Dear Israel... Part 2

[Mediocrates]

you're off track. the question was 'why bother if it pisses off the oil states when they don't really need it otherwise?'

Which is deceptively complex:

who cares who it pisses off?
do they really need it?
do they really deserve it?
it is for them or for our strategic interests?

you have to treat all of those things as interlocked questions.

[Skogan]

Clearly, you either did not read that document or you have a borderline IQ. It is very clear that Israel recieves both grants and loans. The loans, (which appear to be drawing down) are typically waived and thus are in reality grants too. Note this language, a direct qoute from page 6:

"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."

The grants (not loans) for this year come to 2.8 Billion dollars. 60 percent of which are earmarked for for military spending, 40 percent for economic reasons.

It also states that the the money used for economic spending is not accounted for. This is 40 percent of the grants. Note the language on page 8:

"ESF cash transfer: The United States gives all ESF funds directly to the government of Israel rather than under a specific program. There is no accounting of how the funds are used."

Further, you will note on page 3 that not all of the military grants are spent in the U.S. :

Israel is an exception to the general practice that all U.S. foreign military financing is spent in the United States."

I believe about 25 percent is spent outside the country.


Though you were able to make your statement in bold print, it is still not true. The U.S. gives... (here, ill put it in bold so you will believe me) GIVES Israel billions of dollars. That is a fact that any fair minded person would recognize after reading the links to the original government source documents I have provided. You make yourself look foolish by denying the obvious


Skogan

[Skogan]

To Med.

Those questions are relevant. My view of Israel is consistant with my world view.

We, like every other country on earth, need to start worrying about who we piss off. Our military and oceans no longer put us in a secure position, where we can act with indifference to the reactions of others.

The most interesting question is the last, is it in our interest or theirs. I would suspect that those in favor of continued funding say it is in our interest, because of the location and the obvious advantage of supporting a democracy in the region.

But I think the aid is against our interest, in that it subjects us to much greater risk then if we witheld aid. If the reason we give the aid is that it is in our interest, then as the risk associated with giving that aid increases, the better the arguement is to discontinue.

I used to believe that funding Israel was in our best interest. But as the weapons of mass distruction proliferate, the risk it opens us up to leads me to believe that a neutral stance would be in our better strategic interest.

After all, are we sure they can't do it on their own?
Skogan

[L@mplighterM]

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


Further it's you that won't or can't understand the documents that you provided a link for. Are you foolish enough to believe that the documents present all the facts?

There are other details that you chose to ignore. You're choosing to paint pictures with black paint on black canvas.

I know all about your kind and you?re not fooling me with your distorted trickery. It's called lying by omission. Why don't you present all the facts or are you afraid?

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

[Skogan]

When bold print fails to convince, you turn to a larger font.

Earlier, I had said that a source I cited wasn't Idealogical. Newsguy pointed out to me that it was. I admitted I was wrong and we moved on.

Later, newsguy admitted that he had been wrong about there being no grants going to Israel. We moved on.

The point is, while newsguy and I disagree on the substantive point of the thread, I still respect the fact that he argues honestly. I can't say the same for you.

You provide no evidence. You make no substantive points. You fail to respond to, or recognize evidence which shows you are wrong. All you do is call me names and change the font of your response.

You have isolated yourself as a intellectually dishonest participant in this debate. Unless you can come up with some evidence to support your position, you should really stop discrediting yourself this way.

Skogan

[Mediocrates]

No key point is not what it does to other countries but what it does to the social and economic internalties of Israel. One could argue that only truly independant statehood could come of a program to decrease aid on a fixed schedule. That aid has developed a bloated hard to manuever internal structure that lends itself to poor policy decisions. But I doubt cutting off aid is the answer so much as a structured program to convert it to private foreign investment. Otherwise you'd have another IMF-like crises on your hand.

I mean we invented the Bible, I'm pretty sure we can figure out a way to wean ourselves from US aid.


You see I'm not interested in holding any arab countries hand because I still believe we live in the age of von Clausewitz - that armed conflict is simply diplomacy carried on by other means.

[L@mplighterM]

You provide no evidence. You make no substantive points. You fail to respond to, or recognize evidence which shows you are wrong. All you do is call me names and change the font of your response.

The name calling isn't a one way street and if you're expecting an apology from me it isn't coming. Anyone that's willing to sell out his allies is a Benedict Arnold or a Quisling.


The United States has not cancelled any of Israel's loans.

A quote from page CRS-6 of the link you provided.

Repayments and refinancing is an ongoing process.


Could you provide information relating to why Israel is given grants? And also provide information how this directly benefits Israel.

I?ll state it one more time. ALL LOANS MUST BE REPAID!

Could you provide information as to why congress reschedules or sometimes loans and diverts part of the principal amount to grants?

Never ask a question unless you know the answer.

