Dear Israel...

[Skogan]

Please go ahead and find a solution to the whole palestinian thingy, mmkay? See, ever year we send you over 5 Billion dollars, and yet I still have pot holes on my street. We could hire roughly 10,000 teachers for our inner city schools with that money instead, which would be cool.

It would be different if, say back in 1980, you would have told us you would only need the extra cash for 3 or 4 years. I would be all for that. But here we are, so many years later, and your still on the dole. Is this going to go on forever? Can you give me a rough time frame when you think you will be able to stand on your own? Its not like your a 3rd world contry, your average standard of living is higher then spain or Ireland, which get by just fine.

Then there is the fact that we lost more people in the world trade center then palisitinians or Isrealies combined during the intifada. That sucks. Big time. I'm not saying that was your fault, just that it is a consequence of our support for you. I would rather we were more isolationist, minding our own buisness. Maybe less people would call us the great satan then, who knows...

Let me conclude this way. I know your a democracy, and I support that. I really do. But Costa Rica is a democracy to, and they're much less a pain in the ass.

Thanks in advance,

Skogan

[Vic]

The trolls are here! Ugh

[Mediocrates]

We just got 150 billion dollar farm aid bill to already rich farmers/farm corporations. What's your share of that?

[Skogan]

I'm not a troll. I was displaced from another message board, and now I'm waiting for them to recognize my right of return :(

Skogan

[Skogan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
We just got 150 billion dollar farm aid bill to already rich farmers/farm corporations. What's your share of that?

That sucks to... your point?

[Belgium@EU]

Indeed, there must be more of these people who don't want there tax-money to be spend in another nation. I'm really happy to see there are still some Americans who seem to understand it. Can you imagine a European country giving all of its money to another country, instead of using it as a back-up for the real third world nations. If israel is so rich, and has such a growing economy, why does it need money from Big Brother Uncle Sam? Uncle Sam should give his money back to the AMERICAN taxpayers.

And are all those farmers that rich? Maybe, but at least they are AMERICANS.

[NewsGuy]

Skogan,

The figure is $3 Billion (not 5 Billion), and it is a common misconception that it is somehow a gift. To be clear, it is not a gift to Israel -- it is a busines deal from which the U.S. taxpayer profits.

Here's how it works:

1. The U.S. LOANS Israel 3 Billion for the specified purpose of Israel spending that $3 Billion in the U.S. As usual, a huge amount gets spent with American defense companies like Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

2. The U.S. defense companies then hire U.S. workers who make a handsome living from Israel's loan. Then, those workers pay income taxes, sending back approx 30-40 percent of that money directly Uncle Sam.

3. Then, the defense company pays corporate taxes, of course, which sends huge sums of money back to the IRS.

Are you following this? By now, Uncle Sam has gotten back both income taxes and corporate taxes, probably to the tune of maybe a 30% annual return on their investment.

4. But the profit-taking from the Israel loan is not nearly over, because the loan now generates interest payments from the Israeli government. This means more profit for the U.S. I estimate that by now, the U.S. is looking at about a total of 40-50% on the whole deal. (i.e., clear profit of close to $1.5 Billion a year made off Israel).

5. Then, of course the principle, i.e., the original $3 Billion is repaid, leaving the U.S. taxpayer rolling in dough from the Israeli deal.

But, wait... there's more...

6. The Israelis, having purchased advanced warplanes and other weapons systems, now needs to buy replacement parts from whom? From the U.S., of course. So, now Israel has been made a perpetual customer of the U.S. for decades to come.

7. And, in addition, the entire deal is framed somehow as a "favor" to Israel, thereby giving the U.S. political power in the Mideast and a solid military partner in a treacherous region, where Islamic extremists and other Arab terrorists threaten to choke the U.S. supply of feul.

* * *

So, with a 45-50% profit margin, PLUS the creation of high-paying American jobs, PLUS repayment of the loan, PLUS creating a perpetual customer to profit from for decades to come, PLUS gaining political and military influence in a crucial region of the world, I'd say the the U.S. taxpayer should be very grateful for the business deal with Israel.

You see, skogan, all of your whining is for naught. Instead, you should be thrilled to have a deal like this.

[Gatorade]

Why don't you also complain about the 232,000,000 the US gives the Palestinians? Do you know that if you add up what the US gives the Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt it adds up to near to the the amount in aid the US gives Israel?

In 2000 President Clinton presented a generous proposal to the Palestinians as a framework for peace. The Palestinians were responsible for rejecting that offer. The Israeli Prime Minister has said he would have gone along with that proposal.

The parties outside of Israel are more to blame than Israel for the lack of peace. Israel was willing to give land for peace in the past. They offered land for peace in the West Bank in 1967 and a generous offer in 2000. Why not ask the Palestinians when they are going be much less of a pain in the ass?

[sitruc37diesel]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU

And are all those farmers that rich?


I don't know who this law helps, but I come from an area where a very high amount of the people are dairy farmers who have small family farms. They of course have to sell their milk to larger processing companies.

A long time ago, somebody had the bright idea to make a law enforcing some kind of price structure (the Milk Marketing Order i think) that set up regions that said the farther you are away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the higher you will get paid for your raw milk.

Small family farms are really hurting these days here in WI. Huge farms are starting to pop up that tend to use a synthetic bovine hormone to increase milk production. Some have thousands of cows unlike the 30-100 cows that small farms have. Some of these large farms don't bother using veteranarians for sick cows because it's more cost effective to just kill a sick cow apparently.

I'd like to see the milk that I drink continue to come from small family farms.

What's the situation with small family farmers like in the rest of the world?

[Vic]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Skogan,

The figure is $3 Billion (not 5 Billion), and it is a common misconception that it is somehow a gift. To be clear, it is not a gift to Israel -- it is a busines deal from which the U.S. taxpayer profits.

Here's how it works: [...]
Actually, I've heard complaints that this arrangement is damaging to the Israeli economy, first of all to the military industry. I don't know whether it is true.

[Indian]

To quote the French ambassador to the Uk:

"ALL THE WORLDS PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY THAT ****TY LITTLE COUNTRY ISRAEL".

Although my nation is allies with your state, I and hundreds of millions of my people cannot stand your nations ploicies. We have Jews here in Madras, about 100,000 of them and they are up themselves, despite being kept dirt poor and humiliated by the real Indians of this area.

hahahahahahah!

Jai Bharat!

India Zindabad!

[AmericaNumber1]

This raises a good question: Why is Israel still paid so handsomly by the United States when countries about ten times their size get less than they do? Israel is about the size of Maryland with one of the best Technology industries in the world yet somehow, they manage to get the highest cut of America's Foreign Aid Budget.......Why does Israel even need aid from the United States? In fact, this last month saw an INCREASE in Foreign Aid to Israel (about 100 Million dollars).

Here in the United States, Missouri and Alabama residents are not getting their Tax Refund checks because of cutbacks. But, here we are handing free money to a country that doesn't seem to need it while our own have to go without!

Missouri Stops Payment of Tax Refund Checks (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000032345may07.story?coll=la-headlines-nation-manual)

President Urges more Foreign Aid (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020323-73809718.htm)

[Skogan]

To Newsguy...

Yes, we give 3 billion in loans... on top of 2.7 Billion in direct foreign aid. I'm not sure why you didnt include the direct aid, and only the loans in your analysis. As to the loans, I'm not so much against that in theory, especially since you spend that portion of the aid in the U.S. The problem is that point Number 5 of yours.

See, you typically don't pay the loans back. True, you have never defaulted, we simple forgive the debt. That, of course, is only true the majority of the time, not always. I dont have the resources at my desk to get the exact number, but I invite you to do you own independant check to see how many of the loans are forgiven. This is simply foreign aid disguise. To not include that as aid is intellectually dishonest.

Also, perhaps you have heard of the Cranston Ammendment? Its the one that says the LEAST amount of foreign aid we can send to you, is the amount you repay on your loans, should you decide to. Thus, you could perpetually avoid paying any debt by convernting your new aid to old debt.

Actually, the 5 Billion dollar figure is conservative. There are several programs hidden withen individual departments which have the effect of aid. I didn't count these, but a legitmate arguement could be made that I should.


So I guess I'm still going to whine a little longer.

To Gatorade...

Ummm ok. I hereby complain about giving money to the palistinians too. I think you miss my central point. I would rather have the money spent at home, rather then abroad. Why? First, because whenever we try to help someone, whoever hates them, will now hate us. Then they blow our stuff up. And kill our people. And call us Satan, etc...

Second, there are area's of the U.S. that are poorer then Israel. Ever been to Newark, NJ? I would rather spend the money there.
Call me selfish if you want.

Let me make this clear. I'm not saying you are wrong (maybe you are, maybe your not.) What I'm saying is our relationship with you is not good for us. If you worked out your problems in just a few years, I would bite the bullet and support ya. But thats not the case, this thing is dragging out forever.

You are not the only one effected when you go into Jennin. You are not the only one effected we you refuse to follow U.N. resolutions. You are not the only one effected when there is no peace in your region. Because we have, and do, aid you, we are effected also. Once again I remind you, the number of people that nut killed in the world trade center, is greater then the number of Israelies and palistinians killed in the intifada.

My compassion for your cause has grown thin over time. Practical concerns are starting to become more important to me. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying I am tired. So try harder.

Skogan

[Belgium@EU]

Originally posted by AmericaNumber1


Here in the United States, Missouri and Alabama residents are not getting their Tax Refund checks because of cutbacks. But, here we are handing free money to a country that doesn't seem to need it while our own have to go without!

Missouri Stops Payment of Tax Refund Checks (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000032345may07.story?coll=la-headlines-nation-manual)

President Urges more Foreign Aid (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020323-73809718.htm)

Hé, that money is spend for a good cause, so don't complain about it. Who wants to give money to the poor and the helples if they can give it to feed a hungry warmachine. Better healthcare for US citizens, education ... who needs it? Priority one is war on terrorism. In the meanwhile, all the other "priorities" have to wait.
But if you give money to Israel, you can be sure of where your money is going ... to education , healthcare, environment ... NOT

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Skogan


That sucks to... your point?

Point being that

a) The US gives less per GDP than any industrialized nation for foreign aid, anywhere

b) We splurge BILLIONS on pork projects to enrich obscure corporations which make aid projects spit in the ocean by comparison

c) We give billions in direct aid to Egypt as well - part of which goes to torture, imprison, disappear thousands of militant fundamentalists trying to wrest control of the country from Mubarek.

[Skogan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates


Point being that

a) The US gives less per GDP than any industrialized nation for foreign aid, anywhere

b) We splurge BILLIONS on pork projects to enrich obscure corporations which make aid projects spit in the ocean by comparison

c) We give billions in direct aid to Egypt as well - part of which goes to torture, imprison, disappear thousands of militant fundamentalists trying to wrest control of the country from Mubarek.

Yes... thats a list of bad stuff. I dont like it... So what's the point?
We should ignore some bad policy because we have other bad policies? See, this is the Israel boards, so I posted about Israel related issues. When I happen upon the "pork projects" board, I'll be sure to point out I don't support that either. I'm only one troll. I can only do so much in a day.

Skogan

[Mediocrates]

"Here in the United States, Missouri and Alabama residents are not getting their Tax Refund checks because of cutbacks. But, here we are handing free money to a country that doesn't seem to need it while our own have to go without!"

