having a border with Russia. The bigger picture is that the west does have reasons to fear, but it's not reacting with either flight or fight, rather just freezes.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument. I was under the impression that you were suggesting a trend line. I'm pointing out that there isn't necessarily a trend line there. And of course when it comes to tyranny vs freedom, one has to wonder whether championing state sovereignty over the rights to self determination serves freedom or tyranny. Remember, Abkhazia really doesn't want to be part of Georgia. But nobody is interested in their opinion because their backer is Russia and Russia is "the bad guy". Many of these conflicts don't fall into simple categories, and I think the picture of this trend is misleading. But if the trend line is not your argument, then perhaps I have missed then point and would appreciate an elaboration.

Yes, I agree with that. Low birth rates partially due to skyrocketing costs of living. Any other major factors for a dying middle class?
Because when coupling that with concentration of wealth - it doesn't make that much sense. Even billionnaires don't hold all their money in a bank account. It's spread out over different investments and properties that ultimately breathe life into the economy. Perhaps the issue is more related to the governments and their relative lack of action regarding deflation of prices?

Perhaps a larger focus on personal affairs - how to complete education, how to survive a month, how to finance a child etc, serves as some inhibitor of activism?
I don't think a focus on personal affairs will help. When populations at large change their behavior I believe socioeconomic factors underlie the shift. I tried to draft a relatively brief response to this and realized that it would take quite a bit to do these questions justice. I will try to give you a lengthy reply doing justice to the depth and breadth of the issues at hand.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Economic stress, the current geopolitical environment, and climate change, not exactly inducement for starting a family.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Economic stress, the current geopolitical environment, and climate change, not exactly inducement for starting a family.
But even in countires that are rich, have great (relatively) work life balance, high education, strong worker protection laws and massive amounts of social spending, the number of kids are dropping too fast. Like the scandinavian and other rich small european countries. Even in the UK, where people constantly complain, they give out a chunk of money for having children, they have strong worker laws and higher education is not something parents have to put massive amounts of savings into, the number of children are still falling.

So I disagree with the arguments, that stress and cost of living are reducing childrates at this level. Even in optimum conditions having and raising children is a sacrifice and as people have more they are willing to sacrifice less. The idea time to have kids physically is in your 20s, but people in their 20s dont want to sacrifice their peak lifetimes to having and raising kids.

from my uneducated perspective, the one factor that I can attribute to kids is religion. Where people are religious they tend to have more kids. If you believe in an afterlife and believe that your real reward and enjoyment is not for this life, its easier to sacrifice your good times here to raising kids.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
^ Re kids. Better education (that requires more time and financial investment, partially due to limited availability of manufacturing jobs that are also now lower paid jobs due to globalization among other factors), wide range of available contraceptives, realization that raising kids “properly” is a lot more work and time consuming, cost of education and housing, as well as child care and child related activities (sports, etc), both spouses having to work in order to maintain (sometimes merely trying to maintain) a respectable or decent livelihood, women enjoying equal (or at least comparable) rights, providing for more freedom, but also concentration on personal self (education, career, etc), which leads to the “artificially” higher lower limit of childbearing age (comes with lower fertility rates), making having more than two (in many cases one) children that much harder (and often impossible), and so on. Of course, there is also lifestyle in urban centers where most population resides in the developed world. The same urbanization and population density being responsible (counterintuitively) for things like travel time to work (plenty of people spend easily 2-3 hours per day just commuting to and from work, in addition to 8 hours they spend there), for example. And many other factors, but this is of the top of my head.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument. I was under the impression that you were suggesting a trend line. I'm pointing out that there isn't necessarily a trend line there. And of course when it comes to tyranny vs freedom, one has to wonder whether championing state sovereignty over the rights to self determination serves freedom or tyranny. Remember, Abkhazia really doesn't want to be part of Georgia. But nobody is interested in their opinion because their backer is Russia and Russia is "the bad guy". Many of these conflicts don't fall into simple categories, and I think the picture of this trend is misleading. But if the trend line is not your argument, then perhaps I have missed then point and would appreciate an elaboration.
I did refer to some trend line but one that is unrelated to Russia or the topic of tyranny vs freedom, but rather just that the general security threat to Europe has been growing and likely to keep growing. And Europe in turn appears overly relaxed, just taking those threats for granted and hoping they'll fade away with time.