[Skogan]

I'm not expecting an apology. I'm showing that you use insults as a substitute for an arguement. Funny how you see not continueing to give billions of dollars a year as selling out, a Benedict Arnold.

Please explain what this passage on page 6 means to you:

Following the 1973 war, President Nixon asked Congress for emergency aid for Israel, including loans for which repayment would be waived. Israel preferred that the aid be in the
form of loans, rather than grants, to avoid having a U.S. military contingent in Israel to oversee a grant program. 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.

That qoute comes from the section titled "Loans with repayment waived".

Your quote, if it is from the CRS, is not at CRS 6. If you give me the correct page, Ill give you my interpretation.

As far as how Israel benefits from grants, that should be obvious. I don't think anyone needs that to be explained.


Your other questions, if you have a good answer you want to bring foward, feel free.

As for if the grants, (not the loans) are freebee's, I direct you to this quote from CSR 1, which I invite you to interpet:

Also in 1971, economic assistance changed from specific programs, such as agricultural development, to the Commodity Import Program (CIP) for purchase of U.S. goods. CIP ended in 1979, replaced by largely unconditional direct transfers for budgetary support. The 1974 emergency aid for Israel, following the 1973 war, included the first military grant aid. Economic aid became all grant cash transfer in 1981, and military aid became all grant in 1985.





Skogan

[NewsGuy]

Well, since I've been through a very detailed analysis of this issue in this very same thread, I can summarize the facts as follows:

Historically, some of the loans from the U.S. to Israel have been forgiven and some of them have been repaid by Israel, often as interest rates as high as 10%.

In the past several decades, the U.S. loans and grants to Israel have varied in their annual amount, but in the recent years, they total approximately $2.8B per year.

This figure of $2.8B includes ALL loans and grants labeled as loans which are mentioned in that report.

It's that simple.

[L@mplighterM]

It is indeed from page CRS-6 and I don?t need your interpretation. Anyone can twist facts like you do.

So I substituted loan for debt in error. Big deal!

Quote from page CRS-6 of the link you provided:

The United States has not cancelled any of Israel's debts.

What don?t you understand about that?


Grants are another topic and can be given for various reasons. One being loss of economic revenue incurred due to various factors. Grants are not loans!

[NewsGuy]

I think that part of the confusion stems from the terminology. From the report, it seems that there are 2 forms of aid being given to Israel -- grants and loans. Both of these forms of aid are approved under U.S. law and directed by the White House and by Congress.

However, the grants are still labeled as loans, even though, for all practical purposes, they are grants that are not expected to be repaid.

The reason they are still called loans is that, under U.S, law, the recipient of grants would be obligated to allow for U.S. personnel to monitor the use of those funds. Israel did not want that to occur, and so the U.S. Congress, which also has no interest in dispatching monitors to Israel, has agreed to call those grants, "loans that need not be repaid."

That's why, it's not entirely accurate to say that the U.S. "forgives" loans to Israel. Rather, the report shows that the U.S. is giving Israel a part of those "loans" as simple grants that it never expected in the first place to be repaid.

[Skogan]

I agree with you in part Newsguy. The loans were grants that they decided for practicle reasons should be given as loans and not require repayment. This is why the report says that though they are technically loans, there are in reality grants.

However, from my reading Israel recieved no loans in the last few years. the 2.8 B is total grants. In the 1990's the did recieve loans, but haven't as of late.

There are still outstanding balances on those loans however. And those loans may be waived, (hard to tell). When (if) they do, they should also be counted as Aid to israel, above and beyond the 2.8, because it is in fact a grant.

I I can try to find the sources that lead me to that conclusion. In the end, total aid to Israel, (to the best of my knowledge) is 2.8 Billion in grants, loans which are waived, plus all the other little DoD projects. If no loans are waived, then the 2.8 Billion plus the projects will be the total aid.

The reason it is relevant is that the normal figure given for Aid to Israel is about 3 Billion a year. However, that figure is for Aid that is grants only, doesn't includes the loans.

I'll go now and find some sources.
Skogan

[Skogan]

First. let me reply to L@mp:


The United States has not cancelled any of Israel's debts.

Your quote has a period at the end. The actual quote has a comma, and contiues as such:

The United States has not canceled any of Israel’s debts to the U.S. government, but the U.S. government has waived repayment of aid to Israel that originally was categorized as
loans.


To deliberately leave out the second half of the sentence inorder to change the context of the first clause is dishonest.

Skogan

[Skogan]

The following link goes to table by the CSR that breaks down all types of aid to Israel. It seperates economic grants from economic loans, military grants from military loans, etc. As the table reflects, the only thing it does not include is DoD research projects and such. It also does not include when loans were/are waived. (all we know is that 40 Billion have been waived to date.)