If states were broke they still wouldn't get a handout from the Fed. My own state is from 1-3 billion dollars in the hole from a total state operating budget of ~7 billion dollars. We're not getting anything from the Federal government to offset that. We have the highest unemployment in 25 years from the high tech downturn. So?

Did you know our own President gets several hundred thousand dollars a year in federal subsidy because he "raises cattle" on his Crawford ranchlette? Or that our own VP who is a millionaire several hundred times over receives federal crop subsidies to the tune of millions every year because of an agricultural company he is part owner of?

Sounds to me like you should be going to your state house and complaining about how they run the state.

[Belgium@EU]

Originally posted by Mediocrates


Point being that

a) The US gives less per GDP than any industrialized nation for foreign aid, anywhere

b) We splurge BILLIONS on pork projects to enrich obscure corporations which make aid projects spit in the ocean by comparison

c) We give billions in direct aid to Egypt as well - part of which goes to torture, imprison, disappear thousands of militant fundamentalists trying to wrest control of the country from Mubarek.

a) That's true. US bombs Afghanistan. EU and japan pay to rebuild it.

c) so why are there so many American tourists going to Egypt? Doesn't that have something to do with it?

[Mediocrates]

I live near the most expensive highway in America I-540 Wake-Durham, NC. Been building for over 10 years. It's 13.5 miles long and so far has cost about 20 million dollars. The project plan calls for completion of the other 77+ miles sometime around the year 2040.

Similarly, Nashville got approved for a 'loop' highway which is slated, before thing one gets done, to cost over 3 billion dollars and take 25 years. About half the money comes from the Federal government and the rest from the state/city. As long as Federal money flows, the State CANNOT stop funding their piece of it.

No joke. You want waste, I'll give you waste.

But you do see, that loans and aid to Israel has a strategic purpose, no? Does the US want ZERO allies in the Mid East or do we simply assume that if we buy their oil the Saudis will love us?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU


a) That's true. US bombs Afghanistan. EU and japan pay to rebuild it.

c) so why are there so many American tourists going to Egypt? Doesn't that have something to do with it?

Where's b)?

What are you talking about? Tourists in Egypt?

[Skogan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
[

But you do see, that loans and aid to Israel has a strategic purpose, no? Does the US want ZERO allies in the Mid East or do we simply assume that if we buy their oil the Saudis will love us? [/B]

I think this is where we disagree. When we support Isreal as strongly as we do, this give everyone in the world the impression that we approve of all their actions. Not only that, we are co-conspirators in their fight. Thus, if somone hates Israel, they naturally hate us to. Enemies of Israel become Enemies of the U.S.

There are enough people who hate us for the things WE do, we dont need more to hate us for the things ISRAEL does.

Will Saudi love us because we buy their oil? Probably not. But I don't really care if they love us, I just dont want them to them to hate us enough to drop anthrax on us.

Once again, I didn't say Israel is totally wrong. I said that if this was a short term thing, I would be able to stick with em because they are a democracy. But this has been going on for decades! I really dont want to have all these people hating us for a few more decades.

In that light, I hope you see my request was somewhat reasonable. I asked them to try harder for peace, because I dont like spending that kinda of money on them, and I dont want to continue to be hated by the rest of the world. We have a stake in them working this out every bit as real as they do.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
Yes, we give 3 billion in loans... on top of 2.7 Billion in direct foreign aid. I'm not sure why you didnt include the direct aid, and only the loans in your analysis.
skogan,

Nor did you bother to mention anywhere that $3 Billion dollars of the amount you complain about is actually profit-producing and job-producing for ther U.S. The profit covers the other portion in any event.

But I also would mention that even though you're telling me "you" this and "you" that, I am an American taxpayer, so... While you're doing the complaining, I'm the one doing the paying.

Now, I have no problem with my country profiting from a good cause like helping Israel and ourselves, as opposed to tons of other programs that I am forced to pay for, including:
- the funding of Arab countries and the Palestinian terrorist entity,

- funding of the anti-American UN (which kicked us off the humnan rights commission last year),

- funding the rebuilding of Afghanistan which trained the al Quaeda Arabs,

- and last but not least, the American taxpayer paying to protect the brutal and corrupt Arab oil regimes and also paying to keep our troops in places like Japan and Europe, which are our trade competitors.

So, all this goes to show that we Americans have no control over what the White House wants to fund abroad, or even the porkbelly spending and social programs in our own backyard.

That being the case, I reiterate that I'd rather see the money go to a just cause like Israel than to all the rest of the real money drains that I listed.

See, you typically don't pay the loans back. True, you have never defaulted, we simple forgive the debt.
I think you are confusing Israel with some of the third-world countries we support, because on the whole, the U.S. is in the profit column when it comes to Israeli investment. Anyway, what is your source on this?


There are several programs hidden withen individual departments which have the effect of aid. I didn't count these, but a legitmate arguement could be made that I should.
You actually did count those and claimed that they amounted to $2.5 Billion. Again, what is your source on this?

I would rather have the money spent at home, rather then abroad. Why? First, because whenever we try to help someone, whoever hates them, will now hate us. Then they blow our stuff up. And kill our people. And call us Satan, etc...
First of all, a reality check. The ones who hate the U.S. are the Muslim and African countries, and yes, we should immediately stop sending money to those countries.

[TexasMan]

I think my tax dollars to Israel are well spent.

[Skogan]

Nor did you bother to mention anywhere that $3 Billion dollars of the amount you complain about is actually profit-producing and job-producing for ther U.S. The profit covers the other portion in any event.

Actually, I think I did. I said I didnt have as much problem with the loans, because they were spent in the U.S. Did I need to be more clear? ok, Because they were spent in the U.S., and that creates profits. (Of course, I that is IF they are paid back, I dont have a problem with them)

The profit does not cover the other portion. That is just plain crazy. Lets assume that the arms industry could make a 10 percent profit. Thats 300 million off the loan. That doesnt cover the direct aid.. nearly.. and that assumes that isreal paid back the load.

I am an American in the highest tax bracket in this country and probably pay more tax than most anyone I know, so... While you're doing the complaining, I'm the one doing the paying

Congratulations. Here's your cookie.

I think you are confusing Israel with some of the third-world countries we support, because on the whole, the U.S. is in the profit column when it comes to Israeli investment. Anyway, what is your source on this?

Why are you talking about investments? They don't regularly pay back there loans, not by default, but by loan forgiveness. In the post, I said I didnt have the resources at my desk to see the exact percentage that were foregiven. I recommend you look into it if you have questions. By "you looking into it" I didnt mean just ask me. But I tell ya what, I'll take the hour out of my life and go find it for you if your too lazy.

You actually did count those and claimed that they amounted to $2.5 Billion. Again, what is your source on this?

No, I didn't count that. I counted only direct aid, not programs and develops for Israels benefit. For source, I will once again go find that for you too.

First of all, a reality check. The ones who hate the U.S. are the Muslim and African countries, and yes, we should immediately stop sending money to those countries

I agree that they hate us. What I am saying is they hate us more because of our support of Israel then any other reason.


Ok, now im off to get some sources for you...

[elke]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU


a) That's true. US bombs Afghanistan. EU and japan pay to rebuild it.

So, Germany destroys Europe. US pays to rebuild Europe, including Germany.

Japan bombs Pearl Harbor. US pays to rebuild Japan.

Iraq attacks Kuwait. US sacrifices the lives of its soldiers, not to mention a lot of money, for the privilege of being hated by the Kuwaitis, along with the other Arab and - yes, European, - "allies" - for saving their ***.

So, who is going to pay for the World Trade Center? Who is going to replace the income generated by the 2823 people who died there? Who is going to replace the income of literally, thousands of the families of those who were able to escape Armageddon but not unemployment?

[Skogan]

Ok, here are some of my sources. At first I wasn't going to look em up, because I thought this was just a cheap attempt to cover up the fact that you tried to portray all aid to Israel as loans. (which of course, isn't nearly true).

I didnt spend too long on these, so If you want more, you will have to look into it yourself.

Question 1. Is the 2.5 billion, (excludeing loans) equal all of the aid? No, there is other hidden in other agencies that arent direct aid, I said. Here is a source (from 1996) with uses 3 billion as direct aid, and notes where other aid comes from:
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0496/9604007.htm

Other Budgeted Items

Aside from the $3 billion given to Israel each year from the foreign aid budget for economic ($1.2 billion) and military ($1.8 billion) aid, significant amounts of American tax dollars are channeled to Israel through other means. These additional expenditures are included in the budgets of the State, Defense and Commerce departments and other federal agencies, and are not included in official estimates of U.S. foreign aid.

In the State Department's budget for FY96 an additional $93.5 million in grants to Israel were allocated as follows: $80 million to resettle in Israel Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union; $3.5 million for a regional cooperation agreement with Egypt; and $10 million to pay for Israel's own foreign aid program. This brings to $993.4 million the total of additional grants provided to Israel from the State Department's budget since FY73, when the first refugee resettlement payment was given to Israel. None of these grants are included in Economic Support Fund or Foreign Military Sales calculations of U.S. foreign aid totals.

The Defense Department also is a major supplier of money, equipment and training to Israel outside the regular foreign aid budget. In FY90, $100 million worth of hardware was added to the existing $100 million U.S. military equipment stockpile in Israel, which is available to Israeli forces in case of a military emergency. During FY95, an additional $200 million worth of equipment was added, for a total of $400 million.

(Source in next post)

[Skogan]

Question 2:
Does Israel repay the loans from the U.S.? Typically, no, I say, they don't default, congress forgives.

Source:
http://www.abbc2.com/historia/zionism/9602046.html

Friends of Israel would argue that America's financial mismanagement is not the fault of its Israeli client state. They even go so far as to say that federal loan guarantees to Israel cost the American taxpayer nothing, since Israel "has never defaulted on a loan." The truth, however, is that Israel has never repaid a U.S. government loan because Congress eventually forgives them all.

Until it does, the "Cranston Amendment," named after one of Israel's greatest Senate friends, the late California Democrat Alan Cranston, and attached to every foreign aid appropriation bill since 1984, mandates that the annual level of U.S. economic aid to Israel cannot sink below the level of interest Israel must pay on outstanding (not yet forgiven) U.S. government loans for that year.


(next source, next post)

[Mediocrates]

"I agree that they hate us. What I am saying is they hate us more because of our support of Israel then any other reason."

I don't care if they hate us for whatever reason they state. It's the US, it's the Jews, it's Coca-Cola and Nike and Disney, it's the troops in Saudi Arabia, it's about Afghanistan, it's about the Koran, it's about culture, it's about history, it's about democracy, it's about oil.

You know what? We hate them too. Who gives a rat's ass? It's like a bad marriage. An armed truce in an unwinnable war. So in the end the only sane policy is to support the only real ally we have, the only real democracy that shares our values of many of our goals. If that pisses off the House of Saud, TFB. They're either modern civilized people who can deal with other countries that don't always align well with them, or they are unreliable problem chilldren with too much money and free time and not enough impulse control. You have to isolate oil from the equation because any scrabbling horde 50 years out of the Bronze Age would have the same relation with the US and the west be it Arabia, Korea, Uruguay, Papua New Guinea, South Fillintheblankistan, whatever.

Hoping I don't piss off a bunch of rich rednecks is not high in my priorities list.

[Skogan]

Finally, How much is our aid to Israel?

I said over 5 Billion a year, as a conservative estimate.

source:
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1297/9712043.html

qoute:
For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies--true lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.


