Changing relationship of the US and Israel

[lutherblsstt]

The other day in another forum I quoted someone in Israel: Quote of the Day: Why Is Obama Treating Netanyano So Rudely | The Moderate Voice

"I'm in Israel now for Passover Week and the mood here is terrible. It's a weird combination of arrogance and self-righteous defensiveness combined with a feeling that another Masada is right around the corner. I anticipated a backlash of support for Netanyahu but among the people I have been with there is a genuine fear that if Israel loses the US backing, it truly will be alone in the world. The fear is not military but of economic and political isolation which will have negative economic effects as well as raise the issue of an imposed peace agreement. Israelis suspect, I believe rightfully so, that an imposed solution would be worse for them than anything that would emerge from genuine negotiations."

Do they have reason to worry? We have this:

"US 'may not veto UN resolution on Jerusalem'

The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.

The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister.

The official said the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.

US officials in Washington have not confirmed the report.

There are no concrete plans at present to table such a resolution at the UN.

But it is likely that the US is considering how to maintain pressure, and a UN resolution would be one way, says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas.

The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticising Israel.

But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden. "

Friends don't let friends drive drunk but that's exactly what the US has done for over 40 years. Daniel Larison:

"Does it then make sense for Washington to endorse every Israeli military action and encourage the perception that Israel may act however it wishes outside its borders because the United States will provide support and political cover? After all, it is such actions and the support Washington provides for them that contribute greatly to negative attitudes toward Israel and the United States. If the world is aflame with anti-Israel sentiment as Wehner claims it is, surely the greatest facilitators of the increasing hatred are the people here and in Israel who justify every excess, excuse every illegality, and overreact against most criticisms with accusations that the critics wish to betray Israel or that they wish for Israel’s destruction. “The yes-man is your enemy, but your friend will argue with you.” If hatred for Israel is as great as Wehner claims, neither Israel’s Western critics nor members of the administration are the ones responsible. It is the yes-men who have much more to answer for. "


Many more are taking another look at the US-Israel relationship. This from Salon:

" One of the many platitudes ritually invoked at the annual AIPAC conference is the claim that US and Israeli strategic interests are indivisible. It was repeated again this year, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among others, even as the allies struggled to patch up a nasty rift arising from the Netanyahu government's announcement of new settlement construction during Vice President Biden's recent visit to Israel.

But what if the claim isn't true? This year it was challenged from unusual quarters, when Gen. David Petraeus, Centcom commander, told the Senate that the Israel-Palestine conflict--and widespread anger in the Middle East over Washington's favoritism for Israel--is hampering regional partnerships and fueling recruitment by Islamist extremists. And while Biden delivered the usual boilerplate about standing "shoulder to shoulder" with Israel in his public remarks there, in private he was harsh; according to the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, he told Netanyahu, "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace."


Over at the Asia Times Tony Karon has more.

" Uncomfortable at the spectacle of the Barack Obama administration in an open confrontation with the Israeli government, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman - who represents the interests of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party on Capitol Hill as faithfully as he does those of the health insurance industry - called for a halt. "Let's cut the family fighting, the family feud," he said. "It's unnecessary; it's destructive of our shared national interest. It's time to lower voices, to get over the family feud between the US and Israel. It just doesn't serve anybody's interests but our enemies."

The idea that the US and Israel are "family" with identical national interests is a convenient fiction that Lieberman and his fellow Israel partisans have worked relentlessly to promote - and enforce - in Washington over the past two decades. If the bonds are indeed familial, however, last week's showdown between Washington and the Netanyahu government may be counted as one of those feuds in which truths are uttered in the heat of the moment that call into question the fundamental terms of the relationship. Such truths are never easily swept under the rug once the dispute is settled. The immediate rupture precludes a simple return to the status quo ante; instead, a renegotiation of the terms of the relationship somehow ends up on the agenda."

So is it possible that Israel is afraid that the days of the tail wagging the dog are over? In the past Israel and its US supporters have equated criticism of Israel with antisemitism with some success. But that proved dangerous and not very effective when a celebrated General was involved.

"Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, who has made a profession of trying to negate the difference between anti-Semitism and criticism of (or hostility to) Israel, gamely ventured that "Gen Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the US and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived US favoritism for Israel." His conclusion: "This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive."

You can, in fact, hear the pain in Foxman's admission that "it is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great American patriot and hero". That Petraeus chose to make his concerns public at the height of a public showdown between Israel and the US, and to do so on Capitol Hill, where legislators seemed uncertain how to respond, signaled the seriousness of the uniformed military in pressing the issue. "

It is in the best interest of the US to finally show Israel some tough love - that means there must be consequences. Israel sees the status quo in their best interest but there is no way that is in the best interest of the US.

"Israel has no real intention of quitting the territories or allowing the Palestinian people to exercise their rights," wrote Israeli political commentator Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz last week. "Israel does not truly intend to pursue peace, because life here seems to be good even without it. The continuation of the occupation doesn't just endanger Israel's future, it also poses the greatest risk to world peace, serving as a pretext for Israel's most dangerous enemies. No change will come to pass in the complacent, belligerent and condescending Israel of today."

The Obama administration can't be under any illusions on this score. And they are being forced to confront it by another kind of pressure. The bills are coming due for Bush's "war on terror" adventurism. Those responsible for maintaining the US imperium in the Muslim world are now raising warning flags that the price to be paid for continuing to indulge Israel in evading its obligation to offer a fair settlement to the Palestinians could be high - and, worse than that, unnecessary. "

This is another "special relationship" that must be renegotiated. That 3 billion dollars a year comes with a price tag.

 

[poison]

The other day in another forum I quoted someone in Israel:

Great, you found someone in Israel who has an opinion that agrees with your ****ed thinking. Congrats! Please explain to me what the significance of a single subjective opinion is? Not that there can't be truth in it, but you present it with gravity, as if it holds some weight. I can just as easily post the opinions of 50 friends and family that live there, who disagree with you.