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

From it, it is clear that Isreal recieved no loans in the past few years, but did recieve 2.8 Billion in grants. If you conclude that the loans should be counted as aid when they were given, then the total amount of aid to israel was 2.8 Billion in pure grants last year.

If you conclude that loans should be counted as aid when they are waived, then Israel, (according to the other CSR) is still in debt to the U.S. by about 2.5 Billion. That should be added onto the the total aid package when it is waived.

The loans which are waived clearly should be counted as aid above and beyond the grants at some period. However, if you would like to count them as aid when given, instead of when waived, I'm ok with that. Thus you could reasonable say that the U.S. aid to israel last year was 2.8 Billion dollars.

Skogan

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Skogan
First. let me reply to L@mp:




Your quote has a period at the end. The actual quote has a comma, and contiues as such:



To deliberately leave out the second half of the sentence inorder to change the context of the first clause is dishonest.

Skogan


It was my browser/forum program/or? that changed the dots to question marks and when I corrected it I mistakenly ended up with a period.

It depends on what machine I use in the network. My mistake!

[L@mplighterM]

Whenever payments are waived it?s because it?s in the strategic interest of the US to do so. One example is providing a grant for the resettlement of Russian refugees in Israel. The thought behind that is keeping the brain power within a friendly nation such as Israel.

I believe the reasoning behind some other grants may be classified in the interest of national security as a matter of fact I know this is true in one case.

The interest of the US is first and foremost when it comes to changing debt into grants and/or writing off debts.

The fact remains that no debt has ever been cancelled. Israel has had difficulty in maintaining payments with up to 10% interest. On at least one occasion it had the opportunity to refinance (sort of) with a lower interest and it did so.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
When (if) they do, they should also be counted as Aid to israel, above and beyond the 2.8, because it is in fact a grant. Yes, but please keep in mind that you can count either the "loans" in the year they were made, OR you can count those loans in the year they were waived. But it would not be accurate to double count those sums both in the year they were made AND in the year they were waived. It's one or the other.

Also, the end of the report specifies the type of loans that are included in each year's budget. Rather than refer to their acronyms, there is a military loan and a social loan. The military loan, which is the larger of the two, I believe, is the de facto grant termed as a loan. The other is a plain loan which is payable by Israel.

The reason that the larger military "loan" turns out to be a grant, is that it is the money required to be spent with U.S. defense contractors. While we are calling it aid (or a grant) to Israel, it is equally a grant to the U.S. defense companies, if you think about it, and they should be equally grateful.

p.s. boy, this stuff is dense...

[Skogan]

To newguy:

I agree it is counted either one time or the other. I don't think that the military portion is the loans refered to, but I'm tired of researching budget questions, so I won't contest it.

While we are calling it aid (or a grant) to Israel, it is equally a grant to the U.S. defense companies, if you think about it, and they should be equally grateful.

Indeed. On other sites I read stated that, while the pro-israel lobby is a stong backer on these issue, the defense industry was the more forceful lobby in getting the legislation passed. In states where those industies are located, im sure there are no anti-zionist.
(and they say jewish people don't like pork! :p )

To L@mp:
Mistakes happen, I withdraw my comment about it being dishonest. I'm too tired to continue researching and argueing about this issue. We well have to agree to disagree.

This whole minute point on the exact amount of aid sort of hi-jacked the thread from the question of should the U.S. continue to be interventionist, (granted, that was as much my fault as anyones.)

So let me ask, you guys interventionist in general, or are you only in the case of Israel?

Skogan

[L@mplighterM]

I hadn’t even begun yet.

I did state in my first post that it’s a complicated issue.

It’s not a matter of being an interventionist for Israel or anyone else for that matter. For the US it has made sense to spend a dollar and get ten in return and it has profited from its association with Israel.

In other cases its been a financial disaster.

[Skogan]

Ok, if you really want to keep on this path,

Give me your evidence and sources. If you can make a convincing arguement, I'll agree. (just saying that it is productive, then change fonts and saying it again, is not convincing.)

Newsguy recently put some links on a different thread up. One was to an Israeli economy publication. I would think they would have something to say about this matter.

Skogan

[Skogan]

An article in the link that newsguy posted on another thread, located here:

http://www.israeleconomy.org/opeds/oped18.htm

Time to Think Again About Aid
Yuval Levin, IASPS Adjunct Fellow in Political Studies

It describes why giving aid to israel is bad for israel because the governmental relience on it keeps it from making needed economic reforms. Here are some of its quotes:

" The time has come to tell the truth about aid. American economic assistance, while well intentioned from the outset, has been a disaster for the Jewish state, and has done harm to American interests as well.
The economic impact of aid should be familiar to anyone who knows the logic of welfare dependency. Each year, Israel receives several billion dollars in ‘free money’ from abroad, the bulk of which is a $3 billion grant from American taxpayers. This infusion of cash acts as a disincentive to self-sufficiency and economic liberalization, and as such has held back the Israeli economy for decades and allowed Israel’s highly statist system to resist reform."