Done. If you want more sources on such a boring topic, you;ll have to find em yourself. I don't feel like running to the Library.


Skogan

[Skogan]

To Mediocrates:

I would agree with you if everybody didnt have weapons of mass distruction these days. But they do, and that attitude is going to get a lot of people killed in the future.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0496/9604007.htm
ok, so your "authoritative" source is a single opinion piece published in a third-rate anti-Israel rag, strewn with lies and bias and, naturally, no citations about where these "magical" numbers are coming from.

And in any event, it talks about items like military aid, which is not necessarily out of pocket -- it involves loan guarantees, which is a completely different ball of wax.

It also lumps in items like cooperation with Egypt and compliance with costly regional programs, which should even be considered in the same breath as the others.

And to top it all of, the opinion piece you quote goes back at least half a decade ago, which makes it irrelevant at this point. The piece was written in '96, which means that the "data" would have been at the latest from '95, even it were actually acuurate, which highly doubt.

But what is a cheap attempt to deceive is your presenting it as if the U.S. is "giving" Israel $5 Billion in charity, which is completely false and misleading.

Now, it turns out that $3 Billion of that amount is in profit-producing loans, not only for the American defense contractors who turn a tindy profit, but mainly for the U.S. government, yielding not 10% as you would like to think, but somewhere between a 45-50% profit margin for the U.S. government in tax and interest revenue.

My point about the fact that I am a U.S. taxpayer is that typically, I've noticed that many of the the ones who love to criticize the U.S. investment in Israel, are the ones who barely contribute to this country. And many of the ones who shoulder a disproportionate share of the taxes in this country, like myself, are in favor of the Israeli deal.

[Skogan]

I never said I had an autorative post. I said I dont have the resources at my desk to give sources. Yet, you ask me to cite my sources. So I say fine, Ill do the work for you, and find a source. I didn't have alot of time, or access to a library, so I took articles off the Internet.

The source cited comes from a magaize written by ex- U.S. Department of State employees. That article was written by a former State Department officer. The magazine, and organization have no particular Ideological bent. That is a much better source then anyting you have given me. Better then you will usually find on message boards.

In fact, you don't give sources, because you make it up as you go along. You said none of it was a gift, It was all a buisness loan. That is simply a lie. The majority of it is a gift, and that which is discribed as a loan, is really aid in a different fashion. I'll give you a chance to disprove me though. Give me YOUR sources saying that all the money the U.S. gives to Israel is in Loans. Then we can see.



Skogan
P.S.
Go ahead and cite a source saying that those in higher tax brackets are more supportive of Israel then lower tax brackets too. I really don't see why that point was relevant, unless it was a clumsy attempt to brag about how rich you are.


Skogan

[Skogan]

I never said I had an autorative post. I said I dont have the resources at my desk to give sources. Yet, you ask me to cite my sources. So I say fine, Ill do the work for you, and find a source. I didn't have alot of time, or access to a library, so I took articles off the Internet.

The source cited comes from a magaize written by ex- U.S. Department of State employees. That article was written by a former State Department officer. The magazine, and organization have no particular Ideological bent. That is a much better source then anyting you have given me. Better then you will usually find on message boards.

In fact, you don't give sources, because you make it up as you go along. You said none of it was a gift, It was all a buisness loan. That is simply a lie. The majority of it is a gift, and that which is discribed as a loan, is really aid in a different fashion. I'll give you a chance to disprove me though. Give me YOUR sources saying that all the money the U.S. gives to Israel is in Loans. Then we can see.



Skogan
P.S.
Go ahead and cite a source saying that those in higher tax brackets are more supportive of Israel then lower tax brackets too. I really don't see why that point was relevant, unless it was a clumsy attempt to brag about how rich you are.


Skogan

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
Go ahead and cite a source saying that those in higher tax brackets are more supportive of Israel then lower tax brackets too. I really don't see why that point was relevant, unless it was a clumsy attempt to brag about how rich you are.
There's no source, which is why I specifically said it is my observation. But don't even start with me about the rich thing.

I'll repeat what I've said that it is my own observation that many of the critics of U.S. investment and loans to Israel are those who contribute least to the pool.

On the other hand, you have no problem making a statement about the amount of U.S. "aid to Israel" without a shred of a credible basis, and expect it to be treated for some reason as fact.

Sorry, that doesn't work.

But I couldn't resist laughing at your statement that "The magazine, and organization have no particular Ideological bent."

LOL!!! :D

Who are you kidding, Skogan?? Here are the headlines of "objective" opinion pieces from that third-rate rag:

- Relatives Mystified by Israeli Refusal to Release Body of Slain Palestinian-American

- Pentagon, GAO Report Israeli Espionage and Illegal Technology Retransfer

- Israel's Nuclear Weapons: Changing the Subject of Debate

- By-Pass Roads Destroy Hopes for Future Palestinian Autonomy

or this month's special revelations:

- On State Terrorism: ISRAEL'S STATE TERRORISM

- The Palestinians Face a Critical Period as Sharon’s Provocations Increase

* * *

skogan, I think you're out of your league, considering people here know how to click on internet links.

[Gatorade]

Originally posted by Skogan
To Mediocrates:

I would agree with you if everybody didnt have weapons of mass distruction these days. But they do, and that attitude is going to get a lot of people killed in the future.


I think you bring up a legitimate question. We should always evaluate our spending our foreign aid. We shouldn't blindly give money to any country forever.

If I didn't think Israel would support a peace agreement and isn't working for peace, I would agree with you. But the fact is, Israel doesn't have anyone to talk to negotiate peace with. If they did, they would be happy to move quickly towards a peace agreement.

We started to give aid to Israel during the Cold War. It made sense because it was a democracy and we wanted to support a democracy in that area of the world.

Now things are different.

But speaking of weapons of mass destruction, I would say having an ally in that part of the region is more important now now than any time. Israel provides us intelligence. They may be instrumental if we decide to attack Iraq to destroy their ablity use use these weapons.

Being a democracy, Israel offers some stabilization in a part the world that is pretty chaotic.

If they weren't friendly to us, do you think they would have stayed out of the Gulf War after they took a few skuds? That would have really messed up the alliance of the Arab nations. Israel also provides the West a huge favor by destroying Iraq's nuclear development.

You may say, sure they didn't bomb back after getting hit by skuds, but what have they done for us? Well, I would say by staying out of that war they did a whole lot. We are the super power and don't ask most of our allies to do anything. We just hope they don't mess up what we are trying to do.

We have made a commitment to Israel. Sure, we should evaluate that commitment and see if it makes sense, but I believe it does. If we abandoned Israel because she got too expensive when she was working for peace, why would any country want to be our ally in the future?

You sound like you are against wasteful spending in general, which is fine and good. I, however, think we cannot be isolatists in today's world. The world is too small these days. And I think radicals are going to hate us if we support Israel or not. We might as well have some friendly nations in areas of the world that do hate us.

[Skogan]

Here is as much proof as you can possible ask for. This comes from a site called "The Jewish Virtual Library - A Division of the American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise". It is qouting, directly, a report done by the Congressional Research Service. Full site of the original is:
Clyde R. Mark, "Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance," Congressional Research Service, (May 11, 2000)

The link is here for the table:

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

It clearly shows that the amount of GRANTS (not loans) in FY 2001 was 2.88 Billion Dollars. The amount in FY 2000 was 4.1 Billion dollars, (extra was added to help implement the wye agreement.) This is seperate and above any loans (that you refered to) or other agency projects. The CSR did not list the loans or other projects as noted in the foot note, which said:

Loan guarantees are not considered foreign aid so the $7.9 billion in guarantees have been excluded from this table (see Loan Guarantees for Israel [table]). This table also excludes funding for certain other projects the CRS does not consider foreign aid, such as the $180 million for the research and development of the Arrow missile.



Now you may still not admit that the loans are aid in disguse, but at this point you must concede that Israel does receive aid, that are like gifts, and not just the loans... Contranty to your original post.

Skogan

[Skogan]

To Gatorade:
.

Those are some good points. I don't blame Israel for the lack of a peace agreement. I do appreciate the fact that they are a democracy, and I don't discount the will power they showed in the gulf war. But, as I said in my original post, is there an end to this conflict? Or do we have to accept that it will last another century.

I like Israel. But our support of them gives all in the region the impression that we approve, and are collaborators, of everything they do. So when they go into Jenni, it is the equivalant of us going into Jennin. The people there feel like they are oppressed, and we are co-sponsers. We are getting the burden of the conflict, without getting a lot of control on how it is conducted.

Whatever agreement is reached, both sides will feel that they didnt get a fair deal, but sacrificed for peace. I wonder if our support allows the Israeli's to prolong the conflict, in order to hold out for a better deal (even if it is what they consider fair.) This has been going on quite awhile, you must admit.

In the end I guess I want what everyone wants. Peace. But the Israeli interest in the conflict is much greater then ours. And If I have to choose between peace now, (for the U.S.) by adopting a hands off, neutral stance, or constant fighting for the next few decades inorder to get Israel a deal they want, my practical concerns begin to prevail.

Skogan

[Skogan]

To Newsguys:

Here is your proof that the loans are aid in disguise.

From a report published by the Congresssional Research Service.

The main site is here:

http://www.house.gov/htbin/crsprodget?/ib/IBINDEX

The relevent document is here:

IB85066 Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance

It describes current U.S. assistance to Isreal.

On page 6 it states:

Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been in
the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called loans,
but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant. From FY1974 through FY2001, Israel has received almost $40 billion in waived loans.

So there ya go. About 5 Billion dollars in Aid goes to Israel each year. about 3 Billion in Direct Aid, about 2 Billion in Loans waived.
That is a conservative estimate, because I dont include DoD, State Department, or any other forms of Aid. Not to mention any of the other special deals, that is listed in that CSR.

Skogan

[NewsGuy]

I've given you plenty of evidence.
No, you haven't. I don't consider an anti-Israel personal opinion piece to be "evidence." And the piece is certainly not credible after seeing the rest of the third-rate anti-Israel site that houses it. I consider it to be drivel.

I was wrong, that magazine, though founded by ex-state department officers, has an Idealogical bent.
Yes, it certainly does.

It implise that you think those who make the most money have a greater right to critic U.S. policy.
Well, no. But I do think that those who pay the most tax should have a greater say in how their money is spent. And like it or not, in practice, this is exactly the case.

In the end, you provide no sources for any of your claims. I did.
No, you're not listening. I specified that this was my observation into the nature of people who criticize U.S. aid to Israel. You, on the other hand tried to pass off specific figures, which are unsupported.

BTW Im not anti-Israel. Saying that I don't want to provide financial support is different then saying I am against them. I hope they do ok. I'm just against the U.S. getting bogged down in their quagmire, as my previouse post show.
ok, I can see your point. I agree that I may have hastily presumed that your eagerness to cut off Israel from U.S. aid, menat that you were anti-Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Awfully long way to go for one simple point - which is - no foreign aid to Israel. OK I get it - don't really care about your justification since it's not something I agree with but I applaud your tenacity.

So any country which exhibits some quasi quantifiable threshold of "X+1" standard of something, living, investment, monetary supply, something... you advocate cutting off aid. OK let's start with dismantling all of the bases we have all over the world in places like the UK, Germany, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Phillippines, Taiwan. Those mugs should be able to take of themselves since certainly the reason we're there is not merely to exercise our own foreign policy but also to provide some kind of support or buffer for them at an expense of billions of dollars to us.