But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden. "

No, the relationship was strained by Obama renegging on the handshake agreement that the US would impose harsh sanctions on Iran. The agreement was that the US would do that, and in return, Israel would toe the US line on the settlements. Obama renegged, but sent Biden to tell Israel they still had to toe the line, essentially asking for something, for nothing. So Israel asserted their authority, and made the point that Obama/Biden aren't the Prime Minister of Israel, they don't call the shots. The actual proposed expansion means nothing: it's not on Palestinian land, not even close; it's not removing Palestinians from their homes; it's an empty patch of scrub brush and rock; and it is not official, it can still be appealed, and likely will be. The move was purely the US ad Israel testing their boundaries, nothing more.

"Does it then make sense for Washington to endorse every Israeli military action and encourage the perception that Israel may act however it wishes outside its borders because the United States will provide support and political cover?

Outside its borders? What is Israel doing that so offends outside its borders? Sending the best trauma team Haiti ever saw halfway around the world in less time than it took Obama to comment on the crisis, and weeks before any serious US aid showed up?

After all, it is such actions and the support Washington provides for them that contribute greatly to negative attitudes toward Israel and the United States. If the world is aflame with anti-Israel sentiment as Wehner claims it is, surely the greatest facilitators of the increasing hatred are the people here and in Israel who justify every excess, excuse every illegality, and overreact against most criticisms with accusations that the critics wish to betray Israel or that they wish for Israel’s destruction.

Many more are taking another look at the US-Israel relationship. This from Salon:

" One of the many platitudes ritually invoked at the annual AIPAC conference is the claim that US and Israeli strategic interests are indivisible. It was repeated again this year, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among others, even as the allies struggled to patch up a nasty rift arising from the Netanyahu government's announcement of new settlement construction during Vice President Biden's recent visit to Israel.

But what if the claim isn't true? This year it was challenged from unusual quarters, when Gen. David Petraeus, Centcom commander, told the Senate that the Israel-Palestine conflict--and widespread anger in the Middle East over Washington's favoritism for Israel--is hampering regional partnerships and fueling recruitment by Islamist extremists. And while Biden delivered the usual boilerplate about standing "shoulder to shoulder" with Israel in his public remarks there, in private he was harsh; according to the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, he told Netanyahu, "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace."

I have words for Petraeus:

Who the **** do you think you are? You waltzed into Israel's backyard 7 years ago, to do a job you or your country wrongly thought necessary. And you want to blame deaths of the troops you brought with you on ISRAEL? This is Israel's backyard you're stomping around in, our HOME, 12k miles from YOUR home. Your audacity in storming in here ON QUESTIONABLE INTEL, killing 100k Iraqis, but blaming US for your troops deaths, is simply the height of arrogance. We've been fighting this war for 50+ years, yet you show up 7 years ago like you know WTF is going on, and pull off some serious tactical errors of a magnitude unseen in a century, but you blame US? And this war we fight: yes, we're fighting the same enemy, but with different goals. We're fighting for survival, our children, our homes. You screwed the pooch, got caught with your pants down, and are simply trying to save face. So excuse us if we don't conduct our foreign policy to aid your questionable agenda and tactics. Sincerely, **** you and the high horse you rode in on. And for the record, congrats: you've killed more Arabs in 7 years than we've killed in our whole existence and accompanying multiple regional wars. Moron.

As for AIPAC...try to contain your jealousy and Jew-hate. Check this: everyone can lobby Washington, and nearly everyone has an organization who does. Indians lobby, insurance companies lobby, old people lobby (the AARP is the number one most influential lobby, btw, eclipsing AIPAC). Hell, you ever heard of CAIR? Yup, Muslims lobbying. It's not the Jews fault if CAIR isn't as effective as AIPAC. If you hate AIPAC, go donate your time or money and counter-lobby that ****, but don't sit here and eWhine that the Jews bust their asses, work as a group, and work smarter than most other lobbies. Any less from another group is pure laziness.

So is it possible that Israel is afraid that the days of the tail wagging the dog are over? In the past Israel and its US supporters have equated criticism of Israel with antisemitism with some success. But that proved dangerous and not very effective when a celebrated General was involved.

Tail wag the dog, bwaahaahaa. Please. Half the time Israel and AIPAC are at odds, they don't always share views. Keep in mind that the US as a whole voted CHANGE; guess what? The Jews you so dislike, the powerful ones in AIPAC, who hold more power than their number suggest, voted change too. They had an inordinate part to play in getting Obama elected. So be careful what you wish for, when you wish ill toward Aipac.

"Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, who has made a profession of trying to negate the difference between anti-Semitism and criticism of (or hostility to) Israel, gamely ventured that "Gen Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the US and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived US favoritism for Israel." His conclusion: "This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive."

Give me a break. Let's cut to the core, here. The US supports Israel because of one thing: oil. It's far cheaper to sling money at Israel, and those who make peace with her, and make the prospect of attacking Israel SO FORMIDABLE as to be a non-option, than to negotiate and appease the intricacies and foibles of the myriad clans, warlords, sects, and religions of the Arab/Muslim world, which is at odds with itself. Face it, Israel WITHOUT US support would feel far more vulnerable, and would be more likely to pre-emptively attack, if it felt it necessary.

Throwing support of Israel under the bus would be a valid alternate approach, a way to buy solidarity across the ARab world. Allow them to attack Israel. The problem is, they can't beat Israel. Never have, never will, the military par is simply too great. So all you'd get is a bruised, battered Arab world, possibly changed borders, and wounded Arab pride, and we all know what that brings. High oil prices, because that's the only thing they contribute to the West, that's their only leverage.

The US has its lips on that greasy oil tit so hard that it has to deal with the Middle East. It's simply easier to deal with Israel than that whole other fractured Arab mess.

It is in the best interest of the US to finally show Israel some tough love - that means there must be consequences. Israel sees the status quo in their best interest but there is no way that is in the best interest of the US.

Israel would still exist without US help, which only started 30 years after it became a nation. But they could not have found a better, more generous partner and donor, and for that Israelis are eternally grateful, regardless of what the future holds. And if our ways part, well, that gratitude still stands, and Israel will make its own way. The honest truth is at some point it'll be better for both if the bond is cut. Israel can do what it needs to do, and the US can follow its chosen direction.

"Israel has no real intention of quitting the territories or allowing the Palestinian people to exercise their rights," wrote Israeli political commentator Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz last week. "Israel does not truly intend to pursue peace, because life here seems to be good even without it. The continuation of the occupation doesn't just endanger Israel's future, it also poses the greatest risk to world peace, serving as a pretext for Israel's most dangerous enemies. No change will come to pass in the complacent, belligerent and condescending Israel of today."

