U.S. Blank Check has Corrupted Israel Absolutely -- It's a dying shame

The U.S. has granted Israel absolute power over their neighbours -- to reward with food and water or to kill with impunity from International sanction.

How can the Israel NOT think of itself as superior -- they are given $10 billion each year from the U.S. treasury to subsidize their domestic policy goals. They do not have to worry about the cost of the bombs they drop -- they are provided by the U.S. taxpayer who even pay for them to
drop the bombs under various R&D budgets which pay for the data gathered from these military
actions.

The umbrella of moral cover provided to Israel by the U.S. media means that few in the West every hear of Israeli attrocities. Injustice is rational behavior, occupation is a security requirement, kidnapping public officials is arrests of terrorist supporters, assasination is proper punishment.
Few think about the fact the Israel continues to occupy prized parts of Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank in brazen defiance of International Law and U.N. resolutions.

Without the U.S. blank check -- financial support, moral cover, U.S. veto power, a nuclear arsenal -- the Israelis would have long ago come to a negotiated peace with their neighbors.

But, power corrupts and the U.S. has corrupted Israel absolutely for its own policy objectives -- and the rest pay the deadly price.

I got into trouble on a previous thread, stating that we should embargo arms and freeze their assets. I have to question, what all of our tax dollars sent to Israel have actually purchased for us? I don't dispute their right (or anyone's right) to exist in peace and have safe borders, etc, but what benefit do we achieve from supporting Israel? Certainly doesn't seem to be a stable region. What do we get for our money?

killing to acheive its geopolitical goals and those of the Neocon backers. It is tragic
that Israel no longer cares about the hatred it engenders in the Arab populations that
surround them because they do not fear the results of this hatred.

and has every right to defend itself, as does any person or state. I am no fan of the Israelis, nor am I a fan of the folks on the other side of the issues. I don't think killing anyone solves very much, but it seems to be a regular part of the process in this neighborhood. My question is why do we pay for it and what benefit do we get? I am hard pressed to see what Israel provides to the United States (and hence it's taxpayers) that is worth any of our support much less the billions we provide.

What benefits do we get from backing Israel zealousy? Do they outweigh the costs in hatred of America and hence anti-US terrorism?

I just wanna know what I'm getting for my money. If we are getting something, great let's pay for whatever it happens to be. I just don't see where we are getting much of anything. I read contemporary journals on foreign affairs and military matters, I've studied history and military history, I have listened to lectures from former Israeli leaders at our local Speaker Series and I just don't see what we get.

Too bad it is a phony proposition as surveys across Arab world show repeatedly.

A case in point: the whole Bin Laden family has been motivated by the
Arab/Israeli conflict since the time that daddy Bin Laden wanted to convert his
contruction fleets into war machines to avenge "perceived" Israeli injustice.
Yet the MSN will tell use that NO NO, Osama is NOT really concerned about the
palestinian issue -- he just talks about it to excuse his bad behavior.

Osama is NOT really concerned about the
palestinian issue -- he just talks about it to excuse his bad behavior.

And what has he done for the Palestinian people? Anything? Money? Weapons? Personnel?

Bin Laden merely uses I/P to boost his popularity among the masses. I/P for him is kind of like what 9/11 is to Bush. Perhaps in the alternate universe of militant Islam there is a Islamic militant version of Frank Lutz telling him to blame I/P for everything and bring it up at every opportunity. :rofl:

I don't believe it is the sole reason for it or even the dominant reason for it. There is a dangerous ideology out there, in my view, that wants to impose its medieval view of the world on everyone, starting with the Middle East, and they realize the USA is the biggest obstacle to their control of the Middle East. The chief problem is the ideology IMO. However, I also believe that our very unbalanced I/P policy is the top recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and its ilk and it causes some Muslims who would otherwise be sympathetic to America to be hostile to us or be indifferent toward terror to us. Many Muslims have a "they got what they deserve" attack toward 9/11. Sure, not all, but a fair chunk do overseas (Western Muslims are different than non-Western ones, but the media lumps them all into one group in the US, as if the Muslim next door thinks exactly like Al-Zahwiri :rolleyes:). Why? They see our role in essentially sponsoring what Israel does to the Palestinians.