[Skogan]

To Newsguy:

See my later post. All sources site my original contention. All come from the Congressional Research Service, the bi-partisan research branch of the U.S. Congress. You will find no source more credible and accurate about how the congress spends its money then there.

As you will note, we spend about 3 billion in direct aid, and aboubt 2 billion in loans... which are waived. The report itself says that those these are titled loans, because they are waived, it should be considered a grant.

Thus, about 5 Billion conservatively, given.. like a gift. That doesn't include those seperate DoD or State expenditures, etc. Or the the other "special perks" given to Israel that have a real dollar value.

"But I do think that those who pay the most tax should have a greater say in how their money is spent"

Not into the whole Democracy thing eh? None of that equal representation Junk. Maybe we should just let the land owners vote, and travel backward in time such that all your dreams are fullfilled. :) I agree that is the way it is done in real life, but most people consider that part of the problem of our system, not one of its attractions. I appreciate your honesty in saying that I guess, but you have to understand how that reflects on you.


Skogan

[Skogan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Awfully long way to go for one simple point - which is - no foreign aid to Israel. OK I get it - don't really care about your justification since it's not something I agree with but I applaud your tenacity.

So any country which exhibits some quasi quantifiable threshold of "X+1" standard of something, living, investment, monetary supply, something... you advocate cutting off aid. OK let's start with dismantling all of the bases we have all over the world in places like the UK, Germany, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Phillippines, Taiwan. Those mugs should be able to take of themselves since certainly the reason we're there is not merely to exercise our own foreign policy but also to provide some kind of support or buffer for them at an expense of billions of dollars to us.

Yeah, it got way off track.

Anyway.. you kinda got it right with the last part. I don't want the U.S. to be the worlds cop anymore. It's not worth it. No one appreciate us for it in the end anyway. So, just because there is a good cause, doesn't make it our cause, is my feeling.

I don't want the U.S. to play the role of a superpower, (militarily). I don't think it is necessary. I don't think it is productive. For every person we help, we create two that hate us. And about a year later, the one we helped hates us too. We've spent a lot of time and money since the cold war trying make the world a better place. For the most part, we are worse off because of it. No one appreciates us. Kuwaities don't like us, Bosnians don't like us, the somilies can't stand us.

We use our power to do what we think is right. But other people don't agree with us, and see it as arrogant. After all, what right have we to go around the world and settle others disputes. Why do we have to apply our definition of right to every situation? Let em work it out for themselves. So I say screw it, lets hand over the reigns, and just be another member of the world community.

In relation to Israel, that means while I hope they do well, I dont want to be partners with them in this war. I don't want to spend the money, and I don't want to take the critism. I would like to hang with them.. and if I knew there was a light at the end of the tunnel, it would be easier. But I see a Vietnam like quagmire, strechting for decades, inwhich we continure to inspire hatred and spend money on a cause that's really not ours.


Skogan

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
To Newsguy:
See my later post. All sources site my original contention. All come from the Congressional Research Service, the bi-partisan research branch of the U.S. Congress. You will find no source more credible and accurate about how the congress spends its money then there.Skogan,

First, I want to thank you for your excellent research, which contained information I was not aware of. You were correct about some of the loans being waived under U.S. Congressional legislation. The report shows that part of the loans were waived and part were paid by Israel, which at times paid an interest rate of more than 10% on the loans (Page 6). I was wrong about this aspect.

As for the amount of $5 Billion annually that you claim, I still disagree, because the report shows otherwise.

But first, as a quick note, for those who cannot access the URL given by Skogan above, try this for the PDF of the report: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf

For Fiscal Year 2001 (Page 13)

"S. 2522, introduced on May 9, 2000, calls for $60 million in refugee settlement funds, $840 million in ESF, and $1.98 billion in FMF for Israel for FY2001."

(So, according to the report -- Bottom of Page 14 -- this totals approx. $2.88 Billion in aid for 2001 -- NOT $5 Billion, as you claim).


For Fiscal Year 2002 (Page 14):

"H.R. 1646, the foreign assistance authorization bill, includes $60 million for settling Soviet and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. The bill was reported out of committee on May 4 (H.Rept. 107-57) and passed the House on May 16 by a vote of 352 to 73.

The Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee passed a draft bill on June 27, 2001, that included $2.04 billion in FMF and$720 million in ESF for
Israel for FY2002."

(If my math is correct, this total $2.784 Billion for FY 2002 -- again a far cry from the $5 Billion you claim)

In all fairness, the report states that these figures do not include an extra $180 million for research and development of the Arrow missile (a joint U.S.-Israeli Patriot missile-like project), or the $7.9 billion in loan guarantees, which is not a cash outlay.

Not into the whole Democracy thing eh?
heh.

Well, you know what they say, it isn't perfect, but it's the best there is to choose from. :cool:

[cerulean]

I find it hard to argue against military aid to Israel. Israel's security is essential for US security both psychologically and logistically. In addition, I expect the biggest screamers if aid to Israel were cut would be the US companies who now benefit from Israel's purchases.

What is not clear to me is how much US aid goes to support social benefits in Israel. For better or worse, the United States is not known for having a generous social safety net. Israel operates more along the lines of a western European country in this respect. I could see US taxpayers being upset if their tax dollars are going to support a higher social benefits than are available in the United States. (This is separate from the issue of what social benefits the United States should have.) On the other hand, Israel, because it has taken in so many immigrants often in desperate straits, must spend a great deal on helping these immigrants assimilate into society.

So what is the breakdown of military aid vs. social aid? Of course by providing military aid, the United States frees up some Israeli money for spending on social aid, so it might be hard to artifically separate the two.

Of course, it's also important to remember that the Israeli social safety net also goes to provide welfare and other benefits to many Arabs both in and outside the Green Line.

[Skogan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NewsGuy


(So, according to the report -- Bottom of Page 14 -- this totals approx. $2.88 Billion in aid for 2001 -- NOT $5 Billion, as you claim).

(If my math is correct, this total $2.784 Billion for FY 2002 -- again a far cry from the $5 Billion you claim)

Thanks for the kind words. These are Indeed the figures for regular grants. FMF being the portion for military products, ESF for non military funding. But that figure doesn't include the loans, which were waived.

According to that source, 40 Billion Dollars over 26 years, ending in 2001. The CSR says that though this is listed as a loan, it is in reality a grant. So, to add that in, it pro-rates to 1.5 Billion a year. For a total of 4.38 Billion and 4.28 Billion per year for grants and loans which the IRS would call a grant if I were audited.

In actuality, that money was waived each year. It was done every few years, so sometimes they got more, sometimes they got less. Some of that which was pro-rated was paid of in the 70's and 80's, which would give it a present value of around 5 Billion a year. (Note: I believe it said that there is currently about 2.5 Billion outstanding loans to Israel.

So that's how I get to the 5 Billion Dollar figure. About 4.3 Billion in Grants and Pro-rated Loan waivers. Add on any of money spent on guanteeing the private loans, or the individual Department expenditures, or even adjust for the inflation for the earlier loan waivers, and you get to 5 and change.

Like someone else said though, we got pretty far off topic.

Enough for me. I'm off to bed then, or to troll another board.
take care all, and thanks for the interesting debate.

Skogan

[Skogan]

So what is the breakdown of military aid vs. social aid? Of course by providing military aid, the United States frees up some Israeli money for spending on social aid, so it might be hard to artifically separate the two.

Of course, it's also important to remember that the Israeli social safety net also goes to provide welfare and other benefits to many Arabs both in and outside the Green Line. [/B][/QUOTE]

Accoding to the CSR, 60 percent is military, 40 percent is social. However, unlike every other country in the world, Israel does not have to account for the 40 percent to social benefits. It's a flat check, no questions asked. (I believe, it's in the above link)

Skogan

ok, now im off.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Skogan
Please go ahead and find a solution to the whole palestinian thingy, mmkay?

trying....
You know, it takes two to tango.
another thing: I believe Israel is serving as a shield for the US against fundementalist islam. Imgine how many more terror attacks you were facing if the majority of Arab hatred was not aiming Israel...

Originally posted by Skogan
Then there is the fact that we lost more people in the world trade center then palisitinians or Isrealies combined during the intifada. That sucks. Big time. I'm not saying that was your fault, just that it is a consequence of our support for you. I would rather we were more isolationist, minding our own buisness. Maybe less people would call us the great satan then, who knows...

blaming the support for Israel for the sept. 11th terror attack is misleading to say the least.
The diplomatic and economic foriegn policy of the US is what caused the attack.
Did you know, for instance, that in the globalization talks that are so dear to the American president and are held throught the western world - not *ONE* 3rd-world country participates?
This is globalization? I'll tell you what it is - it is the new form of colonization.
Instead of militarily conquering territories, you enslave the 3rd world to your selfish needs. Yeah, that's right, slavery is flourishing in the 21st cent., thanks to to Nike, Coca Cola, GE, GM, Levi's and all other conglomerates who set up production factories in countries such as India, China, Indonesia, etc. where children as little as 13 work 12 hours shifts for less than minimum wage - to make the shoes you ware.
If this is not slavery, I don't know how else to call it.
This is the reason the 3rd world looks upon the US like the satan.

and as for the "isolationist" wish, I can only say that ever since WWII the US has taken upon itself to guard the world vs what it thinks threatens it. This sometimes works fine, like the 1991 war against Iraq. However, in most cases, this vision was only thin cover for the US protecting its interests.
In the name of preserving democracy the US got involved in Vietnam, dragging alongside the naive Cambodians who perhpas paid the dearest cost, the US attempted to crown puppet leaders in South America, only to see the countries plunge to anarchy and the rise of the drug barons, the US attempted to trade arms with Iran, etc. etc.
Now, do you see that support for Israel is really really not the issue here??

In any way, why do you come bitching to me??
it is your government which sends the funds - complain to them.

Originally posted by Skogan
Let me conclude this way. I know your a democracy, and I support that. I really do. But Costa Rica is a democracy to, and they're much less a pain in the ass.

Yes, but Costa Rica is not faces with existential threat and has to deal with suicide bombers on a daily basis does it now?
In fact, no other country IN THE WORLD faces the problems Israel is facing:

Israel's enemy - the Palestinians - are not a soveraign country. as such, they habe no obligation for intrnational laws. They feel free to commit terror attacks targeting civillians, wll the while portraying themselvs as helpless victims.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NewsGuy

So, to add that in, it pro-rates to 1.5 Billion a year. For a total of 4.38 Billion and 4.28 Billion per year for grants and loans which the IRS would call a grant if I were audited.
Prorating money since 1949 has nothing to do with what Israel is getting currently. You can't just decide to tack on a historical average.

The reality is that Israel is getting $2.8 Billion these days -- Not $5 Billion.

Of that $2.8 Billion, Israel is paying interest and principle on some of it, and theoretically, if the mood happens to be right in the White House, i.e., if Israel behaves itself and follows Washington's direction, then maybe some of it will be waived this year, too.

[Mediocrates]

"Let me conclude this way. I know your a democracy, and I support that. I really do. But Costa Rica is a democracy to, and they're much less a pain in the ass."


http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/vol4/costaricatr.htm

Child slavery, 'extrajudicial' child killings, sexual slavery, situation normal. But to be fair they have few of the obligatory right wing death squads running around. In fact I think their constitution from the 1948 Civil War prohibits an army.

[Skogan]

This forum is a lot of hard work. I have to cite sources, write my congressman, etc...