I don't think a focus on personal affairs will help. When populations at large change their behavior I believe socioeconomic factors underlie the shift. I tried to draft a relatively brief response to this and realized that it would take quite a bit to do these questions justice. I will try to give you a lengthy reply doing justice to the depth and breadth of the issues at hand.
I think you misinterpreted me. I referred to focus on personal affairs as a negative, not a solution. Through proper redistribution of wealth from government to society, welfare programs, and quality of life improvements, a society can refocus itself on grander issues, indeed like climate change - or security and long term geopolitical strategies.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes, I agree with that. Low birth rates partially due to skyrocketing costs of living. Any other major factors for a dying middle class?
Because when coupling that with concentration of wealth - it doesn't make that much sense. Even billionnaires don't hold all their money in a bank account. It's spread out over different investments and properties that ultimately breathe life into the economy. Perhaps the issue is more related to the governments and their relative lack of action regarding deflation of prices?
Ok. So my thoughts on the dying middle class. I think everything you listed is the consequence not the cause of it's death. Ultimately the rise of the middle class, bourgeoisie, burghers, city dwellers, is tied to the increasing urbanization in the late middle ages, and the early capitalist economies. This rise began as early as the 12th century in Italy but didn't culminate in something like a modern nation-state (as opposed to a feudal arrangement) until the 16th century. From there begins the history of the ascendance of the middle class in what is commonly referred to as The West.

For this discussion there are several big points to understand. Economies are not static arrangements. They are processes that run in a specific direction, generally in the direction of greater amounts of capital and greater concentrations of capital. This trend can't really be reversed in the long run, and short term reversals tend to involve major problems for all participants. The middle class itself became more and more necessary because educated labor was more productive in ways that uneducated low-skill labor never could be. Consequently the balance between the interests of skilled labor (and I include the professions here) and interests of the ruling elites began to shift. It became necessary to provide more and more education in order to have skilled labor and have it be productive, but educated skilled labor quickly started wanting more for their work, and started asking uncomfortable questions that led eventually to the emergence of revolutionary situations across Europe. This led to the inevitable dismantling of the feudal political and societal super-structures that existed, and their replacement by some sort of power sharing arrangement between the elites and the middle class, generally formalized either as a liberal democracy or a constitutional monarchy. None of this was out of any inherent love for freedom, or due to democracy being inherently great. It was all borne out of necessity and compromise.

This arrangement reached it's peak in the mid 20th century, and was strengthened by the emergence of state socialism in the Soviet Union and other parts of the world. A very real existential threat made ruling elites far more willing to compromise with their own people, economically this was the peak of capitalism. Capital was being generated quickly but was not all that concentrated. And the very real threat of a world wide communist movement made the ruling classes far more willing to provide prosperity at home. Resources were relatively abundant and cheap globally, and there was relatively little competition for the west outside the west. While the state socialist economies were often described as competing with the west, this was mostly untrue. Their competition was political and military, but Soviet goods weren't pushing out western ones, and western goods weren't pushing out Soviet ones. The state socialist economies mostly operated in a separate bubble. Trade did take place but it was fairly limited. This is where the traditional picture of western prosperity comes from. It's the fairly limited period of time from the '50s until the early 2000's. Before that life for an average person in Western Europe or America was fairly rough. Standards of living were low, healthcare and education were not nearly as good or as widespread as they are now.

This period is now over. We are headed into a future where from an economic stand point the developed economies have to compete with more and more emergent capitalist economies in what used to be the third world. Resources are objectively less available and often more expensive to extract. Former socialist economies that used to be their own sphere now compete directly for many of the same markets. This is coupled with an increase in the level of automation in production, and this automation is starting to take over spheres where traditionally it couldn't. As a result first world workers, that very same skilled labor, is losing the race to both ever smarter machines (consider what "research bots" did to the paralegal profession in the US), and to third world competitors (if you can work from home, you can work from Kualu Lumpur, and salaries there are much lower). On top of this the concentration of wealth is creating a system where economic and therefore political power is becoming ever more concentrated. Why sell someone a home when you can buy all the homes and rent them out? Why sell anything and let people own it when you can instead just charge for access? This is coupled with financial mechanisms that are actively transferring wealth from the middle class to the upper class. A great example of that is the situation with US higher education. It's becoming ever more expensive yet ever less economically advantageous. And the entire educational establishment is busy funneling people towards college. Middle class families have to start saving at the birth of a child, to try and cover tuition and living expenses for 4 years of schooling. Meanwhile degrees are being given in fields that are often ridiculous, or at the very least effectively useless. And remember, education, skilled labor, is key to the middle class. The upper class reproduces itself through inherited wealth. The middle class has some inherited wealth but leans heavily on being able to make a good living by employment. This is why the wealth of the upper class is measured in net worth, and of the middle class it's typically measured in their salary. There are objective reasons for this trend, and there are subjective ones. The example of insanely overpriced US education or healthcare in the latter categories. They are effectively economic mechanisms that pump money out of the middle class.