Gideon Levy is a columnist, and a tard.

The Obama administration can't be under any illusions on this score. And they are being forced to confront it by another kind of pressure. The bills are coming due for Bush's "war on terror" adventurism. Those responsible for maintaining the US imperium in the Muslim world are now raising warning flags that the price to be paid for continuing to indulge Israel in evading its obligation to offer a fair settlement to the Palestinians could be high - and, worse than that, unnecessary

. "

When the Palestinians are ready to negotiate, and give assurances for peace, Israel with be RIGHT THERE. Until then, Israel owes them nothing.

This is another "special relationship" that must be renegotiated. That 3 billion dollars a year comes with a price tag.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Great, you found someone in Israel who has an opinion that agrees with your ****ed thinking. Congrats! Please explain to me what the significance of a single subjective opinion is? Not that there can't be truth in it, but you present it with gravity, as if it holds some weight. I can just as easily post the opinions of 50 friends and family that live there, who disagree with you.



No, the relationship was strained by Obama renegging on the handshake agreement that the US would impose harsh sanctions on Iran. The agreement was that the US would do that, and in return, Israel would toe the US line on the settlements. Obama renegged, but sent Biden to tell Israel they still had to toe the line, essentially asking for something, for nothing. So Israel asserted their authority, and made the point that Obama/Biden aren't the Prime Minister of Israel, they don't call the shots. The actual proposed expansion means nothing: it's not on Palestinian land, not even close; it's not removing Palestinians from their homes; it's an empty patch of scrub brush and rock; and it is not official, it can still be appealed, and likely will be. The move was purely the US ad Israel testing their boundaries, nothing more.






Outside its borders? What is Israel doing that so offends outside its borders? Sending the best trauma team Haiti ever saw halfway around the world in less time than it took Obama to comment on the crisis, and weeks before any serious US aid showed up?



I have words for Petraeus:

Who the **** do you think you are? You waltzed into Israel's backyard 7 years ago, to do a job you or your country wrongly thought necessary. And you want to blame deaths of the troops you brought with you on ISRAEL? This is Israel's backyard you're stomping around in, our HOME, 12k miles from YOUR home. Your audacity in storming in here ON QUESTIONABLE INTEL, killing 100k Iraqis, but blaming US for your troops deaths, is simply the height of arrogance. We've been fighting this war for 50+ years, yet you show up 7 years ago like you know WTF is going on, and pull off some serious tactical errors of a magnitude unseen in a century, but you blame US? And this war we fight: yes, we're fighting the same enemy, but with different goals. We're fighting for survival, our children, our homes. You screwed the pooch, got caught with your pants down, and are simply trying to save face. So excuse us if we don't conduct our foreign policy to aid your questionable agenda and tactics. Sincerely, **** you and the high horse you rode in on. And for the record, congrats: you've killed more Arabs in 7 years than we've killed in our whole existence and accompanying multiple regional wars. Moron.

As for AIPAC...try to contain your jealousy and Jew-hate. Check this: everyone can lobby Washington, and nearly everyone has an organization who does. Indians lobby, insurance companies lobby, old people lobby (the AARP is the number one most influential lobby, btw, eclipsing AIPAC). Hell, you ever heard of CAIR? Yup, Muslims lobbying. It's not the Jews fault if CAIR isn't as effective as AIPAC. If you hate AIPAC, go donate your time or money and counter-lobby that ****, but don't sit here and eWhine that the Jews bust their asses, work as a group, and work smarter than most other lobbies. Any less from another group is pure laziness.









Tail wag the dog, bwaahaahaa. Please. Half the time Israel and AIPAC are at odds, they don't always share views. Keep in mind that the US as a whole voted CHANGE; guess what? The Jews you so dislike, the powerful ones in AIPAC, who hold more power than their number suggest, voted change too. They had an inordinate part to play in getting Obama elected. So be careful what you wish for, when you wish ill toward Aipac.



Give me a break. Let's cut to the core, here. The US supports Israel because of one thing: oil. It's far cheaper to sling money at Israel, and those who make peace with her, and make the prospect of attacking Israel SO FORMIDABLE as to be a non-option, than to negotiate and appease the intricacies and foibles of the myriad clans, warlords, sects, and religions of the Arab/Muslim world, which is at odds with itself. Face it, Israel WITHOUT US support would feel far more vulnerable, and would be more likely to pre-emptively attack, if it felt it necessary.

Throwing support of Israel under the bus would be a valid alternate approach, a way to buy solidarity across the ARab world. Allow them to attack Israel. The problem is, they can't beat Israel. Never have, never will, the military par is simply too great. So all you'd get is a bruised, battered Arab world, possibly changed borders, and wounded Arab pride, and we all know what that brings. High oil prices, because that's the only thing they contribute to the West, that's their only leverage.

The US has its lips on that greasy oil tit so hard that it has to deal with the Middle East. It's simply easier to deal with Israel than that whole other fractured Arab mess.






Israel would still exist without US help, which only started 30 years after it became a nation. But they could not have found a better, more generous partner and donor, and for that Israelis are eternally grateful, regardless of what the future holds. And if our ways part, well, that gratitude still stands, and Israel will make its own way. The honest truth is at some point it'll be better for both if the bond is cut. Israel can do what it needs to do, and the US can follow its chosen direction.



Gideon Levy is a columnist, and a tard.

There's nothing wrong per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem nefarious.By the way, I hate to break it to you,but it is not just one person who agrees with me, American Jews seem to be getting more sour on Israeli policies.

See:

American Jews Rethink Israel
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/horowitz_weiss

Here is an excerpt:

"These were prominent Jews. But they echoed disturbance and fury among Jews all around the country over Israel's behavior. Rabbi Brant Rosen of Evanston, Illinois, describes the process poetically. For years he'd had an "equivocating voice" in his head that rationalized Israel's actions. "During the first and second intifadas and the war in Lebanon, I would say, 'It's complicated,'" he says. "Of course, Darfur is complicated, but that doesn't stop the Jewish community from speaking out. There's nothing complicated about oppression. When I read the reports on Gaza, I didn't have the equivocating voice anymore.