Further down:

"Supporters of aid point to Israel’s defense needs and to the fact that most American aid is designated as military assistance. But that military aid package, just like its economic counterpart, takes the form of an annual grant to the Israeli government, with few strings attached. Money is fungible, and thus aid marked for defense is still general economic aid, since each dollar of it allows the government to spend a dollar of its funds elsewhere. Israel could certainly maintain its defense at current levels without aid – what it could not maintain is its inefficient statist economy. "


I'll go see what else is out there.

Skogan

[cerulean]

If you want to argue giving aid to Israel is bad because it violates Milton Friedman's economic principles (or von Mises or Hayek or whoever is one's libertarian economist of choice), I can go along with looking at the evidence for this proposition. This article is a start, but of course not the last word on the issue. (At this point I don't feel equipped to discuss the article in specifics, because I am not familiar enough with the nitty-gritty details. In the next few weeks as I have time I will look at the issue some more.) I will say that I am rarely persuaded by the arguments of pure libertarian economic theorists. Neither are their theories ever really implemented in a real-world environment. Many hoped Reagan would implement true free-market principles and scrap government subsidies across the board, but he did not do so. (There was, of course, some selective elimination.)

If you want to argue giving aid to Israel is bad because it will get Arab states mad at the United States, then I have nothing to argue about. If you want to argue it would be a good idea to give up Israel if bin Laden threatens LA with a nuclear attack, then again I have nothing to argue. I consider both of these ideas to represent a traitorous, treacherous position.

The problem is that now you have mentioned your reasoning regarding placation of Arab states, I am now convinced that any economic rationale you throw in is after-the-fact justification for an anti-Israel position.

Not to mention the statements in your first posts that Costa Rica is way less troublesome than Israel! You have indicated your real beliefs on the issue.

[Skogan]

I used the above post not to make the points the author intended, but rather to pull quotes from some of his assumptions.

In other words, the artical was proving a point I wasnt. I only wanted to show that we have shared assumptions.

Namely the author described the economic aid as 3 billion in "free money". I also needed the quote "the form of an annual grant to the Israeli government, with few strings attached. " to show that it is relatively without restrictions.

The authors point was to show that the aid is bad for israel. I just needed his quotes to describe the nature of the aid. L@mp and I have a disagreement about the amount and nature of U.S. aid, and I was using the quotes to prove my side. I added extra wording inorder to provide context. I don't really care about the point the author was making.

My original reasoning is the same. I am not adopting the authors arguement as my central arguement. We still have nothing to talk about.

My point is still that Costa Rica is less of a hassle. I still think our support of Israel does our country more harm then good. (Odd that you use the terms "traitorous, treacherous position" when you imply that you would rather lose L.A. then israel. Unless of course you are israeli.) I couldn't care less if Isreali's reliance on our aid is doing harm to israel, those were quotes of convienance.


For context, you have to read from L@mp's last post on down. From that, you should be able to see why I used that post.


Skogan

[Skogan]

BTW what is traitorous and treacherous about the point that I would rather lose Israel then L.A.? Would you rather see the loss of American lives? If you are American and you feel different, then you are the definition of treacherous!

Skogan

[cerulean]

The point is making one's country open to blackmail, rather than preferring one location over another (Israel over LA or whatever the accusation may be). That's where the treachery comes in.

Although Israel has been used for the sake of example, since you are so concerned with placating irrational Arab states, the same principle would apply if any other allied state were threatened.

The United States should, in advance, categorically reject the possibility of giving up Britain, Canada, Israel, or any other ally just because bin Laden (or another Islamic terrorist individual or group) is threatening LA. Once it becomes clear that the US is open to blackmail, then blackmail will likely occur. The demands will not cease and the US will become progressively weaker.

Look where Chamberlain's well-hailed appeasement got Europe.

[cerulean]

The article mentioned above is an op-ed of less than 1000 words and not an analytical article. It does not fully substantiate the claim that the money is sent with few strings and pre-conditions. An article would need to be set the situation out in greater detail for me to accept it as a source.

The author clearly has a strong libertarian/free-market bent, which in my opinion is at least somewhat of a good thing. On the other hand it would make sense that a nation like Israel, with a strong Jewish identity, would legitimately have somewhat stronger collectivist tendencies than the United States.