If we are serious about reducing the terrorist threat--which is very real--against us we must have a frank, open, national discussion on our Israel-Palestine policy. You make a good point. The MSM propaganda is that the I/P conflict plays no role in this, that we are hated throughout the Muslim world for our freedom--even among Muslims living in democracies. We are approaching the five year anniversary of 9/11. When will we have a frank debate on this issue? It is sad that every major presidential candidate had the same position on Israel/Palestine in 2004 and I expect the same in 2008. Congress is a joke on I/P, especially the Senate, where AIPAC leaves no Senator left behind. Congress is arguably more extreme on I/P than most Israelis!

I am new here so I will state that I am neither a zealot for Israel or a zealot for Palestine. What do I want? Peace and I want what is best for America in the region, not what is best for Tel Aviv or Ramallah.

We need to have a frank and open discussion of the issues, our goals and how we get from point A to point B and at what cost. What is going on now is not really working or I believe has worked so why not open debate. Peace is what is needed, how we get there I don't know, but I am tired of paying for a seemingly endless conflict. I too am relatively new here so let's hang together and keep the debate on the issues when we meet in the forums and rebuff those who engage in personal attacks!

:headbang:

..one of the leading literary critics of the last quarter of the 20th century and professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University. Now it is with Bin Laden.

Sorry it seemed to get a little nasty earlier. Afraid I don't know much about English Lit. (not my favorite subject, not my least favorite either) just, not where I spend much of my time.

when one side has a massively enhanced (destorted) power position it is impossible for real
negotiations to occur.

If Israel had been on a more even playing field with its neighbors, it would have been able to work something out instead of building US financed cement walls around its borders.

because Gov of Israel does not have to compromise.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Pat Buchanan and a few others with his attitudes publicly do not. That is what a country does to aid its allies. Obviously it will bother a small minority and they have a right to voice their disapproval. This is the case in Israel as well, where a small minority oppose the govts actions in Lebanon. I daresay this is not the case in the repressive regimes you seem to sympathize with.

to Israel military and economy.

surveys have shown this to be overwhelmingly true. through the election process and the unwavering support of our ally for decades. i know it would be convenient to show a majority in this country supported abandonment of Israel, but this is not the case, nor will it ever be. See the backlash against such prominent anti-Israeli talking heads as Pat Buchanan for evidence. This country will continue to support Israel to the great dismay of those that hate her for whatever reasons.

This 2001 article show miriad of ways Israel aid flows.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html

While I like most have no problem with aid to Israel, few understand the extend to which
Israel effectively has a military blank check and is not constrained by usual budget worries as it
engages in military action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

January/February 2001, Pages 15-16

Congress Watch

A Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: $91 Billion—and Counting

By Shirl McArthur

With the turmoil surrounding the presidential election essentially freezing Congress into inaction, this is probably a good time to take another look at aid to Israel. The common figure given for U.S. aid to Israel is $3 billion per year—$1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military aid. As impressive as this figure is, however, since it represents about one-sixth of total U.S. foreign aid, the true figure is even more remarkable. It is difficult, however, to arrive at an exact number. Much of the money the U.S. gives Israel is buried in the budgets of other government agencies, primarily the Defense Department (DOD). Other subsidies come in a form that isn’t easily quantifiable, such as the early disbursement of aid, which allows Israel to gain (and the U.S. taxpayer to lose) the interest on the unspent money.

This year’s appropriations bills for FY 2001, which began Oct. 1, 2000, include, in addition to the $2.82 billion in economic and military foreign aid to Israel, an additional $60 million in so-called refugee resettlement and $250 million in the DOD budget, plus $85 million imputed interest, for a total of at least $3.215 billion. In addition, on Nov. 14, 2000, President William Clinton sent a special request to Congress for an additional $450 million in military aid to Israel in FY 2001, plus $350 million for FY 2002.

The package also included $225 million in military aid for Egypt and $75 million in security assistance for Jordan. The $450 million for Israel is not included in these calculations, because it is unclear at this writing whether Congress will approve the package in the current political climate.

Calculating Total U.S. Aid

Unquestionably, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II. Estimates for total U.S. aid to Israel vary, however, because of the uncertainties and ambiguities described above. An Oct. 27, 2000 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, using available and verifiable numbers, gives cumulative aid to Israel from 1949 through FY 2000 (which ended Sept. 30, 2000) at $81.38 billion. On the other hand, last year the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs estimated total aid to Israel through FY 2000 at $91.82 billion.