Each month over seventy rabbis across the country along with interfaith leaders and concerned individuals partake in a daylong fast in order "to end the Jewish community's silence over Israel's collective punishment in Gaza."

Here is the most taboo yet self-evidently true proposition: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high price for the U.S. on multiple levels.

Not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry reports http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story , both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that case explicitly.

Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel.



By the way,reasonable people can separate the actions of the country of Israel from their opinion of Jews. Israel is a nation; Jews are a people. The actions of the country don't reflect on, say, your Jewish grandma. You and I know this so stop using my criticism of say AIPAC as a reason to hide behind cowardly accusations of "Jew hatred."

I keep hearing this "Maybe he opposes Israel because he hates Jews!" Sure, using that "logic" maybe I oppose African military tyrants because I simply hate black people. Maybe I disagreed with the Iraq war because George W. Bush is white and I hate white people!

Or maybe I have a brain in my head and I can separate the actions of a government from my opinion of a people.

 

[poison]

Of course their's nothing wrong with harboring affection, I myself do. But that begs the question: I am israeli/american dual citizen, I spent over 6 years over there, and served in the idf. It's clear why I have an affinity. You, however, are not iranian, and have never been to israel or iran, your two pet subjects. Why the insistance that iran = good!, israel = bad? You refuse to accept any fact or logic on the subject, ignore any points that refute you, yet insist israel is bad, they just have to be, if I throw enough **** at it SOMETHING will stick. You get cornered, and try to deflect to another angle or subject. All this insistance is just curious, and leads people reading to wonder what the motivation is, because it's certainly not about learning or the truth. So the thought occurs: he must just REALLY hate jews/israelis.

As for petraeus, I already commented very nicely on it, yet you ignore my rebuttle, and post the same thing. How about facing my rebuttal, and answering: why do you think it's fair to blame us deaths on israel, when the us came half way around the world on faulty intel and a ****ty mission, inserted themselves into a shiity situation in israels neighborhood, caused hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis, and now simply needs to save face and make it work for the sake of iraq, the us, and a whole lot of dead people. How is that israels fault?

I already commented on aipac, saying they are at odds with israel. Why do you repeat what I say, and try to use it against me?

Maybe you do have a brain in your head, luther, but it isn't readily apparent from your posts.

 

[poison]

Luther, you seriously believe its israel that's the problem, that causes the hate, and not the 100-600k dead iraqis, and 1-2 million orphans? You seriously think the US believe's it's israels fault, or do you think the subject of the iraqi body count is just so horrific, that they just can't bring it up? I mean, how can they, the US murdered 100k iraqis on faulty intel and a non-threat. Have you thought that this may be manufactured? That petraeus isn't a total spastic retard, and knows israel is not to blame for the deaths, but also knows that distancing themselves from israel before a potential strike on iran would be highly beneficial?

Where's your brain, bro?

 

[poison]

And btw, I'm being harsh on the US, my country, yes. But I am not pointing at the troops, unlike luther (bored and battle hardened, remember). I am pointing at the leadership that made it happen, then ****ed it up: bush, cheney, rove, rumsfeld. No one else. Our troops did the best they could in a ****ty position.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Of course their's nothing wrong with harboring affection, I myself do. But that begs the question: I am israeli/american dual citizen, I spent over 6 years over there, and served in the idf. It's clear why I have an affinity. You, however, are not iranian, and have never been to israel or iran, your two pet subjects. Why the insistance that iran = good!, israel = bad? You refuse to accept any fact or logic on the subject, ignore any points that refute you, yet insist israel is bad, they just have to be, if I throw enough **** at it SOMETHING will stick. You get cornered, and try to deflect to another angle or subject. All this insistance is just curious, and leads people reading to wonder what the motivation is, because it's certainly not about learning or the truth. So the thought occurs: he must just REALLY hate jews/israelis.

As for petraeus, I already commented very nicely on it, yet you ignore my rebuttle, and post the same thing. How about facing my rebuttal, and answering: why do you think it's fair to blame us deaths on israel, when the us came half way around the world on faulty intel and a ****ty mission, inserted themselves into a shiity situation in israels neighborhood, caused hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis, and now simply needs to save face and make it work for the sake of iraq, the us, and a whole lot of dead people. How is that israels fault?

I already commented on aipac, saying they are at odds with israel. Why do you repeat what I say, and try to use it against me?

Maybe you do have a brain in your head, luther, but it isn't readily apparent from your posts.

I did not blame US deaths on Israel Patreaus did,he said

"Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and jeopardizing American lives."

The present participle tense above is, while accurate, a bit obscuring the reality: Israeli actions have been harming U.S. interests and jeopardizing American lives since at least the early seventies, long before the (all-too-related 'need' for) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan arose. It's been one big fat feedback loop of destructive policy, reactions and counter-reactions.

I do agree with your point that the US should keep their nose out of damn near everyplace they have it.

Also,I think it's important to be precise here - there's nothing wrong with taking the side of another country in a particular dispute against your own. Plenty of Americans sided with France and Germany over the U.S. in the run-up to the Iraq War; lots of Americans believe that the U.S. was the party in the wrong -- and Iraq its victim -- with regard to the attack on Iraq; lots of Americans believe that the U.S. has engaged in all sorts of wrongdoing with regard to other countries.

There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong per se with agreeing with the Israeli position over the Obama administration's. That's no more proof of someone's lack of patriotism than taking the side of France/Germany against the U.S. re: Iraq was.

But what it does reveal -- when put in the context of your advocacy generally -- is that your principal concern is Israeli interests, and that you will side with Israel when its interests diverge from those of the US. Correct?

I do not think in black and white as in Iran=good and Israel=bad but you do seem to think the opposite. I know it is a nuanced situation but it amazes me how easily people are swayed into supporting what often turns out to be disastrous policy based on obvious propaganda.



This excerpt says it better than I:

"One does not normally see this truth stated so starkly in places like Time Magazine -- from Michael Scherer's interesting article http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1973983,00.html on AIPAC's current strategy to "storm Congress":

The third "ask" that AIPAC supporters will make of Congress on Tuesday is to once again pass the $3 billion in U.S. aid provided annually to Israel. "It's a very tough ask this year," [AIPAC lobbyist Steve] Aserkoff admitted, noting the U.S. domestic budgetary and economic challenges. Among other major purchases, the Israeli government has announced plans to replace its aging fleet of F-16 fighter jets with new, American-made F-35 fighters, a major cost that Israel hopes will be substantially born for [sic] by American taxpayers.