[Mediocrates]

The point of it though is what is does to the internalities of Israel. In lieu of foreign private investment, aid dollars have crowded out other invesments. The result is a rigid bureaucratic structure that's inefficient and difficult to manage and results in local tactical policy decisions. Certainly that's a US centric neo-con point of view, Libertarian, even, but's the economic theory behind it.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Skogan
An article in the link that newsguy posted on another thread, located here:

http://www.israeleconomy.org/opeds/oped18.htm

Time to Think Again About Aid
Yuval Levin, IASPS Adjunct Fellow in Political Studies


Interesting article with serious accusations. American interests aside for a moment, I wonder what the anti-socialists - ;) - in this forum would say to this:


American economic assistance, while well intentioned from the outset, has been a disaster for the Jewish state...

The economic impact of aid should be familiar to anyone who knows the logic of welfare dependency. ...

This infusion of cash acts as a disincentive to self-sufficiency and economic liberalization, and as such has held back the Israeli economy for decades and allowed Israel’s highly statist system to resist reform. Between 1950 and 1973, the pre-aid age for Israel, per capita GDP grew at an average annual rate of 5.59 percent – a very healthy rate for a new nation developing in difficult circumstances. But between 1974 (when sizeable U.S. aid began) and 1999, Israel’s per capita GDP grew at an average annual rate of only 1.51 percent.

The causes of this sharp decline in growth have had much to do with the habits of dependency that have developed around the unearned infusions of funds that flow into Israel by the billions of dollars each year. Under their influence, the Israeli economy has ceased even to strive for self-sufficiency, and the nation has ceased to depend on its own productivity to support its standard of living. The costs – in real terms and in lost potential income – have been enormous.

Aid funds have also allowed Israel to avoid a very necessary liberalization of its state-controlled economy. A cessation of aid would necessarily undermine – indeed it would dismantle – the socialist system, which nourishes the bureaucrats and politicians who now run the country. Aid, therefore, is not only a way to avoid paying the bills, it is a way (in truth the only way) to keep Israel’s socialist system alive, and with it the power and positions of Israel’s elites.

In this way, dependence on aid has both harmed the Israeli economy and put up barriers to repairing the damage. Israel is not only unproductive; it does not strive for productivity. It not only lacks economic freedom, it has no desire for such freedom. It desires only aid, and it constructs its policies accordingly – and not only its economic policies.

Indeed, the perverse incentives created by aid funds have much to do with Israel’s strategic policies and its approach to the peace process. Moving ahead with the peace process meant more and easier access to American funds, and thus played to both the personal and ideological interests of Israel’s leaders, with each confirming the other in a circular cycle of errors. This cycle – by which the desire for aid strengthens the faith in peace process logic and vice versa – has brought the personal interests of Israel’s governing elites into conflict with the interests of the nation as a whole, and they have failed to see it, blinded by the luster of aid funds. The result has been a greatly weakened Israel – both economically and strategically.

Supporters of aid point to Israel’s defense needs and to the fact that most American aid is designated as military assistance. But that military aid package, just like its economic counterpart, takes the form of an annual grant to the Israeli government, with few strings attached. Money is fungible, and thus aid marked for defense is still general economic aid, since each dollar of it allows the government to spend a dollar of its funds elsewhere. Israel could certainly maintain its defense at current levels without aid – what it could not maintain is its inefficient statist economy. Close strategic cooperation between the U.S. and Israel should continue because it helps both nations, but direct financial assistance should cease, because it helps neither one.

Israel’s growing reliance on aid, and the attitudes of dependency and defeatism which have resulted, have led the Jewish state down a dangerous path which in time may prove fatal. ...

[cerulean]

The obvious question is what private investor would invest in even a free-market paradise where terrorism is a daily fact of life. Some still do, of course, for one reason or another. But so long as Israel is insecure, this is a huge strike against it.

This seems a very difficult time to transition Israel to a private-investment-based economy. What sort of insurance policies can you get in Israel for a business, for example? (I don't know, so I would be happy to hear.)

There's definitely waste and inefficiency in Israeli bureaucracy (hardly unique to Israel, of course). I think it's optimistic to hope that cutting off US aid will be a cure.

None of this resolves the issue that the US is using aid to Israel as a subsidy of its defense industry.

Thus, to summarize, I'm not opposed to free market liberalization, but I am opposed to any ideologically-based maneuvers without regard for other consequences.

[cerulean]

Bin Laden is once again threatening the US for its support of Israel (and any country that supports Israel). (The tape may be old, however.) I hope no one will think this a good reason to ally with bin Laden.

=========
Meanwhile, an Arabic news service in England reported Sunday that it had received a videotape of Mr. bin Laden, which it said had been recorded as recently as March. But the independent Arab satellite news network Al-Jazeera said it had seen the tape three or four months ago and believed it was recorded in October. The brief footage reportedly showed Mr. bin Laden promoting the virtues of "martyrs" (suicide bombers and terrorists) and declaring war against any country that "steps into the same trench as the Jews."

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
I hope no one will think this a good reason to ally with bin Laden.
There was a good article in "Slate" on this, shortly after 9/11:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=115869


It's true that terrorists can impose consequences on us. But it's just as true that we can impose consequences on terrorists.