The CRS number surely is too low, because, although it does include such things as the old food-for-peace program, the $1.2 billion from the Wye agreement, and the current subsidy for “refugee resettlement,” it does not include money from the DOD budget, on the grounds that those funds are for joint research and development projects. Nor does the CRS figure include estimated interest on the early disbursement of aid funds. Last year’s Washington Report estimate imputes an amount for “other aid” (including the DOD) that may no longer be valid, based as it is on a thorough study of three representative years. While this year’s estimate is more conservative, the results are still shockingly high.

To the CRS number of $81.38 billion through FY 2000 can be added (with details to follow):

• $4.28 billion from the DOD; and

• $1.72 billion in interest from early disbursement of aid, for a total of $87.38 billion through Sept. 30, 2000. To that can be added the $3.22 billion detailed above, giving a grand total of $90.6 billion total aid to Israel through FY 2001. Approval of Clinton’s special request for $450 million more in military aid would push the number over $91 billion.

all loans to Israel the same as grants.

Taxpayers do or perhaps they do not know the scope and might question the amounts. I don't know if that is the case or not. I have no problem supporting Israel if the support is 1). needed and 2). fits into our strategic goals (meaning we do get some benefit from it. Certainly allies support one another, no disagreement on that. My question is has our support benefited us? The amounts large or small make no difference. I don't necessarily support anyone or any group in the issue. I just want my money spent wisely.

feel there is a benefit with their overwhelming support. perhaps the benefit is the aid to a friend in need.

for the calm answer and I don't disagree with you. There is a historical relationship between the two countries. I don't think we need to send them as much as we do and I wish more was in the form of humanitarian aid rather than weaponry. But wishes.......

however, the vast majority of what i see here is anti-israel vitriol that would do david duke and pat buchanan proud.

Why is it that pro-Israelis always resort to that?

The question is what does the US get out of it?

I don't really think the average American thinks about it. Nothing wrong with getting them to think about it, either. Humanitarian aid is more along the lines of the benefit you're talking about. This is not humanitarian aid, but military aid.

The US does not have to send all this aid to Israel, and people in the US are entitled to question it.

or pro or anti the other guys in the issue. I would love to see the killing stop and the area peaceful (again wishes....) I think both sides have gone over the edge and need to calm down and start talking. Nothing will happen until they do so and nothing can be imposed from outside. I think we need to get our citizens out of the area, lean a bit on the Israelis to stop shooting, pull together whoever we can to get the other guys to do the same and try to establish some sort of calm (even a shaky calm). I also believe we need to rethink our aid to Israel, perhaps it could be redirected into means of securing a peace in the area, by parceling it out for things that don't kill people. Our ally Israel would be much better off, if there was a way for them to have a peaceful neighborhood in which to live. If that would mean a few less weapons for them and more schools, or food or medicines for someone else, it's worth looking at.

An analysis of the large gap between what taxpayers believe and the ME policies which
hold sway in congress is provided in: "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, 2006.

Of course there are other points of view.

staunch Israel critics. next.

have been simply "dismissed"?

Then who are any of us to question your clearly authoritative point of view.

Please forgive the impudence of us ignorants who are merely of Stanford and Harvard.

Sorry great one. You obviously have the true facts.

As if this has no influence on 96-2 one-sided resolutions in favor of the Israeli government in the Senate :rolleyes:

2004 election cycle

Pro-Israel:
Money to Congress

Election cycle: All Cycles 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990

List: Summary Top 20 Members All Senators All Members of the House All Senate Candidates All House Candidates Sort by Amount Sort by Name Sort by State