Those would be the same "American taxpayers" who are now being told that they have to suffer cuts in Medicare and Social Security because of budgetary constraints, who are watching as the most basic social services (the hallmark of being a developed country) are being rapidly abolished (from the 12th Grade http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14321377 to basic care for children, the infirm and elderly http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/meanwhile-back-in-states-by-digby-i.html ), and are burdened with a national debt so large that America's bond ratings are being degraded by the minute http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU .

Why should those same American taxpayers bear the enormous costs of Israel's military purchases (as Israel enjoys booming economic growth)? Especially if the issue is presented as cleanly and honestly as Scherer did here, and especially if Israel continues to extend its proverbial middle finger to even the most basic U.S. requests that it cease activities that harm our interests, how much longer can this absurdity be sustained? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/21/israel-settlement-constru_n_507345.html

 

[poison]

I did not blame US deaths on Israel Patreaus did,he said

"Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and jeopardizing American lives."

You didn't say it, he did. Sure. So are you saying now that you disagree, or is it a safe assumption that because you quoted him more than once to back up your argument, that you agree with him.

So answer my question, instead of deflecting yet once again: Why do you think US troops deaths in the ME are Israel's fault to ANY extent? If the troops weren't there, and you've made the point VERY clear in other threads that they shouldn't be, there wouldn't be any deaths.

The present participle tense above is, while accurate, a bit obscuring the reality: Israeli actions have been harming U.S. interests and jeopardizing American lives since at least the early seventies, long before the (all-too-related 'need' for) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan arose. It's been one big fat feedback loop of destructive policy, reactions and counter-reactions.

Oh really? The 70's? The US support for Israel only started in the 70's. How so?

Also,I think it's important to be precise here - there's nothing wrong with taking the side of another country in a particular dispute against your own. Plenty of Americans sided with France and Germany over the U.S. in the run-up to the Iraq War; lots of Americans believe that the U.S. was the party in the wrong -- and Iraq its victim -- with regard to the attack on Iraq; lots of Americans believe that the U.S. has engaged in all sorts of wrongdoing with regard to other countries.

There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong per se with agreeing with the Israeli position over the Obama administration's. That's no more proof of someone's lack of patriotism than taking the side of France/Germany against the U.S. re: Iraq was.

But what it does reveal -- when put in the context of your advocacy generally -- is that your principal concern is Israeli interests, and that you will side with Israel when its interests diverge from those of the US. Correct?

No. I was born and raised in the US, and live here with my family now. I'm not a 5th column member like yourself, Luther.

I do not think in black and white as in Iran=good and Israel=bad but you do seem to think the opposite. I know it is a nuanced situation but it amazes me how easily people are swayed into supporting what often turns out to be disastrous policy based on obvious propaganda.

Bull****. In the context of your argument, Iran is bad, Iranian foreign policy is bad, Ahmedinejad is a ****tard. But Iran? At least 50% of the country is pro-West, and they have an illustrious history. I'd love to visit, if I thought I could safely do so (they might not like my dual citizenship).

This excerpt says it better than I:

"One does not normally see this truth stated so starkly in places like Time Magazine -- from Michael Scherer's interesting article http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1973983,00.html on AIPAC's current strategy to "storm Congress":

The third "ask" that AIPAC supporters will make of Congress on Tuesday is to once again pass the $3 billion in U.S. aid provided annually to Israel. "It's a very tough ask this year," [AIPAC lobbyist Steve] Aserkoff admitted, noting the U.S. domestic budgetary and economic challenges. Among other major purchases, the Israeli government has announced plans to replace its aging fleet of F-16 fighter jets with new, American-made F-35 fighters, a major cost that Israel hopes will be substantially born for [sic] by American taxpayers.

Those would be the same "American taxpayers" who are now being told that they have to suffer cuts in Medicare and Social Security because of budgetary constraints, who are watching as the most basic social services (the hallmark of being a developed country) are being rapidly abolished (from the 12th Grade http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14321377 to basic care for children, the infirm and elderly http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/meanwhile-back-in-states-by-digby-i.html ), and are burdened with a national debt so large that America's bond ratings are being degraded by the minute http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU .

Why should those same American taxpayers bear the enormous costs of Israel's military purchases (as Israel enjoys booming economic growth)? Especially if the issue is presented as cleanly and honestly as Scherer did here, and especially if Israel continues to extend its proverbial middle finger to even the most basic U.S. requests that it cease activities that harm our interests, how much longer can this absurdity be sustained? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/21/israel-settlement-constru_n_507345.html

If you, as an American taxpayer, dislike the use of tax money to keep Israel out of regional wars that would boost the cost of oil, and YOUR gas, to the stratosphere, that's absolutely your right. I, and obviously the administration, think it's the cheapest way to achieve that goal.

Too bad the US entered a war that should never have happened to the tune of a trillion dollars, so far, 5000 dead Americans, and over $6B a year. As a US taxpayer (which I'm pretty sure you are not) who is against US support of Israel, you must be appalled and livid over that hemorrhage of funds.

I mean seriously, at least the US gets low oil prices and a megaton of innovation from Israel, for the investment. What have we gotten, or will we get, from Iraq? A gold sticker and a PEZ?

 

[lutherblsstt]

You didn't say it, he did. Sure. So are you saying now that you disagree, or is it a safe assumption that because you quoted him more than once to back up your argument, that you agree with him.

So answer my question, instead of deflecting yet once again: Why do you think US troops deaths in the ME are Israel's fault to ANY extent? If the troops weren't there, and you've made the point VERY clear in other threads that they shouldn't be, there wouldn't be any deaths.



Oh really? The 70's? The US support for Israel only started in the 70's. How so?





No. I was born and raised in the US, and live here with my family now. I'm not a 5th column member like yourself, Luther.



Bull****. In the context of your argument, Iran is bad, Iranian foreign policy is bad, Ahmedinejad is a ****tard. But Iran? At least 50% of the country is pro-West, and they have an illustrious history. I'd love to visit, if I thought I could safely do so (they might not like my dual citizenship).