Superficially, it's empowering to analyze every situation in terms of the consequences of our own acts. Understanding how we can change the enemy's behavior by changing our own appears to put control in our hands. It also gratifies our egos by preserving our sense of free will while interpreting the enemy's conduct as causally determined. We're the subjects; they're the objects. But the empowerment and the ego gratification are illusory. By accepting as a mechanical fact the enemy's aggressive response to our offending behavior, we surrender control of the most important part of the sequence.

...

This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for revising U.S. policy in the Middle East. Maybe it's true, for other reasons, that we should rethink our position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, or ease sanctions on Iraq. But if we do these things to avoid further attacks on our cities, we're granting terrorists the power to dictate our acts by dictating the consequences.

The consequentialists present themselves as humanitarians and idealists. They purport to speak up for the plights, principles, and aspirations of people who are driven to commit acts of terror. But their mechanistic analysis dehumanizes these people. Terrorists aren't animals. No law of nature compels them to blow up buildings when they're angry. We don't have to accept their violent reactions to our policies. We can break that causal chain.

[Mediocrates]

A country that denies its strengths and plays to its weaknesses to appeal to some hostile threat, will sooner, than later, kill itself. All we have is what we are and we can no more deny it than become the people who hate us. For when we do, that's when we can go to lay down by the Jordan river and die.

[L@mplighterM]

Re: Supposed Aid to Israel

In 1992 Congress was notified of the following sale to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi F-15 Sale 14 September---Congress receives formal notification
from the Pentagon that the Bush Administration plans to offer Saudi
Arabia 72 F-15 "XP" aircraft in a deal worth $9 billion. The F-15XP is
the F-15E "Strike Eagle" with somewhat down-graded avionics and
munitions. Because of its bombing capacity, the F-15E has never before
been exported to any country. The sale also includes: 24 spare
engines, advanced navigation and targeting pods for 48 of the 72
aircraft, 900 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, 300 Sidewinder and 300
Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 600 cluster bombs, 700 laser-guided bombs,
spare parts, technical documentation, technical and logistics services
and training.

It violated the “Arms Controls Export Act”. Through a series of hearings (including expert witnesses) and back room deals the sale was given approval. The deals lead to the following:



Compensation for Israel Following announcement of the Saudi sale, the
New York Times reported (15 Sept.) that negotiations for compensatory
security assurances to Israel have been underway for two weeks. The
package of off-sets reportedly includes greater access to U.S. satellite intelligence; increased pre-positioning of U.S. military stocks in Israel; and a long-term commitment to Israel's annually legislated $1.8 billion in military grant aid from the U.S. In addition, rather than buying more high tech American weaponry, Israel reportedly wants the technical information to allow them to build and modify the equipment themselves.

If the deal had been turned down by Congress there would have been no $ 1.8 billion in military aid to Israel. Which to date totals some $ 20 billion.

Agreed yes or no ?

Bear in mind there’s a Treaty in place between the US and Israel.

Do you believe in treaties yes or no?


http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/asm/asm17.html

[Skogan]

So what your saying is that in order for the U.S. to SELL 9 billion worth of arms, it had to agree to GIVE 20 billion to Israel (plus other bonuses)? That, on its face seems counter-intuitive. I think I would have to see how "long term" commitment was defined.

I do take your broader point though. That from time to time, some of the aid was compensation for aid to others in the region. This, appearently, is against some treaty, and the U.S. decided that it was in its best interest to maintain the treaty (rather then abrogate it), so it compensated instead. The compensation, though listed as aid, is in reality more akin to paying damages in a contract dispute.

An arguement could be made that this is still aid. But, the preponderance of the evidence is that it is compensatory, and not aid. I'm not sure if I agree that by "long term" they ment a decade later we would still be obligated, but I do agree that whatever the deal was, that amount should not be counted as aid in the sense we are talking about.


Skogan

[Mediocrates]

How much aid does the US give, lend both directly and indirectly to the PLO?

[Skogan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
A country that denies its strengths and plays to its weaknesses to appeal to some hostile threat, will sooner, than later, kill itself. All we have is what we are and we can no more deny it than become the people who hate us. For when we do, that's when we can go to lay down by the Jordan river and die.

That's a nice saying, but I wonder if your views regarding U.S. support of Israel is consistant with your views with everyone other nation in the world?

Should we try to liberate Tibet because it is the right thing to do, or should we acknowledge the threat that of Chinese retaliation, and concentrate on only those matters that are of direct consequence to us?

Skogan

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Skogan


That's a nice saying, but I wonder if your views regarding U.S. support of Israel is consistant with your views with everyone other nation in the world?

Should we try to liberate Tibet because it is the right thing to do, or should we acknowledge the threat that of Chinese retaliation, and concentrate on only those matters that are of direct consequence to us?