Candidate
Amount

Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
$245,075

Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
$235,200

Lieberman, Joe (D-CT)
$231,050

Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
$162,950

Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
$142,110

Murray, Patty (D-WA)
$130,745

Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD)
$127,125

Feingold, Russell D (D-WI)
$113,703

Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
$98,600

Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
$97,150

Schumer, Charles E (D-NY)
$96,000

Bennett, Robert F (R-UT)
$95,750

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
$95,250

Reid, Harry (D-NV)
$94,200

Inouye, Daniel K (D-HI)
$91,200

Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)
$83,900

Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
$73,500

Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
$71,150

Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
$68,850

Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND)
$63,390

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
$60,149

Voinovich, George V (R-OH)
$54,100

Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' (R-MO)
$44,450

Crapo, Mike (R-ID)
$40,577

McCain, John (R-AZ)
$38,000

Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)
$31,750

Campbell, Ben Nighthorse (R-CO)
$22,951

Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
$10,000

Kerry, John (D)
$10,000

Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
$6,250

Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY)
$6,000

Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
$6,000

Talent, James M (R-MO)
$6,000

Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
$5,000

Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
$5,000

Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
$4,000

Durbin, Dick (D-IL)
$3,500

Lautenberg, Frank R (D-NJ)
$2,728

Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
$2,300

Graham, Bob (D)
$2,000

Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)
$2,000

Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
$2,000

Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE)
$1,500

Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
$1,500

Carper, Tom (D-DE)
$1,250

Cornyn, John (R-TX)
$1,000

Domenici, Pete V (R-NM)
$1,000

Kennedy, Edward M (D-MA)
$1,000

Edwards, John (D)
$500

Surely you're not suggesting that Pat Leahy is selling out to the israel lobby for 2,000 bucks. In fact, there are a significant number of Senators on that list who received less than $10,000. I have a hard time believing they sell there votes so cheaply.

Perhaps his lack of AIPAC funding explains why he apparently isn't like virtually every other Senator on I/P? That lends some more credence to the lobby argument. This suggests that a Senator who receives little from AIPAC, such as Leahy (I looked at his other election years too), will not vote with AIPAC all the time like those that receive a lot of money from AIPAC seem to do, such as Jon Kyl. I checked on project vote smart and found an interest group that is pro-Palestinian. He is tied for the 4th best rating from that group. It should also be noted that the Senator with the highest rating is Vermont's other Senator. Perhaps there is something about Vermont's culture and/or politics that causes this? I am not from Vermont. Maybe you can explain this. Perhaps it isn't the lobby but something unique about Vermont vs. other states. Neighboring NH's Senators also score high ratings, with Sununu tying for 2nd. Maybe it is regional, not just endemic to Vermont.

Edit: I checked another apparently pro-Palestinian group. In that only 8 Senators agreed with the group most of the time and Leahy once again ranked 4th. In both ratings Jeffords is 1st followed by Sununu of NH. Gregg gets a +1 from both groups, making him one of the few pro-Palestinian Senators, which automatically places him in the top 10. In the first interest groups' rating only 7 Senators are pro-Palestinian.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003519M&sort=currentoffice
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003538M&sort=currentoffice

You make a good point but you have to look at when they are up for election. How much do they get when they run? Look at how much more Hillary Clinton and Jon Kyle are getting in 2006 vs. 2004, for instance. Those on the foreign relations committee obviously get special attention from AIPAC as well. I checked a few of these cases and they got far more when they ran. I checked 5 or 6 Senators on the FR committee and all but Leahy got substantial backing from AIPAC.

All that said, I still may be wrong. If you or anyone else can make that case I will be happy to recant my position. Due to time constraints, I cannot look at every Senator's election year contributions from AIPAC and their voting records right now. The reason I come with the assumption that AIPAC is the driving force in there being only a handful of Senators who disagree with AIPAC is that I believe special interests play a huge role in our politics these days.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Senator (the reasons I focus on Senators vs. Reps. is their larger role in foreign policy, their greater power than House members, their need for more $$$$ to run a statewide campaign, and the fact that special circumstances in a few districts may result in exceptions.). You have an issue that 99% of the public doesn't care about. You have a special interest group that will provide substantial money to you for simply voting on an issue that few care about. It won't cost you any votes and will get you extra money essentially for free. Politically, why would a Senator not be pro-AIPAC?

Why do you believe there are only a handful of pro-Palestinian Senators? Their support is also not nearly as vocal as that of the most pro-Israel ones. Aside from Warner, which other Senator has been vocal in voicing oppostion to the Bush/Olmert position? Maybe you can provide an alternate theory that shatters this common one. :)

and my state. Vermonters are pretty well educated about the middle east.

I don't know why there are only a handful of pro-peace Senators; AIPAC and related funds are certainly a piece of it, but that sitll doesn't entirely explain it. I think there's something one could call institutional memory; support for Israel is deeply ingrained within both the House and Senate. That too, has something to do with it.

and none of us (nor our leadership or seemingly any world leadership) has all the answers, but we need to continue to look for those answers, in a calm non-accusatory manner. Thank You for your posts. Particularly liked the one from the WP with the numbers.

How many Americans even know what an Israeli settlement is? How many know the details surrounding it?

:scared:

The problem too is that Americans won't understand just how much it has cost us until its too late.