If you, as an American taxpayer, dislike the use of tax money to keep Israel out of regional wars that would boost the cost of oil, and YOUR gas, to the stratosphere, that's absolutely your right. I, and obviously the administration, think it's the cheapest way to achieve that goal.

Too bad the US entered a war that should never have happened to the tune of a trillion dollars, so far, 5000 dead Americans, and over $6B a year. As a US taxpayer (which I'm pretty sure you are not) who is against US support of Israel, you must be appalled and livid over that hemorrhage of funds.

I mean seriously, at least the US gets low oil prices and a megaton of innovation from Israel, for the investment. What have we gotten, or will we get, from Iraq? A gold sticker and a PEZ?

Asking how the actions of Israeli gov endangers American lives is actually really silly.

Lets see,directly : http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost2.html

1.There was the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were killed and 171 wounded on the fourth day of the Six-Day War of June 1967 .

Losses of American lives at the hands of Arab forces opposing Israel include the loss of 141 U.S. service personnel in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984. They also include the loss of several U.S. diplomats and local employees of the U.S. government in two bombings of the American Embassy in Beirut. Other such events include the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, the taking of U.S. hostages in Beirut of whom three were killed, the deaths of Americans in a series of Middle East related skyjackings, the deaths of 19 U.S. service personnel in the bombing of the Al Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the 1997 assassination of four U.S. accountants working for an American company in Karachi.

All of these incidents, and many more in which Americans have died, resulted directly from one-sided U.S. support for Israel in its refusal to participate in the land-for-peace settlement with the Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors envisioned in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242.

The U.S. has given lip service to that resolution since November 1967. But in practice the U.S. has done nothing to force Israel to comply, even though the resolution has been accepted by the members of the League of Arab States. That U.S. hypocrisy fuels rage and frustration throughout the Middle East and South Asia which will continue to take a toll of American lives until Israel finally gives back the lands it occupied in 1967, or the U.S. stops subsidizing Israeli intransigence.

meanwhile: Israel Dismisses Obama Call to Join NPT
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/04/14/2010/04/13/obama-israel-should-sign-npt/

As with previous discussions of the possibility, Israeli officials today reacted negatively to yesterday’s comment by President Obama in support of seeing Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

“There is no room to pressure Israel to join,” insisted Defense Minister Ehud Barak

From The Jerusalem Post this AM:

"While the United States continued to criticize Israel over an east Jerusalem housing project approved during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel least week, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday said construction in the capital would continue as usual."

I guess they didn't take this part of Obama's Cairo speech very seriously:

"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

Biden had some comments on this as well:

"When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, the administration reacted.

But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

 

[lutherblsstt]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSp-oIOhq00"]YouTube- If Americans Knew - trailer[/nomedia]

By now many Americans are aware that Israel, with a population of only 5.8 million people, is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and that Israel’s aid plus U.S. aid to Egypt’s 65 million people for keeping the peace with Israel has, for many years, consumed more than half of the U.S. bi-lateral foreign aid budget world-wide.

But what few Americans understand is the steep price they pay in many other fields for the U.S.-Israeli relationship, which in turn is a product of the influence of Israel’s powerful U.S. lobby on American domestic politics and has nothing to do with U.S. strategic interests, U.S. national interests, or even with traditional American support for self-determination, human rights, and fair play overseas.

Between 1949 and 1998, the U.S. gave to Israel, with a self-declared population of 5.8 million people, more foreign aid than it gave to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, all of the countries of Latin America, and all of the countries of the Caribbean combined – with a total population of 1,054,000,000 people.

In the 1997 fiscal year, for example, Israel received $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, at least $525 million from other U.S. budgets, and $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the 1997 total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel was $5.5 billion. That’s $15,068,493 per day, 365 days a year.



None of these figures include the cost to U.S. consumers of the price of petroleum, which surged to such heights that it set off a world-wide recession during the Arab oil boycott imposed in reaction to U.S. support of Israel in the 1973 war.

 

[lutherblsstt]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYcw-uWqzk"]YouTube- Ctrl Alt Shift Film Competition Winner No Way Through[/nomedia]

 

[poison]

meanwhile: Israel Dismisses Obama Call to Join NPT
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/04/14/2010/04/13/obama-israel-should-sign-npt/

As with previous discussions of the possibility, Israeli officials today reacted negatively to yesterday’s comment by President Obama in support of seeing Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

“There is no room to pressure Israel to join,” insisted Defense Minister Ehud Barak

From The Jerusalem Post this AM:

"While the United States continued to criticize Israel over an east Jerusalem housing project approved during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel least week, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday said construction in the capital would continue as usual."

I guess they didn't take this part of Obama's Cairo speech very seriously:

"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

NO ONE is asking Israel to stop expansion of existing settlements. And that's what the 1600 unit expansion is.

as for how the Israeli actions jeapordize American lives:

"When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, the administration reacted.

But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

Starting to get dangerous for US? Wow, really? No one invited you over there, you bull****ted evidence to invade iraq. Israel LIVES there, how dangerous do you think it is for them, prick?

As I said:

Who the **** do you think you are? You waltzed into Israel's backyard 7 years ago, to do a job you or your country wrongly thought necessary. And you want to blame deaths of the troops you brought with you on ISRAEL? This is Israel's backyard you're stomping around in, our HOME, 12k miles from YOUR home. Your audacity in storming in here ON QUESTIONABLE INTEL, killing 100k Iraqis, but blaming US for your troops deaths, is simply the height of arrogance. We've been fighting this war for 50+ years, yet you show up 7 years ago like you know WTF is going on, and pull off some serious tactical errors of a magnitude unseen in a century, but you blame US? And this war we fight: yes, we're fighting the same enemy, but with different goals. We're fighting for survival, our children, our homes. You screwed the pooch, got caught with your pants down, and are simply trying to save face. So excuse us if we don't conduct our foreign policy to aid your questionable agenda and tactics. Sincerely, **** you and the high horse you rode in on. And for the record, congrats: you've killed more Arabs in 7 years than we've killed in our whole existence and accompanying multiple regional wars. Moron.

