Israeli organ borrowing revisited

[Barrister]

That's right. 

I really wish you would put  more effort into this.

Funny, I wish the same thing about you.   

You make two statements so outlandishly silly that no real reply is warranted.  Really - the idea Israel was quaking in it's boots over the visit of the Swedish foreign minister?

The EU President is sometimes able to direct EU foreign policy on areas that are somewhat under the radar, but Israel/Palestine is far from that.  Britain, France, Germany, aren't going to shift their policies one iota based on anything Sweden has to say.

[Bluebook]

My opinion is based on the reality that our actual support is rather minimal.

Has something changed lately? I seem to recall that the US was giving Israel litterary billions in aid every year. Am I wrong?

There is no practical difference between Obama and Bush.

I disagree vehemently.

Both wanted to advance a Palestinian State, freeze settlements and so forth

Ok, now you have listed their similarities, now list their differences.

[Bluebook]

You make two statements so outlandishly silly that no real reply is warranted.  Really - the idea Israel was quaking in it's boots over the visit of the Swedish foreign minister?

Who said anything about them quaking in their boots? I was merely pointing out that they managed to completely disarm the EU for 6 months thanks to this.

The EU President is sometimes able to direct EU foreign policy on areas that are somewhat under the radar, but Israel/Palestine is far from that.  Britain, France, Germany, aren't going to shift their policies one iota based on anything Sweden has to say.

What makes you think that Britain, France or Germany has a different stance on Israel-Palestine than Sweden? Do you even know what policy they/we have? Your posts seems to indicate that the answer is no.

[Barrister]

The EU wasn't armed in the first place, so they could not be disarmed.

There was no support for any meaningful 'sanctions' on Israel, then or now.  There was and is no risk that steps would be taken that would lead to consequences to Israel's economy.

[Admiral Yi]

My opinion is based on the reality that our actual support is rather minimal.  They can easily provide for their own defense and carry on their own policies without the chump change money we give them.

I think 3 billion is a bit more than chump change to a state Israel's size.

[Bluebook]

The EU wasn't armed in the first place, so they could not be disarmed.

Again, I belive this to be a somewhat simplified view of international relations in general and the importance/impact of the EU in particular.

There was no support for any meaningful 'sanctions' on Israel, then or now.  There was and is no risk that steps would be taken that would lead to consequences to Israel's economy.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are exaggerating somewhat, perhaps you are outright wrong. When it comes to international relations though, the world is never black or white, the list of absolute certainties is very small, and the importance of good relations to as many as possible should never be underestimated.

When it comes to Israel right now, their list of close friends is growing thinner at a point in time when they really need all the international support they can get. I really dont think they would would want to seriously piss off the EU if they could easily avoid it. And that is what this whole organ-stealing-debacle proved to be, an easy way to disable what could have been an ankward political situation.

[Barrister]

In what way is there list of friends thinner?

They've had roughly the same number of "friends" for 30 years or so.  Maybe more even since they've opened up limited diplomatic ties with some of their beighbors.  There certainly has been no meaningful change in Euro-Israeli relations during this time.

[Bluebook]

In what way is there list of friends thinner?

They've had roughly the same number of "friends" for 30 years or so.  Maybe more even since they've opened up limited diplomatic ties with some of their beighbors.  There certainly has been no meaningful change in Euro-Israeli relations during this time.

No, they have lost Turkey since Gaza, and that is a huge blow as Israel saw Turkey as a (potential?) strategic ally.

Also, the US-Israel relations arent exactly improving right now. As for the Euro-Israeli relations, they have been deteriorating steadily in the past 30 years...but the point is that Israel cannot let this slide go on much further.

[Barrister]

Relations between Turkey and Israel have cooled, but there's been no change in the economic relationship between the two.

Countries have 'warmed' and 'cooled' their relations with Israel multiple times over the years, but the only meaningful changes to Israel's economy have been positive ones (i.e. limited ties to Jordan).  Canada's Conservative government takes a more pro-Israel tone than the previous Liberal government, but "on the ground" that makes no difference whatsoever.

[Bluebook]

Relations between Turkey and Israel have cooled, but there's been no change in the economic relationship between the two.

So the economic relationship has not changed. The political relationship however, has gone from "very friendly" to "really bad" in a very short timespan. That should not be underestimated or trivialized. Turkey was Israels closest ally in the region. Was.

Countries have 'warmed' and 'cooled' their relations with Israel multiple times over the years, but the only meaningful changes to Israel's economy have been positive ones (i.e. limited ties to Jordan). 

Yes?

[Neil]

That's not really true.  The EU President isn't actually the leader of the EU, and can't direct the EU.

No, the precidency cannot direct the EU, it speaks for and represents the EU though, and it sets the agenda. While its importance should not be exaggerated, it should not be underestimated either.

But it really doesn't, as the EU members conduct their own foreign policy.

[Bluebook]

But it really doesn't, as the EU members conduct their own foreign policy.

Not really anymore. Sure it is "their own" on paper, but the general trend within the EU is to strive more and more towards consensus. This is already happening with the only recent exception being the UK and the US or France and Africa. The interesting part here is that this progress is happening more or less against the will of some of the individual nations really. The choise of foreign minister and president is a sign of how (some) of the member states are starting to fear the union getting too much influence over the respective member states. With the Lisbon treaty, the writing is on the wall though.   

[Neil]

No, they have lost Turkey since Gaza, and that is a huge blow as Israel saw Turkey as a (potential?) strategic ally.

That had nothing to do with Gaza, and everything to do with the rising Islamism in Turkey.

Also, the US-Israel relations arent exactly improving right now. As for the Euro-Israeli relations, they have been deteriorating steadily in the past 30 years...but the point is that Israel cannot let this slide go on much further.

US-Israel relations remain at the same high level they have been for years, and Euro-Israeli relations remain irrelevant because decisions regarding the Mideast are made in Washington, and sanctions are difficult given that all of Europe except for Britain bears the stigma of the Holocaust.

[Bluebook]

That had nothing to do with Gaza, and everything to do with the rising Islamism in Turkey.

Perhaps. Gaza is the reason given by Turkey though.

US-Israel relations remain at the same high level they have been for years, and Euro-Israeli relations remain irrelevant because decisions regarding the Mideast are made in Washington, and sanctions are difficult given that all of Europe except for Britain bears the stigma of the Holocaust.

Again, I believe you are oversimplifying matters of international relations. I dont think US-Israel relations remain at the "same high level", nor do I believe that Euro-Israel relations are "irrelevant". International relations are usually vastly more complex and than that.

[Neil]

But it really doesn't, as the EU members conduct their own foreign policy.

Not really anymore. Sure it is "their own" on paper, but the general trend within the EU is to strive more and more towards consensus. This is already happening with the only recent exception being the UK and the US or France and Africa. The interesting part here is that this progress is happening more or less against the will of some of the individual nations really. The choise of foreign minister and president is a sign of how (some) of the member states are starting to fear the union getting too much influence over the respective member states. With the Lisbon treaty, the writing is on the wall though.

France and Britain will continue to maintain their own foreign policy.  Unlike every other country in Europe, they matter.