Skogan

You miss the point. I'm far more Machiavellian than that. The point is you play to your strengths not your weaknesses. If your national strength is power then use that. If your national strength is playing the victim card then play that. If your national strength is threatening a third party then that's what you do. The point is, the Israelis would have to be nationally delusional to play into the PLO's hands by playing to their own weakness of structural problems or threats of structural problems in the Israeli economy or government. Those are in fact the cards the Israelis have to play so they should play them and not worry about appeasement. That's not what nations which survive do. The Israelis have to use their strengths and if their strengths is dismantling terrorists infrastructure, no matter how inefficient that effort may be then that's what they have to do. If their strength is working the phones in DC to dial up influence and money, then that's what they should do.


For in the first instance, just like in law enforcement, if you give in to vague threats or criminal 'zones' then you've lost any advantage you once had. Police forces don't really have 'free fire zones'. They may be a little slow to respond in some areas and reluctant to enter others but there is almost never a case of letting the bad element take over part of town for some kind of armed truce between the cops and the drug dealers (except in Columbia and the results are clear).

Giving in is no different from it sounds like. That's what surrender IS.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Skogan
Should we try to liberate Tibet because it is the right thing to do, or should we acknowledge the threat that of Chinese retaliation, and concentrate on only those matters that are of direct consequence to us?

Skogan

If you treat every oppression every civil war as strictly an internal matter, pull up the draw bridge and wait out the shooting then you have lost whatever strength it is that makes you an American nation. Might as well be Belgium and write scathing white papers. See my point is, if you have something that works and works well you should spread it everywhere in the world you can. Just like the missionaries the US needs to mount serious efforts to spread its influence all over the world. Just because it's risky doesn't make it a bad thing to do. After all that all that militant Arabism (secular and non secular) really is. Power and control. Spread the Arab word all over the world and impediments be dammned. Well I for one say that it ends there and the only reasonable defence is a strong offence. Make the world America.

[L@mplighterM]

All right so we both consider it damages and much like damages in a contract dispute. So in effect the raw figures presented in the figures of the link that you presented are in fact misleading without proper interpretation.

That is exactly what I was referring to in my earlier posts.

What is needed is a forensic accountant to determine whether or whether not Israel is indeed prospering from its association with the US in the form of monetary gain aside from Trade Agreements. Of course wording of said Treaties(s)or lack thereof should be a considering factor in arriving at a conclusion.

What would complicate matters would be the fact that some information is ?CLASIFIED?. Based on all the information that I have seen it?s my opinion that Israel receives loans and is expected to repay the same and has/is repaying the same.

From time to time factors arise where a loan can be rescheduled as an outright grant and/or aid in the form of said grant. One would have to consider why this was done in other words why would Congress make such a decision before reaching a conclusion on the subject.

The bottom line is that when an agreement is entered into for a loan documents are signed specifying repayment and interest.

[Skogan]

You miss the point. I'm far more Machiavellian than that. The point is you play to your strengths not your weaknesses. If your national strength is power then use that. If your national strength is playing the victim card then play that.

And if your strength is suicide bombing?

If their strength is working the phones in DC to dial up influence and money, then that's what they should do. I can understand why israel does what it does. But if Israeli's strength comes at the expense of America's well being, then we should fight against that.

The analogy between nations and cops is misapplied, but relevant. Because it assumes we are the worlds cops, thus it is our duty to make the world a safe place. When a nation creates and funds a police force, it consents to its use of authority. The police indeed have a duty to indanger thenselves for the public good.

The situation you discribe is more like a police state. The unconsented-to world police force should settle disputes applying laws the world did not democratically agree to. This is an illigitimate use of force, by most most standards. Just as most citizens rise up against this form of policing in a country, most countries rise up against this form of policing in the world.

BTW, (on a side note) police really have very little influence on the rate of crime. More police, and more aggressive police action, have almost no impact on the amount of criminality. Instead, it is a function of the ordinary routine activities of society at large that are either conducive to, or repressive of crime. At least that is the majority opinion amoung criminologist (See Kansas City patrol experiments)

As far as you later post, my point is more limtied then what you state. I think we should not involve ourselves in internal disputes where the risk (long and short term) are greater then the rewards. (This coincides nicely with your previous post. ) The standard you have articulated over several post appears that we should have unlimited intervention in any cause. As far as I can remember, you don't limit the amount of intervention by considerations of risk, (what you sometimes call fear.)

Do you not believe that we should calculate risk v. reward when considering intervention, because that plays into fear; or do you simple contend that the risk out weighs the reward in this case.


Skogan

[Skogan]

To L@mp:

My bottom line is this: The histroy of U.S. aid to Israel is to complicated for any mere mortal to figure out. There have been loans, grants, loans that were really grants, grants that were really compensation for treaty violations, etc. I'm very tired of argueing about it.

skogan

[NewsGuy]

Well, this is a very interesting discussion, folks.