 

[lutherblsstt]

NO ONE is asking Israel to stop expansion of existing settlements. And that's what the 1600 unit expansion is.





Starting to get dangerous for US? Wow, really? No one invited you over there, you bull****ted evidence to invade iraq. Israel LIVES there, how dangerous do you think it is for them, prick?

As I said:

OK so you should have no problem with 0 funding from the US then as opposed to the 3 billion currently sent Israel's way annually,right?

By the way,I agree with the fabricated evidence and the ridiculousness of the troops being there in the first place,prick.

 

[poison]

The US should fund whoever supplies the goods/commodities/securities/wheteverthe**** the US desires. If that's israel, fine. If not, fine. Israel made it through its first 30+ rocky years without US support, it'll make it now just fine. Just don't be surprised or irritated if israel buddies up to india or china, both logical partnerships, countries with whom israel has good but limited relations now.

I wish it would happen in a way. It'd put israel the position to act purely in self-interest, for once, and it'd be fun to watch everything fall apart in front of you.

 

[lutherblsstt]

The US should fund whoever supplies the goods/commodities/securities/wheteverthe**** the US desires. If that's israel, fine. If not, fine. Israel made it through its first 30+ rocky years without US support, it'll make it now just fine. Just don't be surprised or irritated if israel buddies up to india or china, both logical partnerships, countries with whom israel has good but limited relations now.

I wish it would happen in a way. It'd put israel the position to act purely in self-interest, for once, and it'd be fun to watch everything fall apart in front of you.

I would love to see funding to Israel disappear seeing that we get nothing in return,but I also agree with your point on the US troops having no biz in the region in the first place.

 

[poison]

:lol: jesus, you may not like us support of israel, you can not like israel, you may think the benefits of the US/Israel relationship aren't worth it, BUT you can't say the US gets nothing from it. Nice lie though.

 

[lutherblsstt]

:lol: jesus, you may not like us support of israel, you can not like israel, you may think the benefits of the US/Israel relationship aren't worth it, BUT you can't say the US gets nothing from it. Nice lie though.

Let me rephrase,the US gets little to nothing from it,certainly nothing even remotely close to being worth the amount of aid it gives Israel.

 

[poison]

Oh really?

Benefits of US aid to Israel exceed cost
By STEVE ROTHMAN
09/04/2010 09:00

There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees.
Talkbacks (2)

The argument that American military aid to Israel is damaging to the United States is not only erroneous, it hurts the national security interests of this country and threatens the survival of Israel.

US support for Israel is essential, not only for Israel’s national security, but for America’s. Every bit of that support – and more – withstands all reasonable scrutiny.

Under the 2010 US budget, about $75 billion, $65 billion and $3.25 billion will be spent on military operations and aid in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan during this fiscal year, respectively. Israel will receive $3 billion, in military aid only. There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees that continue to be repaid in full and on time.

There isn’t enough space here to discuss the relative merits of the expenditures in these other countries, but we already know the critically important return the US gets for helping its oldest, most trusted ally in the strategically important Middle East – the most powerful military force in that region, the pro-US, pro-West and democratic Jewish state of Israel.

Here’s how.

FIRST, IT’S important to remember that about 70 percent of the $3 billion aid must be used by Israel to purchase American military equipment. This provides real support for US high- tech defense jobs and contributes to maintaining our industrial base. This helps the US stay at the very top in the manufacturing of our own cutting-edge military munitions, aircraft, vehicles, missiles and virtually every defensive and offensive weapon in the US arsenal – with the added contribution of Israel’s renowned technical know-how.

Second, the US and Israel are jointly developing state- of-the-art missile defense capabilities in the David’s Sling and Arrow 3 systems. These two technologies build on the already successful Arrow 2, jointly developed by our two countries, which is already providing missile defense security to Israel and US civilians and ground troops throughout the region. The knowledge the US gains from these efforts also has a positive multiplier effect on applications to other US military and non-military uses and US jobs.

Third, given Israel’s strategic location on the Mediterranean, with access to the Red Sea and other vital international shipping and military lanes of commerce and traffic, it is critically important to the US that Israel continues to serve as a port of call for our troops, ships, aircraft and intelligence operations.

Israel also has permitted the US to stockpile arms, fuel, munitions and other supplies on its soil to be accessed whenever America needs them in the region.

Fourth, America’s special relationship with Israel provides the US with real-time, minute-to-minute access to one of the best intelligence services in the world: Israel’s. With Israeli agents gathering intelligence and taking action throughout the Middle East and, literally, around the world, regarding al- Qaida, Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas, among others, the US receives invaluable information about anti-US and terrorist organizations and regimes.

Fifth, imagine the additional terrible cost in US blood, and the hundreds of billions more of American taxpayer dollars, if Saddam Hussein had developed nuclear weapons, or if Syria possessed them.

Then remember that it was Israel that destroyed the almost-completed nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981 and Syria’s nuclear facility under construction at Deir-ez-Zor in 2007.

And think about the many operations that Israel’s Defense Forces and intelligence agents have undertaken to foil, slow and disrupt Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region, all of Iran’s Arab neighbors, the world’s largest oil supplies and those who rely on that oil. It also would provide anti-US terrorists with access to the most lethal Iranian technology and probably set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

FOR ABOUT two percent of what the US spends in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan this year, Americans can take pride in the return on our investment in aid to Israel.

And with Israel’s truly invaluable assistance to America’s vital national security, we can take comfort that – in actions seen in Tehran and Damascus and noticed by al-Qaida and other anti-US terrorists everywhere – the US is safer and made more secure because of the mutually dependent and beneficial relationship between the US and Israel.

The writer is a Democratic congressman from New Jersey who serves on the House committees responsible for US military and foreign aid. – Bloomberg News

Ouch, that stings, huh?

 

[lutherblsstt]

Oh really?




Ouch, that stings, huh?

Israel has a disproportionate impact on policy, just as the Cubans in South Florida do. In this light, the question what we "get" for supporting Israel is valid.

As we all know or can guess what we give up -- credibility, respect and objectivity (just to name a few) in the eyes of other nations.

A huge part of why rank and file Muslims hate the US -- or suspect its motives -- is down to the seemingly blind support we give Israel (as well as the arms we send them).