To Newsguy

Once again, the 2.8 Billion is pure aid, not the loans. The loans are in addition to the pure aid. And they typically don't get paid back. To say that loans which are waived shouldn't be counted as aid strikes me as a bit dishones, but lets just agree to disagree. Anyone truely interested can go to the original source in the link above and draw there own conclusion.

To Sharonbn

I disagree that our relationship with Israel reduces the terrorist threat against the U.S. I don't have time to go into the full arguement right now, but I will concede that the majority of the popular opinion in the U.S. agrees with you.

Did you know, for instance, that in the globalization talks that are so dear to the American president and are held throught the western world - not *ONE* 3rd-world country participates?

The World Trade Organization is probably the best known organization for globalization. Below is the link to the World Trade Organization's November confrence. You will note the attendance of ministers of trade from countries such as:
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/min01_statements_e.htm
Angola — H.E. Mr Vitórino Domingos
Bangladesh — H.E. Mr Amir Khosru
Botswana — Honourable Tebelelo Seretse
Congo, Democratic Republic of the — H.E. Mr Pierre Damien Boussoukou Boumba
Etc...
In fact, this meeting was held in Qatar.
If this is not slavery, I don't know how else to call it.
Slavery is when a person forces another person to work for him, not when a person voluntarily takes a job that, even though pays really poorly, is better then there other options.

This is the reason the 3rd world looks upon the US like the satan.
No, this is the reason leftist liberals hate the U.S. To someone in India, the Nike factory is no better or worse then its local competitor down the street. Islamic cultures may not like that western culture is influencing there culture, but that is far different then saying they don't like international industry there. But I'm open to the possiblility I'm wrong. If you can find significant evidence that shows the reason the common man in Syria hates the U.S. has more to do with our Nike factory in India then our support of Israel, I'll agree with you.

As far as you last comment, I agree with you to an extent. (Or did you agree with me to an extent?) But I see our support of Israel as a continuation of that stratagy.

Finally, to Mediocrates:

That same organization's report on Israel
( http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/vol3/israeltb.htm )
Doesn't make Israel look any better.

Skogan

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Skogan
Finally, to Mediocrates:

That same organization's report on Israel
( http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/vol3/israeltb.htm )


No of course not. So? Cuba and Argentina and the Phillippines and Brazil and the PRC and Taiwan and Malaysia and the Arab bloc and most of Africa are not such wonderful places either if you happen to wind up in the clutches of the police. In fact most places on earth have a decidedly non US-ish view of law enforcement vis a vis due process, torture, juries, evidence, civil rights and the whole bag of stuff that the 'non aligned' world decided they hate us over.

But I'm trying to get a bead here. All other things being equal and in fact, they ARE equal, Israel should be singled out to not receive aid because.........?

[Mediocrates]

"If you can find significant evidence that shows the reason the common man in Syria hates the U.S. has more to do with our Nike factory in India then our support of Israel, I'll agree with you. "

Why should it matter either way. What if they hate us because they don't like white people or English or rule of law or Protestanism or capitalism? None of those things are blanket truths either. The US shouldn't worry about hatred directed at it because of ignorance any more than it takes seriously the Arab claims we are the "Great Satan". What leads you to believe that the basis of Arab hatred is somehow pure of heart?

Find me anything in your house that's stamped "Made in Syria" then I'll start to consider what they care about. Until then they're just an insular isolated angry paranoid country who seeks out its own policy uniquely without regard to laws or justice or humanity.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
Once again, the 2.8 Billion is pure aid, not the loans. The loans are in addition to the pure aid. And they typically don't get paid back. To say that loans which are waived shouldn't be counted as aid strikes me as a bit dishones, but lets just agree to disagree.
ok, but there are no loans in addition to the $2.8 Billion in the years 2001 or 2002. It seems that the 2.8 is all there is. Part of it is a loan to be repaid and some of it might be waived.

We can agree to disagree, but I am just curious -- not challenging you -- if this year or last year there is money that is not accounted for in the 2.8 figure?

Or, is it just that conceptually, you think that loans or grants from 1949 should be counted as money given in 2002?

I promise not to beat a dead horse... :)

[Skogan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates



But I'm trying to get a bead here. All other things being equal and in fact, they ARE equal, Israel should be singled out to not receive aid because.........?

Because:

1. They are not poor.

2. They recieve way more aid then any one else, (17 percent of our total world aid I believe, and that does not including waived loans and extra projects which double the amount)

3. Much of the aid, (60 percent of the grants, and all of the loans) is specifically targed for their militarty. This means we are their partners in their war. While I wish them well, I don't want to be there partner, not only because because of the cost, but because there enemies have a legitimate claim to be our enemy too. When the Israeli's move tanks into the occupied terriotory, those are our tanks. The people that are against that have reason to be against us too. When the Israelis bomb a building, we gave them the planes.. and we will give them more bombs to replace it with. That makes people enemies of Israel, but enemis of the U.S.
We are as much involved in this conflict as Israel is. It doesn't seem that way, because we dont really watch the planes and money flowing over there. But because of our funding, we have adopted their enemies.

I'll say again. We have enough people that hate us for what WE do, do we really need to have people to hate us for what Israel does to?

I don't like costa rica more then Israel. I bring that up because support to them is relatively painless. IF they need food, sending some food, and thats the end of it.

With Israel, for decades past, and decades into the future we will have their enemies. Thats much different then Costa Rica.

[Mediocrates]

And then I was thinking how much like Francis Fukyama the left sounds now with their line about how now that the Iron Curtain curtain is gone we no longe have a need for foreign policy vis a vis the mid east.

What strange bedfellows the Hoover institute and the Chomskyists make. You think that because the FSU is our new friends that extensions of US power abroad are obsolete? If anything the exact opposite is true. Now more than any time in the last 20 years the US needs to extend its power overseas and snatch up as many policy and military allies as it can. We are engaged in a murky low level conflict against organizations w/o name or shape in pockets all over the world. The only ally we have with semi transparaent objectives in the mid east is Israel. Do you want to rely on Saudi Arabia in our conflict with terrorism (however you define it - maybe violently exported culturalism is a better phrase)?

[Mediocrates]

"I'll say again. We have enough people that hate us for what WE do, do we really need to have people to hate us for what Israel does too?"

Why not? There are people who hate us because of what the Brits do in N Ireland and what the FSU does in Chechnya or what the Indians do in Kashmir or what the Pakistanis do in Kashmir or what the Phillippinos do in the Phillippines or what the S. Koreans do to the North or what Taiwan does to the PRC.

Like or not we play a unique role in the world. We can't escape it just because it pisses people off. So you want to use economic criteria for aid. OK let's fold up all the airbases in Saudi Arabia. They certainly have enough money to defend themselves. Let's pull out of NATO - every country in it is rich, relatively speaking. Screw Taiwan they're a modern society. Korea chugs along like an economic miracle so let's bail. And really, Mexico is doing just fine what do they need us for, end police cooperation with them as well and just shoot everyone trying to smuggle drugs into the US. Same with Columbia - they seem to live above the poverty line so the hell with them.

[Skogan]

To newsman:

In the CRS document, I could not find any detailed information that stated when any of the loans were waived. This portion, then, is what I relied upon:

"Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been in
the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant. From FY1974 through FY2001, Israel has
received almost $40 billion in waived loans."

I interpet "since 1974" as meaning every year since 1974 they recieve some loans. I could be wrong. It is also not known exactly when the loans are waived. All I know from that is that sometime between 1974 and 2001, 40 Billion Dollars were waived.

Now, if you count it as aid when the loans we dispersed, and you don't interpet "since 1974" as every year since 1974, you could conclude that we did not in fact give aid by giving loans this or last year.

But you could count it as aid when the loan is waived. (This seems more natural to me) Currnetly, the Israel owes the U.S. 2.5 Billion Dollars.

The problem is, what if Israel gets a loan in 1997, makes no payments in 98 to 02, then congress waives in 03. You could claim that they recieved the aid in 1997, in 2003, or prorate it for each year, as I did.

In the end, I'm not sure if Israel recieved money in loans this year, or will have loans waived this year. When the 2.5 Billion that is owed to us is waived, I dont know wether that should be counted as this years aid, or aid when the loan was given. When I say "5 Billion in aid", it is better seen as a recent average, rather then any given year specific amount.


To Mediocrates:

You make good points, and up until about a year ago I would have agreed with you. But the proliferation of weapons of mass distruction changes everything, IMO. We will not be able to keep small 3rd world countries from getting Nuclear weapons in the future. We will not be able to stop small, well financed terrorist groups from geting them shorty after that.

If we continue to take the lead role in world affairs, we will be the target of a lot of nuts. We can no longer afford to say, "who cares what the damn syrians think." Being right is not enough.

I reiterate my position. Just because we believe a country is right in a conflict, doesn't mean it is our conflict. By taking that lead world roll, as supreme Jedi of Justice, we will certainly have to pay a high price.

There is no sort of natural order that say's we have to be the leader of the free world. The price of being the leader will lead us down a very dark road. Better to be like switzerland, methinks. Only involve oursevles where we absolutely must.

Skogan

[Mediocrates]

Fair enough

But I submit that if we simply let most of the rest of the world slip bloodily into anarchy, cannibalism, repression, squalor and unending civil war then democracy and justice here and everywhere are meaningless and millions of people died for nothing defending nothing.

[Skogan]

Let me state this another way.

We dont lead the world. We have no right to control the world. There was never a vote that elected the U.S. as World Cop. Just because we have an opinion about what is right, or what is fair, that doesn't give us the authority to impose it on others.


The U.N., all the arabs, vast majority of europe, and just about all else in the world say that Israel should comply with the U.N. Resolutions. But we're world cop, and we say no, you all must live by what we determine is right. (BTW, I'm not saying I disagree with the U.S. Israeli stance here.)

All of your examples.. I don't think we should be involved. For every tiawanese that likes our help, there are a thousand Mainland chinese who say "who the hell are you?"


So, I'm all about moving away from the idea that we have to involve ourselves anytime we want to. We may want to be leader of the world, but the world didn't consent to it.

Skogan

[Skogan]

I posted my followup before I read yours Med.

I guess its just a question of which you think is more likely. People blowing us up if we continue to try to lead the world, or the world dissolving into mayhem if we don't.

Take care,


Skogan

[Mediocrates]

I'd rather die trying.

[Skogan]

With the way our country is going, you'll probably get your chance.

[L@mplighterM]

I don’t think economics is quite as simple like I’ve read in the previous posts. There are factors that weren’t even covered and I feel that they are important (unless I misunderstood something).

Actually the US could donate/lend 5 Billion Dollars a year and still turn a profit for the American taxpayer.

Lets say for the sake of an argument the US has donated 5 Billion a year to Israel for 22 years. That would equal some $ 110 Billion.

If my memory serves me correctly there’s a stipulation that the funds are paid in goods. That stimulates the economy thus creating employment and keeping the fires burning in factories. With more people employed it further seeds the economy stimulating growth. I know that was brought up by NewsGuy.

You have to spend money to make money.

Fine-tuning the economy is difficult at the best of times. It’s a lot like having 10 rats in a cage and only providing enough food for 9 (most of the rats die). Unemployment and inflationary factors all have to be considered. It might seem simple to cut off foreign aid and become an island but this isn’t the frontier days anymore. This is a time when world economies are intertwined and where nations have a symbiotic relationship.