Maybe this is a good time to chime in on the issues beyond the specific amount of aid (which I maintain to be $2.8B/yr).

As an American pro-Israel citizen, I support the U.S. continuing to provide grants and loans to Israel in the short-run to counter the devastating effect of the past 2 years of the Palestinian war against the citizens of Israel.

In the long run, however, Israel needs to be able to repay all loans and produce an economy that is self-sustaining, without foreign support from any source. I agree with former (and perhaps future) Prime Minister Netanyahu in this regard.

I am sorry to say that there is a very simple bottom line in balancing the books for Israel -- its expenses cannot continue to exceed its revenues. There cannot be an ongoing situation where social programs and even defense expenditures continue to drive the country deeper and deeper into debt.

There is one main economic challenge that Israel faces: A desire for a high standard of living, while spending a whopping 9.4% of its GNP on defense.

Overall, Israel runs at a deficit of approximately $2.4 Billion per year. That is certainly not disasterous, but it needs to stop for a variety of reasons, chief among them is that Israel needs to be able to make independent defense decisions.

So, instead of U.S. aid to cover the $2.4 Billion deficit, I'd rather see some more belt-tightening (as is going on already in Israel) and more business deals structured that add revenue rather than than debt.

From an American standpoint, the U.S. should do exactly what's in its best interest. If a business deal with Israel makes the most sense, then that's the way to go, and should be labeled as such -- not as a favor. But so long as loans or grants to Israel are viewed as charity that could serve the U.S.' interests better by being spent at home, then the program should be stopped within a timeline that is mutually agreed by Israel and the U.S., as per PM Netanyahu. It would be better for both countries to have a business relationship, rather than a donor-recipient relationship.

Likewise, all U.S. aid to Arab and African countries should be stopped and reworked as business deals that produce profit for America. These countries have natural resources that could benefit the U.S. and there should be a price paid in return for U.S. aid, just as it is the the case of Israel.

I don't believe in the gift system that produces dependencies and misgivings. I believe in the business reciprocity system that brings prosperity and mutual respect.

[L@mplighterM]

Of course a country should be self-reliant if at all possible. In the case of Israel this hopefully can/will occur at some point in the future.

Whatever the annual figure is in the form of aid/grants/loans compensation should however in my opinion remain a deciding factor in determining these facts.

For example:

The US purchases oil from various States in the ME. The States use the funds it received from selling the oil to purchase weapons from the US.

The weapons destabilize Israel’s National Security. Israel is forced to maintain the status quo by purchasing more weapons.

Israel shares and develops (advanced warning systems, laser technology, missiles and much more) technology used by the US. Israel has access to the American market.

The US decides in the form of a DEMAND who Israel can or cannot sell its technology to. It’s not a REQUEST!

Based on these factors any payments received should be viewed as compensation in my opinion. That of course is not to say that Israel doesn’t have an obligation to mitigate and control expenses. There should always be accountability no one should be given a blank check.

[Mediocrates]

"Do you not believe that we should calculate risk v. reward when considering intervention, because that plays into fear; or do you simple contend that the risk out weighs the reward in this case"


I believe that both the Israelis and the US should prioritize strategic national goals and pursue them ruthlessly to the exclusion of any other objective. If the goal is an armed truce then seek that. If the goal is peace at any reasonable cost then that. If the US seeks a strategic objective in maintaining any semblence of influence in the mid east, with arab states then I submit that disengagement is exactly the wrong course of action because then we have lost whatever leverage we could apply outside of buying marginally less or more oil.

Frankly they want more from us than we want from them. We want their oil and can buy it. They want materiel, money, parts, radar, training, intelligence cooperation and all of the support mechanisms that a fantastically wealthy yet immature disorganized gaggle of genetic monarchies is able to muster. And they know it. All we need to do is with the stroke of a pen change the CAFE standards to 30mpg and they tremble with fear and thr the Saudi nation, which really is 6000 blood relations who run everything . And make no mistake, I for one am willing to accept a large change in my standard of living if that is what it takes.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
The US purchases oil from various States in the ME. The States use the funds it received from selling the oil to purchase weapons from the US.

The weapons destabilize Israel’s National Security. Israel is forced to maintain the status quo by purchasing more weapons.

Israel shares and develops (advanced warning systems, laser technology, missiles and much more) technology used by the US. Israel has access to the American market.

The US decides in the form of a DEMAND who Israel can or cannot sell its technology to. It’s not a REQUEST!
It is undeniable that the U.S. sale of weapons to Arab countries is at least partially responsible for Israel's ongoing need for expensive new weapons.

Those are all, of course, valid points and should be addressed in the context of business dealings rather than in the framework of "economic aid."