I think it would be difficult for the political establishment (like the Dem who wrote the article you posted) to effectively assess the current relationship, and if necessary, redefine it, given the power and prestige of the Israeli lobby and the fellow-travelers in the evangelical Christian community it can call on, if need be.

U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know

by Tom Malthaner

"This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week.

The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2.

This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.

I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people."

Also:"U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship"'

by Stephen Zunes

"U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern…has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies…."

The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly,…Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel.

Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S.

Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it.

"An increasing number of Israelis are pointing out" that these funds are not in Israel's best interest. Quoting Peled, Zunes said, "this aid pushes Israel 'toward a posture of callous intransigence' in terms of the peace process." Moreover, for every dollar the U.S. sends in arms aid, Israel must spend two to three dollars to train people to use the weaponry, to buy parts, and in other ways make use of the aid. Even "main-stream Israeli economists are saying [it] is very harmful to the country's future."

The Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [Israel] undertake the 'dirty work' of a godfather who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation." 'To challenge this strategic relationship, one cannot focus solely on the Israeli lobby but must also examine these "broader forces as well." "Until we tackle this issue head-on," it will be "very difficult to win" in other areas relating to Palestine.

"The results" of the short-term thinking behind U.S. policy "are tragic," not just for the "immediate victims" but "eventually [for] Israel itself" and "American interests in the region." The U.S. is sending enormous amounts of aid to the Middle East, and yet "we are less secure than ever"-both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. Zunes referred to a "growing and increasing hostility [of] the average Arab toward the United States."

In the long term, said Zunes, "peace and stability and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel."

This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also "jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law." Zunes sees significant potential in "building a broad-based movement around it.""

 

[lutherblsstt]

http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm

True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.

In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.

On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.

There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.

There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.

Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.

It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it's a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America's mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.

Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

 

[poison]

I think it would be difficult for the political establishment (like the Dem who wrote the article you posted) to effectively assess the current relationship, and if necessary, redefine it, given the power and prestige of the Israeli lobby and the fellow-travelers in the evangelical Christian community it can call on, if need be.

So the Dem who wrote my article is too close to the subject to judge, but your sources aren't? :lol:

Whatever. I already said I don't have a problem questioning aid. I wouldn't mind if it ended. I just question your attempt to paint it as thievery on Israel's part, fleecing the US and returning nothing. That's bull****, especially in light of the actual facts. Want to talk about useless foreign aid? Let's talk Iraq. Wanna go there?

 

[Imeniaan]

israel should end their brutal occupation entirely, that is the root cause of all the problems in the middle east.

 

[poison]

:lol: go read the other israel threeads here, and learn something. Your post isn't worth a response, it's trite and been answered fully.

 

[lutherblsstt]

So the Dem who wrote my article is too close to the subject to judge, but your sources aren't? :lol:

Whatever. I already said I don't have a problem questioning aid. I wouldn't mind if it ended. I just question your attempt to paint it as thievery on Israel's part, fleecing the US and returning nothing. That's bull****, especially in light of the actual facts. Want to talk about useless foreign aid? Let's talk Iraq. Wanna go there?

My point is that we single-handedly enable Israeli behavior with our massive amounts of military aid, diplomatic protection, and weapons supplying, which means Israeli behavior is rationally perceived by much of the Muslim world as being one and the same as American behavior.

Muslim anger towards Israel will inevitably translate into Muslim anger towards the U.S. for as long as we continue to flood Israel with aid and cover.


In countless ways, our foreign policy has long and directly violated George Washington's 1796 warning http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp that "nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded"; that "the nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave"; and that "a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils." The typical justification for violating those warnings is that our interests are served by maintaining and steadfastly supporting permanent alliances of this sort.

Yet here is one such nation that receives more American support than any other, stubbornly refusing to cease conduct which our government officially proclaims to be deeply harmful to our interests, and the notion of using our vast leverage to make them change behavior is decreed to be one of the most impenetrable taboos (even the Executive Director of the ostensibly orthodoxy-fighting J Street recently demanded that such a step not even be entertained). For so long, it's been an unchallengeable given that we are required to continue to lavish Israel with aid and diplomatic protection even if they do things that our own government believes (or at least claims to believe) is directly harming the United States.

 

[poison]

Single handedly enable israeli behavior? You flatter yourself. Israel was founded, and survived its first 30+ years, without US help. Israel behaves how it must to survive, regardless of what nicety the US gave them; in the end of the day, the US is not living, and dying, for israel. You ignore the fact that before US support started, there were 4 major regional wars and opec raped the oil prices. Interestingly, it has been much calmer since the US started supporting israel, and those who sign peace treaties with her.

See, support of israel stemmed the advance of Communism in the ME (a prime US goal). It gave israel the peace of mind and a sense of security it did not have before, so they felt less threatened, while simultaneously giving pause to the arab countries who might wish to attack, this keeps oil prices low (another prime US interest). So **** off with your 'one way street' comments. There's been plenty of give and take.


Muslims who want to hate the US will always hate the US. they don't need the excuse of israel, which does not concern arabs in other countries, past simply being leverage against jews. YOU want to believe them, because it fits your 'israel-free' world view, but the fact is that were israel removed, the hatred of the US would not abate. Trust me, there are the US bases on muslim soil, US manipulation of regional politics for oil, US occupation of 2 countries, the ongoing Iraq war body count, etc ad naseum. But I know, you prefer to call is one sided, a one way street, and blame israel, despite the facts.

George washington might dislike the US/israel dynamic. How do you think he'd feel about the US/iraq/afghanistan dynamic? Hmmmm.

And israel no longer receives even close to the largest amount of aid, so you can forget that tagline for oh, the next 20-30 years. Iraq and afghanistan will be holding that honor.

 

[SELFofGOD]

Do you believe Israel NEEDS the US ?


I do not believe that country would be around for long without our backing.
At least no where the way it is currently.

So much bull over Oil and Religion...

 

[poison]

I KNOW they don't NEED the US. The US/israel relationship has been awesome and comfortable for both sides, and has afforded Israel an easier time than it otherwise would've been. But they made it through far harder times without US support, and they could do it again.

Indeed, US support comes with serious strings. It's allowed Israel to back off the hair trigger, which suits US interests, and the US has NO PROBLEM calling in favors, sometimes at israels expense.