If the World Bank didn’t lend money to struggling nations it could result in economic chaos in the US. The former Soviet Union received billions and they are still lending money from the World Bank while they are struggling to move to a market economy. Most likely money well spent considering Russia’s nuclear arsenal.

If Israel hadn’t received the F-15’s from the US in the 1980’s they most likely wouldn’t have been able to take out Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981.
Imagine Iraq as a nation with nuclear capabilities we’d be paying perhaps $10-20 for a gallon of gas (that’s if anyone had a job). So I think in this case it was money well spent.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Lets say for the sake of an argument the US has donated 5 Billion a year to Israel for 22 years. That would equal some $ 110 Billion.
I agree that any money invested in Israel it is a wise investment for the U.S., but we have seen from the U.S. gov't report that the figure is $2.8 Billion actually for 2001 and 2002.

[L@mplighterM]

Taking the figure of 2.8 Billion Dollars it then works out to about 10 bucks per person per year. That could get eaten up at the pumps quickly.

[Skogan]

First let me say I appreciate the quality of your responses. Though I somewhat disagree with your analysis, the form is inviting to a vigorous academic dedate, which we can all agree is healthy. Now on to the substance of your critque.

The amount of money donated to Israel was actually a side issue when I started this thread. The amount I said was donated was 5 billion per year. I stand by that as a recent historical average. The U.S. has given nearly 3 Billion dollars in direct aid already this year. Traditionally we forgive the military loans at the rate of about 1.5 Billion a year as well. Israel currently owes the the U.S. 2.5 Billion dollars, whether this will be waived also is yet to be seen. This figue, combined with the departemental spending and special funding initiatives more then equates to 5 Billion a year. However, if you would like to check the links given above you are free to draw you own conclusions.

If my memory serves me correctly there’s a stipulation that the funds are paid in goods
The grants of 2.8 billion dollars are not paid in goods. They are paid in a simple check. In fact, Israel is alone amoung all nations that does not have to account for the spending of the non-military aid. The loans, however, are required to be spent in goods deriving from the U.S. But, as I contend above, those loan debt's are usually waived.

Does it stimulate the economy> I suppose so, as much as higher more new teachers or having a subscritpion healthe plan would. The question is would you rather stimbulate the econoomy by giving money to Israel or giving money to you tax payers.

The point you make about the iraqui nuclear reactor's is good. That is a balance of risk issue, that I would be happy to ge iinto later if you with. But I concede it is a valid arguement.

I agree that any money invested in Israel it is a wise investment for the U.S., but we have seen from the U.S. gov't report that the figure is $2.8 Billion actually for 2001 and 2002.
That is only true if you assume the U.S. won't waive any of the 2.5 Billion the Israeli's owe us, which is inconsistant with recent history.

skogan

[Skogan]

My typo's and spelling are always so bad, but even worse when my students think it is fun to by their professor some beer around graduation time. I apologize.

Skogan

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
My typo's and spelling are always so bad, but even worse when my students think it is fun to by their professor some beer around graduation time. I apologize.

Skogan
Cheers! :)

[Vic]

Originally posted by Skogan
My typo's and spelling are always so bad, but even worse when my students think it is fun to by their professor some beer around graduation time. I apologize.

Skogan
What are you a professor of?

[L@mplighterM]

I could spend days writing a brief based on foreign aid its necessity and its benefits to the American people. There are so many factors involved that its mind boggling so I?m not going to approach it in detail.

Regulated bartering and/or bartering is essential to any society without it there would be stagnation and decay. Turning the US into an island is the surest way to destroy the society.

Taking the total foreign aid package and constructing a socialized medical system can only mean disaster (not that it can?t stand improvement). There are plenty of precedents for that Britain, Denmark, Sweden, etc these are countries that have drastically moved/are moving away from socialized medicine. Canada?s medical system is facing serious difficulties and like the other?s will most likely collapse on its own weight.

[Skogan]

What are you a professor of?

I teach criminology at a small, state university in western Kansas.

Regulated bartering and/or bartering is essential to any society without it there would be stagnation and decay.
I agree that we need to barter. But that is much different then giving away money.

constructing a socialized medical system can only mean disaster

I agree, it was a bad example. My basic point was that we could use the money to improve the quality of life for americans.

[L@mplighterM]

By providing foreign aid the American per capita income does increase. Of course there’s limitations to amounts allocated.

If the US stops all foreign aid/loans unilaterally and imprisons its citizens in a cocoon it will mean the end to America. As a matter of fact had it done so years ago it would have awakened one morning to a Superpower from Europe and Asia knocking on its door.

May I come in?

I for one do not want to see insane monsters created.

I believe Iraq was the third or was it the fifth strongest nation in the world back in 1991. With nuclear capabilities it would most likely have been number two (if not # 1) and growing. Believe me a guy like Hussein wouldn’t hesitate to nuke the US.

Both of your arguments were to simplistic(I don’t mean to be arrogant) in my opinion because they were focused too much on dollar amounts. The consequences of not providing aid can have much more serious ramifications.



I’ll humbly withdraw my statements if anyone can prove that isn’t the case.

So if I’m correct I would say that foreign aid/loans has improved the quality of life in the US more than anyone can imagine.

[Mediocrates]

One of the top three national strategic initiatives of this country must be to eliminate our DEPENDENCE on OPEC oil in the next decade. Nothing short of an Eisenhower interstate highway project or a NASA moonshot is required. My proposal is 10%/year for 10 years. We don't have to actually stop purchasing it but we must be in a position to do w/o it indefinitely. All other foreign policy objectives should be compared against that one goal. We need to develop new sources in and out of the US, reduce consumption, seek alternative fuels.

Here's my justification. If oil were a manufactured good like airplanes or defense software the US would not permit, under law for a foreign company to own that stratetic industry. This was the rationale to block the proposed merger of a defense contractor recently. Similarly if we need tritium or polonium for nuclear weapons or titanium for submarines we would never be in a position to have to deal with hostile countries as suppliers. It doesn't mean we can't deal with them merely that we are not forced to. So too with oil. Develop another energy policy that is not beholden to OPEC. I propose we embark on a national program to achieve that goal. At the end of the 10 year period we should have not only a strategic reserve but the wherewithal to do without OPEC oil indefinitely w/o breaking the economy significantly. If we reduce OPEC sales to usconsumption by even 20% (at the margin) that is a more powerful hammer than all the bombs in the world.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
One of the top three national strategic initiatives of this country must be to eliminate our DEPENDENCE on OPEC oil in the next decade.

Yes! I totally agree.

The US is not just dependent on petroleum for transportation, but for farming (petrochemical fertilizers) and manufacturing.

The cost an individual pays at the pump per gallon of gasoline in no way reflects its actual cost to the United States.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Skogan




I agree that we need to barter. But that is much different then giving away money.





I didn’t make myself clear on this point. A stagnated world economy equals a lower tax base (less people working) in the US. You will concede that the more trading partners a country has the more diversified their economy becomes thus translating into employment.

Let me tell you without trading partners the US would sink into a depression and it would take years to recover if indeed recovery was ever possible.

Mass production is also a factor developing a prototype of anything has a high initial cost after that the cost per unit drops dramatically. I would venture to say developing 100 tanks versus 200 drops the ready made cost per unit dramatically (there’s even savings in raw material costs). So if the Armed forces purchase 100 tanks the cost savings run into the billions of dollars.

So in effect the additional 100 tanks become surplus for bartering.

Note: This is only an example.

Is should be easy to understand that the industrial age has made foreign aid a viable instrument that can stabilize industry and economies.

So in effect even if you give away money( I don’t believe that’s the case) you’re providing security and prosperity for Americans.

[Mediocrates]

A large part of the high tech industry in Israel is entrepreneurial in organization and has a good basis in contacts and technology used and/or developed in the Armed Forces. That technology comes back to the US and to other countries in the form of computing technology, communications, materials science, software, chemisty and chemical engineering and advanced biomedical research.

Unlike say, Lichtenstein where the main industry is merely the storage or transfer of financial assets the Israeli economy is based on making widgets of some kind or providing a non financial eg. high skilled labor based transaction. You come across Israeli products and services every day. In fact at least some of the internet firewalls between you and this board are Israeli developed since the market leading company in that sector is Israeli

[Skogan]

There were many good points made, I'll try to respond to a few.

First, on the topic of Isolationism. It is true that in the past, an isolationist stance wouldn't have been productive. But the cold war is over now, and the threat of hostile expansionist governments is lower. In the past, the world was neatly divided into 2 camps, so that any change in leadership was benifical to one side, and harmful to another. In this zero-sum game, any country's regime change either increased or decreased the secutiry of the U.S.

Today, that is no longer the case. Many times, those regime changes are irrelevant to the U.S., or at least, not so directly relevant that they justify our involvement. Because when we do get involved, we certainly increase the risk to the U.S. by increasing the number of people hostile to the U.S. Put another way, internal affairs of country X were important to the U.S. because it effected the balance of power between the U.S. and Russia. Today that is not the case, so the arguement for intervention is reduced.

Now, on the discussion of Iraq. Yes, they would likely have nuclear weapons now if we hadn't bombed them. And bombed them... and bombed them. But this is the important point you don't bring up, THEY ARE GOING TO GET THEM ANYWAY.

Iraq, and countries like Iraq are all going to have access to high grade weapons of mass distruction soon anyway. The technology of death is still growing, and killing on a large scale level just gets cheaper and easier. So sure we put it off a few years, but now we have a few million people that we constantly bomb who really want to have a word with us.

So how will we deal with Hezbala when they have nukes? Will we continue to have that "I don't care what the world thinks" attitude? Will we still want to intervene in causes that we think are just, but that are irrelevant to us? That will certainly lead to a lot of death in the U.S. IMO In a world where everyone has suitcase sized nukes, the only safety is in a low profile. Avoid confrontation, unless it is absolutely necessary, because the price you may have to pay is great indeed. Being leader of the western world, (and the symbolic hated enemy of millions) will not seem like such a enviable roll then.


To the trade messages, I agree that international trade is good. But I'm not convinced that giving israel money makes the U.S. money in any meaningful way. As far as mass production, I suppose that means the Israelis can by more of the tanks, but it doesnt mean the spend less. The figure we give is the same, regardless of how cheap the product is that they buy.


As far as the Oil goes, I am 100 percent in favor of that. That of course would allow the U.S. to convert to a less interventionist stance in the middle east.


Skogan

[Skogan]

Let me pose this question to you. What if Osama Bin Laden had a suit case sized nuke in L.A. and one in New York City. The American public knew with certainty they were there, and that he would use them if we continued to meddle in the Middle East.

Would the public support our aid to Israel then? Would you support our aid to Israel then?

How long will it be before this Bin Laden or the next gets a few nukes? How long before that situation becomes a reality?

Skogan

[L@mplighterM]

Bold by Skogan:




Now, on the discussion of Iraq. Yes, the would likely have nuclear weapons now if we hadn't bombed them. And bombed them... and bombed them. But this is the important point you don't bring up, THEY ARE GOING TO GET THEM ANYWAY.


Iraq would most likely have developed nuclear capability in 1983-85 and I would like to point out that they were not considered an enemy of the US at that point in time. If you think it’s easy to engage in a conflict with a nation that possesses nuclear capability then you’re wrong. Thank you Israel!

They may or may not develop nuclear capability. I hope not!