The need for political compromise is thus less, and with a less educated and poorer population, populists arise, and people are more and more willing to follow idiots, and to vote against their own interests. It requires a certain level of awareness of the issues, and recognition of what would benefit you to vote in a way that helps you rather then harms you. Thus we have a deterioration of liberal democracy itself, through the decline of the middle class. To me this explains both Donald Trump and the Democrats. You see people expressing ridiculous levels of support for a senile old man that doesn't appear to run much of anything, and for a bigoted crook who can't string 3 words together without sounding like a moron. This also explains the rising level of political apathy, the emergence of clearly reactionary movements like the extreme right, and of notionally progressive movements with ridiculous or even insane platforms (BLM anyone?), or even no platforms at all. I believe we are firmly entering late stage capitalism. When the WEF speaker says that we will own nothing, they are just stating a fact. This is the macroeconomic direction that the collective west is headed in. As asset ownership becomes more and more concentrated, paying for access will be the preferred model, and as educated labor becomes both less needed, and more competitive, the middle class will likely be merging with the lower class. These processes don't take place on human time scales, and there can be deviations to the right, or left, or even temporary reversals. There will be political and societal crises that will accompany much of this and that will often overshadow the slower economic processes.

Can anything be done? Well... theoretically yes, but it would require taking measures that are unpleasant for the pocket books of those holding the capital in question. And given the mobility of capital and the high level of globalization of most developed economies it's unclear if this will work on a practical level. More significant however is the near complete absence of political will to do much of anything at least in the US. The middle class continues to get poorer, the upper class continues to get richer, and the issues being debated are abortion, gun control, immigration (but in a way that doesn't offer any solutions), and identity politics (of all the nonsense). To me they mostly look like red herrings, that have little to do with underlying economic processes or the decline of the middle class that's going to significantly though relatively slowly impact practically all Americans.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I tend to agree with a significant amount of your comment. Add in the unsustainable 8 billion souls all aspiring to the same lifestyle that used to exist in the Western middle class as well. A major global war or more lethal pandemic will sort things out. A big rock from outer space might be preferable though.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I tend to agree with a significant amount of your comment. Add in the unsustainable 8 billion souls all aspiring to the same lifestyle that used to exist in the Western middle class as well. A major global war or more lethal pandemic will sort things out. A big rock from outer space might be preferable though.
I actually think from a material stand point we can provide good quality of life for substantially more then 8 billion people. But it will require better urban planning, a significant investment into infrastructure, and a major effort in nuclear energy. Hell there are still vast swathes of the planet that are very sparsely populated yet have considerable resources. The current death of the middle class has to do with the economic arrangement rather then just plain Malthusian overpopulation.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
The example of insanely overpriced US education or healthcare in the latter categories. They are effectively economic mechanisms that pump money out of the middle class.
The overpriced US educational systems agree at this moment going to pump out money from middle class that has no choices to invest more for their Children education. However the changes on workplace landscape also begin to drive younger generation from Colleges and Uni. The drove toward community colleges or other vocational educations also driven not only by increasingly insane costs on Universities, but also because the changes in workplaces raises questions for many on continuing Investment in Uni Education.

Also not forgetting that many Uni and College in US and West (including Canada and Australia) also increasingly depending on Foreign Students for their bottom line.


The raising qualities from Asian Universities, increasing competition from other Western Uni like Canadian, Australian, UK and Euro Continents also driving off Foreign Students from US institutions. Combination of Domestic lower demand and Foreign Students slow down, potentially push Crowding Out effect. When (not if) this happen then this going to reduce US Universities dominance in RnD and Innovation on future landscape.

All this going to leveling off US and West leads on higher education from Asians and even some other Global South higher education institutions. People talk on Industrial competitiveness, but sometimes forget that the sustainability of that depends on the qualities of your educational systems, especially your Uni's. The current situation on US higher educational costs, will very potentially reduce US own dominances.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@Ananda You are correct about Canadian universities being overly dependent on foreign student revenue because they are financially struggling. In fact some provinces charge 40% more for out of province Canadian students! The government is now starting to restrict foreign students due to the housing shortage. At this point skilled trades are what the country needs. Although university education cost is significantly less in Canada versus the US, it is still a huge investment that for many is not a good one.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
In fact some provinces charge 40% more for out of province Canadian students! The government is now starting to restrict foreign students due to the housing shortage.
At the time I come to US for my Master, I believe the business model on charging out of state students more then state residents already exists. Foreign students can get more premium cost on top of that, and that's in 90's. Even with what you have point out, the Canadian Uni costs in average is still below average similar rank US Uni. That's the problem with runaway cost increase in US Uni and Colleges. You drive out not only Domestics but also Foreign Students. Then how business model can sustain the other functions of Universities and Higher learning institutions, that's research. There's limit on endowment fund can be got from your alumnies.