It's not the foreign aid and military hardware that is corrupting Israel, it's the top-down corporatist economic and social policies that have gradually crept into Israel's European style semi-socialist economic and social structures. Israel was built to accommodate the masses of impoverished and downtrodden immigrants from Russia and those that got kicked out of the Arab countries, now thanks to Likudnik/neo-con economic policies its become a much less friendly place to the poor and immigrants communities.

If Bush thinks that the Lebanese are basically good guys and that Hezbollah is the cancer within Lebanon, and that it's up to the Lebanese Army to get rid of them, why doesn't he massively fund conscriptions in the Lebanese Army and provide them with the tanks, air force, and high tech weaponry to go after Hezbollah themselves? The Lebanese Army is about 25,000 strong, can barely afford any equipment, has about three or four helicopters, and 30 year old military air craft that barely stays in a state of repair. Why doesn't Bush and the Republcan Congress fork over $3 billion a year to allow Lebanon to defend itself?

and might serve the purpose of getting rid of Hezbollah and securing Israel's borders so they don't need as many things that kill people. Perhaps even the Israelis could contribute, it might be in their best interest to help their neighbor.

Than arm more of them. It often comes back to bite us 30 years later.

That tiny percentage is used to fund all of our foreign embassies as well. This has been the case for years and will likely continue to be the case. Any other funding they get is a loan or part of some other deal. It is just ridiculous to believe the anti-Israeli propaganda that we are somehow providing Israel with most of their funding, or that Israel actually finances the US, or that Jews eat children. Your numbers may be accurate, they may not be, but we are hardly "subsidizing their domestic policy goals." Give me a fucking break.

But no matter if it is $10 billion or $1.99 I think we need to have it spent wisely. I am sure you work hard for your money that goes to taxes just like everyone else.

It's not like they are the only people we give money to who do things I don't support. If this was about taxes, the first thing I'd complain about is the fact that the richest 2% of Americans have just received billions in wartime tax cuts while we are left to shoulder that burden, not what a fraction of 1% is being spent on. So, it doesn't take a super sleuth to determine that this is Israeli-bashing bullshit, and I'm not playing.

Let's look at why. I think you will find that in most cases individuals single Israel out for reasons other than an obsession with Israel.

1) Size of the aid. Only Egypt comes close to Israel in the aid it receives, and that is because its aid package is pegged to whatever Israel receives in a given year. You won't see much talk about countries that get only $20 million from the US.
2) The military factor. How many of those nations attack, rightly or wrongly, other nations?
3) Occupation. Aside from Morocco, who else is involved in a long-term occupation?
4) Impact on the US. Aid to Israel causes a costly backlash that aid to other nations doesn't to anywhere near the same extent.
5) Media coverage. People are going to focus on what they hear about. How often do you here of what Turkey does to the Kurds, for instance?

China and Turkey (Cyprus).

The "size" of the aid given to Israel has to do with its strategic location as the only democracy in the region. It is still a fraction of 1% of all tax revenue.

Countries have been attacking each other our entire lives in Africa and Central America, so lots.

Not everyone agrees that Israel is guilty of occupation. They were repeatedly attacked by surrounding Arab nations who they then drove back beyond their former boundaries in response. Do you consider California to be part of Mexico? Or Syria part of the Ottoman Empire? Come on.

The "impact" of our aid to Israel is no different than the impact of any other policy, despite the attempts by the anti-Israel faction to externalize responsibility for their actions.

However, I agree with you completely on your last point.

Edit: fixed brain fart

What is it to you if the US never gives Israel another dime?

Or any other country. We don't HAVE to give any other country a damn thing.

by DOE and DOD contracts as well as Federal loan guarantees which effectively become grants.
The dependence of the Israeli economy on the U.S. is not a debatable point.

Israel isn't the only country that gets DOE and DOD contracts that we don't expect repayment on. However, your willingness to accept that it's somehow more horrible when Israel is the beneficiary speaks volumes about you.

personal attack to try to shut down the discussion? It's as if they are afraid of the discussion. Like they are admitting that they have no leg to stand on.

Unless you were referring to them, that is.

A friend in the middle east, is one I've heard. Aren't we friends with the Saudis, too? Why do we need Israel?

Saudi Arabia is a monorchy populated mostly with very poor people who hate our country. You would pick them over Israel?

if my parents were in the literal ash-heap of history.