To the trade messages, I agree that international trade is good. But I'm not convinced that giving israel money makes the U.S. money in any meaningful way. As far as mass production, I suppose that means the Israelis can by more of the tanks, but it doesnt mean the spend less. The figure we give is the same, regardless of how cheap the product is that they buy.

You missed the point perhaps I’m not a “Great Explainer” but I gave it my best shot.

Somewhere in the White House there’s a plaque thanking Israel for destroying Iraq’s reactor. How much did it save the US? Perhaps a thousand billion dollars maybe less. By the way did you know that Iran was supposed to have taken possession of the F-15’s in 1980?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Skogan
Let me pose this question to you. What if Osama Bin Laden had a suit case sized nuke in L.A. and one in New York City. The American public new with certainty they were there, and that he would use them if we continued to meddle in the Middle East.

Would the public support our aid to Israel then? Would you support our aid to Israel then?

How long will it be before this Bin Laden or the next gets a few nukes? How long before that situation becomes a reality?

Skogan

We could deal with ifs until the end of time and beyond that. I could paint many scenarios and come up with many slants. Radical Islam and its Fundamentalists must and will be destroyed.

Would nations bend to blackmail? I hope not!

Islam isn’t only after Israel it wants the world.



I entered the fray based on the foreign aid and the cons and pros. Whether people agree with my opinions or not makes no difference to me I leave that up to the individual.

[Skogan]

You are a good explainer, I just disagree.

As far at the proliferation of weapons of mass distruction, it is central to my arguement about why we need to reduce intervention. IMO their spread is not a possability, it is an inevitability.

Former soviet scientest, will work for food.

Pakistan has the bomb, how many of their scientist can keep a secret? Especially from the Islamic brothers.

When you balance the risk of intervention versus isolation, the introduction of weapons of mass distruction certainly must play a role. I dont want to wait for the situation to arise to decide upon it, because that day may come the morning after Los Angelos is no longer standing.


Skogan

[Gatorade]

I hear what you are saying Skogan, but I don’t like it. I don’t want the US to be the international super cop and am against using US troops in many international problems. However, spending money is different.

If we can spend a small percentage of the US budget to support allies that share our values but are facing hard times, I am for it. The main problem that I have with what you are saying is that you believe the US foreign policy should be based on fear. Maybe you are right but as the only super power I find it hard to swallow that we should base our international policy on fear of what potential enemies might do to us because of who we support with our dollars.

A problem with your argument is that many American Jews would still send money to Israel. Money may not be coming from the US govt. and there is a distinction there, but do you think a radical militant would really make that distinction?

Your view akin to saying a city should not spend money on a park because some people might come in and paint graffiti in it. And after the punks are done with the park, they might still have spray paint and mark up the neigjborhood. So we shouldn’t spend money on parks because it will just lead to us having problems in the future.

I would say we are better off spending a little money on parks so kids will have something to do and a place to go, so more won't be come punks that roam the streets. And the park workers might have contact with the kids and be able to provide inteligence to the police for who are the bad kids, or steer kids on the right path.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Skogan
Let me pose this question to you. What if Osama Bin Laden had a suit case sized nuke in L.A. and one in New York City. The American public knew with certainty they were there, and that he would use them if we continued to meddle in the Middle East.

Would the public support our aid to Israel then? Would you support our aid to Israel then?

How long will it be before this Bin Laden or the next gets a few nukes? How long before that situation becomes a reality?

Skogan

Blackmail doesn't seem to fit the profile. I suspect that the MO is more like just setting one off and then making up whatever reason for it that's convenient at the time. It's not about threats, it's about punishment. So the US public would have no opportunity to reflect on our foreign policy. Instead we would simply react. Probably in a very severe yet non nuclear fashion.

[Skogan]

What you describe as fear, I describe as risk assesment. What are the risk associated with involvement versus the risk associated with non-involvement. I, obviously, have no problem with that.

Some may argue that the amount of money we send to Israel is not huge, (It is roughly the same amount we spend on the war on drugs) . But to the arabs, it is alot of money. It greatly changes the way they must deal with Israel. It is legitimate for them to feel like we are partners with Israel in this conflict. The guns, bombs, and bullets come from us, free of charge. If they are enemies of Israel, then it is reasonable for them to be enemies of the U.S.

So to describe it as sending a small part of our money to our allies when they are in a time of need, doesn't reflect the significance of that money to those involved. By virtue of our grants, we are co-equal partners with them, at least on a moral level. We are equally culpable for the conflict.

Also, at least in Israel's case, the money doesn't come to our ally at a time when they "are facing hard times." It is a constant grant from their inception, and there is no indication that it will ever end. Though they have a higher standard of living then Italy or Ireland, we have and will continue to support them with our foreign aid.

I agree, there may be some who don't distinguish between private donations and public money spent. It is a valid point, and I'm not sure how much resentment that would encourage as well.

Skogan

[L@mplighterM]

Bold posted by Skogan:
Some may argue that the amount of money we send to Israel is not huge, (It is roughly the same amount we spend on the war on drugs) . But to the arabs, it is alot of money. It greatly changes the way they must deal with Israel. It is legitimate for them to feel like we are partners with Israel in this conflict. The guns, bombs, and bullets come from us, free of charge. If they are enemies of Israel, then it is reasonable for them to be enemies of the U.S.

I’m not convinced that this isn’t some sort of Arab propaganda, it's beginning to sound that way to me.

By the way Arab and Muslim countries are recipients of foreign aid as well. Egypt received missiles (Scud ?)from the US. I don’t hear any Islamic countries refusing aid on the grounds that Israel gets money and weapons.

[Skogan]

I’m not convinced that this isn’t some sort of Arab propaganda, it's beginning to sound that way to me.

Sorry, I didn't know I was suposed to convince you it isn't arab propaganda. I assumed that the arguements would be judge on its substance rather then ad honum. If it will help though:

I am not arab. I am not muslim. I don't know any arab's or muslims very well. Though Islam may be a "peaceful" religion, it's practioner's often aren't. I think fundametalist muslims (and christians for that matter) use religion to enslave. Fundementalist Islamic governments are oppressive, and try to portray western society as the devil to mask the fact that they can't make the trains run on time. Is that enough senator McCarthy or shall I continue?

To be honest, I don't really care that much about the plight of the Palistinians. At least not anymore then the plight of the Mexicans, Cubans, North Koreans etc. The world is a big place and some people are luckier then others. The fact that some people I don't know, in a place I have never been, aren't doing so hot isn't enough to make me post internet messages about them.

I do care about the U.S. though. And I think we are more heavily involved in a conflict than most people percieve. We don't have people on the ground, and a few lines in a thousand page budget doesn't make the news that often. The reporters say, "a palistinian was shot by Israeli defense forces", but they never add "with the gun and ammo supplied by the U.S.A." So we tend to view the conflict as if we are neutral bystanders, and then ask ourselves why the palistinians are dancing in the street when they hear the WTC was blown up. They know to well that we are involved, and they resent us for it.

You will note that no where did I say that Israel is wrong or the Palistinians are right. I only contend that it is not our fight, and so we shouldn't get involved. Because we are involved, I asked that Israel try harder for peace, because I don't want to be part of that conflict any longer then necessary. (Note: Things like having your ruling party state there will never be a palistinian state is not what I have in mind.) It seems to be dragging on forever. Thus, their hatered for us grows.

As far as you last part:
By the way Arab and Muslim countries are recipients of foreign aid as well. Egypt received missiles (Scud ?)from the US. I don’t hear any Islamic countries refusing aid on the grounds that Israel gets money and weapons.

Niether do I. I really don't want to be part of any of their conflicts either, if that becomes an issue. If it doesn't involve us, we should mind our own buisness.

Skogan

[L@mplighterM]

I’m not a liar. I’m not a crook.
I’m not a liar. I’m not a crook.
I’m not a liar. I’m not a crook.

Richard M. Nixon

You sound like Tokyo Rose or a Professor at an Arab Thespian School.

Let’s just leave it at that.

[Skogan]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I’m not a liar. I’m not a crook.
I’m not a liar. I’m not a crook.
I’m not a liar. I’m not a crook.

Richard M. Nixon

You sound like Tokyo Rose or a Professor at an Arab Thespian School.

Let’s just leave it at that.

What a disappointing, intellectually bankrupt response.
If that weak reply is the best you can do, then yes, you should just leave it at that.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Skogan
Let me pose this question to you. What if Osama Bin Laden had a suit case sized nuke in L.A. and one in New York City. The American public knew with certainty they were there, and that he would use them if we continued to meddle in the Middle East.

Would the public support our aid to Israel then? Would you support our aid to Israel then?

How long will it be before this Bin Laden or the next gets a few nukes? How long before that situation becomes a reality?

Skogan

Are you against aid to Israel because you think it costs too much, or because you think bin Laden and other Arabs don't like it?

In the scenario you paint, bin Laden could just as well say give up New York, Florida, California, whatever, or I will detonate my suitcase bomb. I would hope that the US will not give into any megalomaniac about Israel or anything else.

[christian]

Originally posted by Skogan


What a disappointing, intellectually bankrupt response.
If that weak reply is the best you can do, then yes, you should just leave it at that.

You have to forgive Lampboy. He only accepts what he has in his mind. He doesn't accept anything but his own perception. :D

[Skogan]

Are you against aid to Israel because you think it costs too much, or because you think bin Laden and other Arabs don't like it?

Both. If it were just a 3 or 4 year expenditure, the cost wouldn't bother me that much. But the situation now is that it is a constant accepted expenditure, expected to go on seemingly forever.

But the second concern, that the Arabs don't like it is my bigger concern. We don't give Israel a just little aid, with give them enough, (and the vast majority is military,) that they have the clear opinion that we are as responsible for the palistinians problems as Israel is.

All things considered, they are right. We are the funders of their military, we are equally accountable for whatever occurs there. If it were just a tank here or a helicopter there, it may be more difficult to assign us such responsibility. But the military support we provide is overwhelming, and justifies there conclusion that the enemies of Israel should be the enemies of the U.S. We may as well have troops on the ground.

Now, I'm not saying Israel is wrong, but I don't want to be engaged in a war that is not really related to us. We don't need any more enemies then absolutely necessary.

As far as giving up California or New York, I would say that it is a balance of risk. I would lay it all on the line for California. I would risk death for California, because it is that important to me.

But I wouldn't risk death inorder to prevent the palistinians "right of return." I wouldn't risk death to make sure there is never a palistinian state. Who has control of Jerusalem is not really that improtant to me.

In the recent past, war has not been hell, not for the U.S. Sure, it is for the combatants, but at home there is very little difference from day to day life. During the gulf war, we wouldnt even postpone the superbowl, because we didnt have to make that kind of sacrafice. Those days are behind us.

Israel has the bomb. Pakistan has the bomb. Iran has the bomb. Iraq is close to getting the bomb. If OBL had waited 10 years, he probably could have just bought one, or hijacked it. That means intervention from now on will carry the risk of mass casualties of U.S. citizens. That doesn't mean we should never get involved, but the stakes better be high to justify that kind of risk.


Skogan

[cerulean]

Have you ever thought that it's highly risky if OBL or other Arab/Islamic terrorist group or individual knows that Americans will readily give up a state under blackmail? That seems far more risky than some thought that they'll dislike the US due to aid to Israel. What you're suggesting makes you a greater risk to the US than giving aid to Israel.

Have you read the Arab hate propaganda they pass off as news? Such theories as Israel put masks on hijackers so they would look like Arabs and then crashed them into the WTC and then blamed it on Arabs to get the US mad at Arabs. Rational thought and reasoning is not their strong suit. I see no reason to try to pander to their skewed view of the world.