At this point skilled trades are what the country needs
Agree, and that add decreasing demands from Domestics. That's why I said if the trend continues, then there will be crowding out effect from Higher Educations institutions. That's not going to be good for long term trend. The States and Federal Government has to take actions to safe guards the Higher Learning institutions. Making people reluctant to go to them due increasing unaffordabilities is a threat to any nation competitiveness in long-term
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
At the time I come to US for my Master, I believe the business model on charging out of state students more then state residents already exists. Foreign students can get more premium cost on top of that, and that's in 90's. Even with what you have point out, the Canadian Uni costs in average is still below average similar rank US Uni. That's the problem with runaway cost increase in US Uni and Colleges. You drive out not only Domestics but also Foreign Students. Then how business model can sustain the other functions of Universities and Higher learning institutions, that's research. There's limit on endowment fund can be got from your alumnies.




Agree, and that add decreasing demands from Domestics. That's why I said if the trend continues, then there will be crowding out effect from Higher Educations institutions. That's not going to be good for long term trend. The States and Federal Government has to take actions to safe guards the Higher Learning institutions. Making people reluctant to go to them due increasing unaffordabilities is a threat to any nation competitiveness in long-term
Canadian universities are subsidized by both federal and provincial governments here, not really familiar about US universities. The federal government also provides R&D grants to faculty members. There is a growing realization that many degree programs are totally useless so this is another reason for declining enrolments. The other huge issue is housing for out of town students, both cost and availability in our cities.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
Following sanctions that were imposed on Israeli individuals for the first time, the US now imposes sanctions on an Israeli company that sells, among other things, defense products to Israel and the US in the form of components for the Iron Dome.


The article quotes American authorities saying that the company receiving subsidies from the Israeli government under regional development programs constitutes a prohibited subsidy.
The choice of company in light of its contribution to a strategic project as well as the timing, show an unsettling trend of US involvement in Israeli internal affairs down to its economical model.
Israel's industries are mostly centered in various industrial parks, themselves situated strategically in a way that feeds local development around them. To support this ecosystem, Israel provides such companies with various financial benefits and incentives. This is further amplified when the industry in question contributes to a national project or national security. There is a lot of logic behind this system, and if the US pushes forward with this, it could essentially shake up the entire Israel-US trade relations.

Doing this in the middle of a war, amid delays to an aid bill to Israel, spiking antisemitism, and on no less than a strategic product, is sure to raise questions about whether this might be a political move.

I could write a lecture about why I believe Netanyahu sabotages US-Israel relations, but it seems Biden is taking an even more dangerous and alienating approach. Public support for the US is at its highest in Israel. However there are, mostly incompetent, voices to downgrade relations with the US. I was hoping that Biden could counter that and weather it out until a new government is elected in Israel, but it seems he went the exact opposite way and unfortunately this does feed those voices which naturally will move into the general public discourse.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Following sanctions that were imposed on Israeli individuals for the first time, the US now imposes sanctions on an Israeli company that sells, among other things, defense products to Israel and the US in the form of components for the Iron Dome.


The article quotes American authorities saying that the company receiving subsidies from the Israeli government under regional development programs constitutes a prohibited subsidy.
The choice of company in light of its contribution to a strategic project as well as the timing, show an unsettling trend of US involvement in Israeli internal affairs down to its economical model.
Israel's industries are mostly centered in various industrial parks, themselves situated strategically in a way that feeds local development around them. To support this ecosystem, Israel provides such companies with various financial benefits and incentives. This is further amplified when the industry in question contributes to a national project or national security. There is a lot of logic behind this system, and if the US pushes forward with this, it could essentially shake up the entire Israel-US trade relations.

Doing this in the middle of a war, amid delays to an aid bill to Israel, spiking antisemitism, and on no less than a strategic product, is sure to raise questions about whether this might be a political move.

I could write a lecture about why I believe Netanyahu sabotages US-Israel relations, but it seems Biden is taking an even more dangerous and alienating approach. Public support for the US is at its highest in Israel. However there are, mostly incompetent, voices to downgrade relations with the US. I was hoping that Biden could counter that and weather it out until a new government is elected in Israel, but it seems he went the exact opposite way and unfortunately this does feed those voices which naturally will move into the general public discourse.
Do you think the underlying issues are untrue? Or do you think they are true and the US has allowed it to go on for some time but has now decided to crack down?
 
Top