I hardly think, that when war started against Israel in 1948 that the Arab states were doing so because the US was giving them military aid. Ha ha ha!

I suggest it's ridiculous and short-sighted to run US foreign policy on the basis that we want the Arabs not to be mad at us. The US should take whatever actions are legitimate and will lead to the best long-term outcome. Anticipating blackmail will not help.

[Skogan]

You make good points. Ok, you say. we should do what ever we need to do to defend our Israeli friends. If Arabs hate us for it, so be it.

But I think, because we are on this message board, then you have limted your analysis to Israel. "Ok," say the people on the Korean board, "we should do what ever it is we need to do to defend South Korea. If North Korea hates us, so be it."

Meanwhile, on the Tiawain board.... you see my point?

There is a reason the arabs see as there enemy. Culture has something to do with it, sure. But they hate us way worse then Europe, who basically doesn't try to intervene, and yet has a similiar western secular culture. There is a reason why the chinese, the koreans, hell just about everybody hates us. We are involved in every conflict, when really they are not our stuggles.

If it were just about popularity, I wouldnt mind. But this is about more then that. This is about our relationship with the rest of the world in an era where weapons of mass distruction are cheap and plentiful.

We have the most powerful military in the world. We have the most strategic location in the world. Yet, we are at much greater risk then Sweden. In the years to come, it will not be the people of Denmark who are the target of all the worlds hate.

In a world where we have the capacity to destroy Iran, and they have the capacity to destroy the U.S.A., will we really be militarily superior? Will we really be a world superpower, when more then one country can, with the wave of a hand, destroy us?

We have shown that we can not contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Because of that, we must necesarrily take a less interventionist stance if we want our nation to survive. Israel is one, but only one, of the places where that should begin.


Skogan

[Skogan]

If the level of hate against the United States remains constant, while the number of weapons of mass destruction continues to grow, we will be destroyed.

Skogan

[cerulean]

It's a scary world out there. No question about that. How to prevent the use of dirty nukes and other nasty weapons by unstable, unbalanced persons like OBL is a huge problem. The answer is NOT to stop supporting democratic states that are under attack, like Israel is.

My relatives who live in Europe certainly do not feel great relief and safety because of it. There may be a disadvantage in being a superpower like the United States, but there is also great discomfort in being in a tiny country with little power. You mentioned Sweden and Denmark in your post above. I suggest that if the United States falls, both countries know very well there is little hope for them.

Keep in mind that OBL's dislike for the US does not really have to do with Israel. He got upset because US soldiers, and women in particular, were on Saudi soil during the Gulf War. That was more than his ego and fundamentalist Islamic belief system could take. He mentions Palestinians from time to time when he needs to drum up support.

If you are set on a policy of appeasement and trying to get an irrational group of people to like you, converting to Islam and joining the jihad might be your best bet. It worked out well for John Walker Lindh (well, until the US persisted with a necessary military campaign rather than attempting appeasement).

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by cerulean
It's a scary world out there. No question about that. How to prevent the use of dirty nukes and other nasty weapons by unstable, unbalanced persons like OBL is a huge problem. The answer is NOT to stop supporting democratic states that are under attack, like Israel is.


The guy is a sniffling coward that would hand over his kids to the Taliban so that he could survive or he's an ArabTroll. He's the kind of a guy would steal a baby's pacifier when a car backfires?

There are no freebies from the US when it comes to arm sales to Israel of NEW weapons. Contracts are signed detailing payments etc. Anyone that thinks they can live like an ostrich must be stupid to say the very least.

Its fine and dandy for Arab States to acquire Blackhawk and Super Cobra helicopter, F/A-18 and F-16 fighter jets, C-130 and C-17 cargo planes, and aircraft refueling tankers. Arm the Arabs to the teeth just don't let Israel have any.

He doesn't even have a fundamental understanding of the world beyond a backyard.

[Skogan]

Cerulean..

You make good points. I disagree that the dangers raised are worth the risk, but your point is taken, and we see where we disagree. Your position is closer to U.S. policy then mine, so we will probably get to see what the result will be of an internventionist government in the era of weapons of mass destruction. I hope we can keep being the worlds cop without the consequences that seem, (to me) to be likely.

L@mplighter...

Its too bad that you can't think of a better reply then to say that I'm an arab troll. IT's too bad that your not smart enough to have a more profound response then to accuse me of being a coward.
If you can't at least make a counter-arguement, (as many others here have,) you should just shut up. You discredit yourself with your lack of substance. I'm underwhelmed.

There are no freebies from the US when it comes to arm sales to Israel of NEW weapons. Contracts are signed detailing payments etc. Anyone that thinks they can live like an ostrich must be stupid to say the very least.

Yeah, see actually we settled that question a few pages back. There are definately new, free grants, withou repayments going to Israel. See http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf
That is the report done by the congressional research service, the non partisain arm of the U.S. congress. When your done calling me stupid, I suggest you read it. You will find that indeed we give Billions of dolllars in aid to Israel, the majority of is specifically targeted for military spending.


Skogan

[cerulean]

Skogan,

Your response indicates you are willing to give up certain states (but not California) in response to a nuclear blackmail threat. I share your love for California, but there's no state I would be willing to give up in response to a threat. (I hope my principles would not be compromised if push came to shove, and I hope it never does.)

What if OBL or a nut du jour demanded, just for the sake of argument, all college professors be offered up? What if he demanded the US follow sharia law? Where would you draw the line? I suggest that an expressed willingness to give in to any demands is extremely dangerous.

[Skogan]

I didn't mean to single out California. Indeed, any state, (and especially college professors!) would be worth a great deal of risk. A direct confrontation if needed.

Where we differ, I believe, is that I see our support of Israel as a continuation of our attempt to be the "world's cop." We think we know the right outcome, so we impose our view on that part of the world. I'm against that, in as much as I believe that just because a cause is just, that doesnt mean it is OUR cause to fight for. We don't have to take a side in every conflict.

I'm not jewish. (I'm not arab either, regardless of L@mps fixation with that accusation.) Whether palistinians have a right to return, or there is an autonomous palistinian state (despite what the ruling party's wish) doesn't matter that much to me. The amount of risk associated with a cause that is really none of our buisness doesn't seem worth it in my eyes. But perhaps I would be prepared to face more risk for that cause if I were jewish. Hard to tell

Where do I draw the line? That is a difficult question to answer in the abstract. I know, for example, that though Tibet may deserve to be free, I don't really care enough about them to want to fight China. Even if it were a just cause, it would not be OUR cause. I think the amount of risk associated with our unwaivering, (and often isolated) support of Israel is not worth it.


Skogan

[cerulean]

If you think you're off the hook as a non-Jewish American, you are not. OBL and other Arab terrorists may hate you somewhat less, but not enough for you to feel complacent. I pointed out that OBL's hatred for the US was not based on Israel, but on the fact that American troops, particularly women, were on Saudi soil.

Iran calls America the "Great Satan" and Israel the "Little Satan."

The Islamic world's hatred for Salman Rushdie, for example, was not because he was Jewish and/or American. All he did was mock and criticize Islam in a novel. As a Muslim apostate, that made him deserving of death in their eyes. (Several other people, non-Muslim, who were connected to the book were killed for the crime of being involved in the book's translation or publishing.)

How do you envision the world looking say Day 600 into your new world order? Are all Arab weapon sales to be stopped also under your plan?

[cerulean]

Also, take a look at the criminology literature about deterrence, prevention of crime, and responses to hostage-taking and blackmail. Apply these concepts to the world scene. I don't think you'll find total capitulation to demands is a good strategy. (What we're discussing here is really a game theory problem, for that matter.)

[Skogan]

Let me answer the last part first. As far as weapon sales, as far as I know, there is not much risk associated with that. Even now, I'm not saying we shouldn't sale weapons to Israel. As far as I know, the sales of weapons is a non-issue. Unless for somereason that becomes a major point of contention, sales could continue to both sides.

It is the direct aid, the multi-billion dollar grants, loans (with the debt waived) direct military transfers that are the problem. WE give a lot more money to Israel than any other country, not just in the region, but in the world. In fact, in grants alone, (not including any of the other special deals) we give Israel 17 percent of our total aid package. Much more the the FSU, more then the 15 countries of sub-saharian africa combined.

Egypt is the next largest recipient of aid in the region. After that is Jordan. Their aid combined doesn't equal Israels.

My point is that the amount is pretty disproportianate. As far as the rest of the regions aid, I would only give non-military aid to anyone, and then only those with starving populations, etc. I may have to reconsider that, but that is probably how it would be handled.


To the criminology questions, (btw, I picked the name skogan because I happened to have just read an article by a criminologist named Wes Skogan before I logged on. You seem to be familiar with the field, maybe you have heard of him.)

Deterence theory isn't quite as useful when people are willing to accept death. Less so if they seek it. Beyond that, for the people in Israel it may be capitulation, but for us, it is simply not getting involved. To be irrelevant is not a fundementally weak position.
I do agree, for deterrance reasons, we need to punish the people who attacked us, to warn those in the future. However, when that is done, there is little point in continueing to needlessly flame the fires of hate.

I agree that the fundmentalist Islamic movements don't distinguish between the many different types of "infadels". They do hate the western culture, either because it is jewish or it is christian, but probably because it is secular. Also, by directing attention to outsiders, the divert attention away from the fact that the Islamic government isn't providing the goods that Allah suggested.

But I think by our constant stand in opposition to them, constant support of their enemy in what they believe is a rightous cause makes matters much worse.

My stand toward Israel is consistant with my wider world view. I don't think intervention is a good idea, except when unavoidable. The amount of aid we give Israel is so great it constitutes intervention, and I think it is avoidable.

Let me throw a question back to you. Consistent with your views on Israel, why should we not push for a free Tibet? (The question being, if we need only be concerned with what is right, then why not take on the Chinese?) I'm a non-interventionist, so I say that its unfortunate that the tibetens might be treated wrong, but its not worth any serioius confrontation to free em. According to all you have said above, do you think we should intervene in Tibet?

Skogan

[L@mplighterM]

Quote from Skogan:

Yeah, see actually we settled that question a few pages back. There are definately new, free grants, withou repayments going to Israel. See http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf
That is the report done by the congressional research service, the non partisain arm of the U.S. congress. When your done calling me stupid, I suggest you read it. You will find that indeed we give Billions of dolllars in aid to Israel, the majority of is specifically targeted for military spending.

Response by L@mplighter:

There wasn’t anything settled a few pages ago. Here I’m repeating it again this time in bold.

There are no freebies from the US when it comes to arm sales to Israel of NEW weapons. Contracts are signed detailing payments etc.

The US doesn’t fork over billions of dollars read the article again. Are you trying to convince me that CONTRACTS aren’t signed detailing the repayment of loans? Further, insofar as repayment goes it’s a lot more complicated than the papers in the link details.
There are issues of damages (loss of business from sales that Israel suffers) that you or NewsGuy haven’t even accounted for. At the onset I stated quite clearly that it’s a complicated issue.

I’m not going to bother detailing everything but I’ll state quite clearly that the US actually comes out way ahead in the deal.

Any person that would sell out his friends to terrorists is a sniffling coward. Why don’t you change your nick to Benedict Arnold of Quisling?

[NewsGuy]

This discussion is continued Here >> (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=8436#post8436).