I support Israel, and you?

[obvious Child]

First of all what trillions of dollars?
Between 1948 and 2008, in a length of 60 years, Israel has received in total aid from the US (Both economic and military aid) a sum of about 101 billion dollars.
That's not even 1 trillion dollars(1000 billion dollars), and yet you're speaking about trillions of dollars (thousands of billions of dollars).
That looks like an attempt to mislead.

Secondly, what trillions of dollars in welfare?
Between 1948 to 2008, Israel has received from the US 30 billion dollars in economic aid. That's quite far from being 1000 billion dollars, not to speak about thousands of billions of dollars.
So again that's another attempt to mislead.

Now besides all that, the economic aid the US gives to Israel is mainly returned to the US' economy through the Israeli commitment in the agreement between the two nations to buy most of its military equipment and gear from the Untied States.

You're missing a very large amount there. The trillion isn't just cash. It's the total value of the various aid, from equipment to cash we gave them as welfare.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/june2003/0306020.html

 

[Andalublue]

I support Israel in the same manner that I support the United States. Never always right, never always wrong either. When the hitter whiffs on a neck-high fastball, I criticize it. When the pitcher throws a lollipop over the plate that lands in the next county, I criticize it. If ya see a dumb play, ya just gotta call it that way.

The Rounders metaphor completely flew over my head (whiff? lollipop?) but I endorse the sentiment. I have no natural affinity with Israelis, Palestinians or the USA, but as with most conflicts, it's the leaders doing the lying and the poor doing the dying.

 

[Andalublue]

I support those who want peace and work for it on both sides. True heroes are people who boldly took risks for peace, like Yitzak Rabin. Also, I am supportive of Israel in general when it comes to defending their right to exist, just like I am supportive of the idea of a Palestinian state within the frame of a two state solution.

I am also supportive of the Israeli government when it takes measures of self-defense against terrorist organizations that don't acknowledge its right to exist, like Hamas, but I believe Israel should behave with proportion and try to avoid as much civilian casualties as possible. I am not supportive of acts of revenge, because I don't think revenge is covered by the right to self-defense, no matter if that is a terrorist attack against civilians by Palestinian terrorists, or an unproportional action by the Israeli government that takes into account an overproportional amount of civilian casualties. That's why I don't necessarily agree with all actions by the Israeli government, despite being generally supportive of Israel.

Palestinians need to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and denounce terrorism. Israel, on the other side, has to accept the prospect of a two state solution and a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.

To me, it looks like the Israeli governments have usually been more ready for peace than Palestinian authorities, not even mentioning the general population. Barak has offered the Palestinian authority an encompassing offer in Camp David in 2000, which failed because of Palestinian unwillingness for compromise. So I understand frustration on the Israeli side and calls for a tougher approach. But I don't think a tougher approach will necessarily be productive. The use of force has not been able to solve the conflict in decades, and I don't see any indication that this will change in the future. I do not approve of further Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Attacking terrorist sites in the Palestinian territories and enforcing weapon embargos is certainly an appropriate means of self-defense, but settling on Palestinian lands or deliberately hurting the Palestinian civil population to exert pressure is not (I don't see this yields a positive effect).

In spite of all understandable frustration, I encourage Israelis not to give up the fight for peace, as unlikely as a prospect for peace may look at the moment. I don't see an alternative. All my best wishes go to the Israeli people and I hope that eventually, they will be able to live in peace as neighbors to a Palestinian state in peace, no matter how much time that takes.

Great post! I don't agree with you entirely about the Barak peace initiative, but I do endorse your general sentiment. Unconditional recognition of the Israeli state's right to exist is a sine qua non of any solution, but so are a number of other things, such as a workable solution to the 'right to return' issue, settlements and support for a viable Palestinian state. Of course solutions to all of these cannot happen simultaneously, but each side needs to hold out the commitment and prospect of such concessions. At the moment they are all just holding out swords, both sides, equally.

 

[Apocalypse]

You're missing a very large amount there. The trillion isn't just cash. It's the total value of the various aid, from equipment to cash we gave them as welfare.

The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion

Buddy, you're quoting from a pure and active anti-Israeli website.
Here's the homepage of that website:
http://www.wrmea.com/index.php
So forgive me for not trusting your source.

Besides that I was basing my words on Wikipedia and the CIA factbook.
I can't see how the amount of money spent by the US on Israel reaches above 1 trillion dollars, so I have to assume that your biased website includes joint projects and stuff like that, or it might as well has just made up the figures for all I know.

 

[Demon of Light]

Do you think it is or ever was apparent that the ship was not meant to smuggle or otherwise undermine the blockade?

The key is whether it was meant to smuggle weapons. I hardly see how allowing humanitarian aid to be delivered by ship would undermine the blockade. Unless, of course, the purpose of the blockade is not simply to prevent a hostile entity from building up its military power, but is a form of collective punishment.

 

[Apocalypse]

The key is whether it was meant to smuggle weapons. I hardly see how allowing humanitarian aid to be delivered by ship would undermine the blockade. Unless, of course, the purpose of the blockade is not simply to prevent a hostile entity from building up its military power, but is a form of collective punishment.

The blockading party has the right to inspect every object that is being brought into the blockaded territory.
After that the blockading party may decide to let the objects in, as Israel did.

UN to Distribute Turkish Flotilla Aid to Gaza | Middle East | English

 

[spud_meister]

You're missing a very large amount there. The trillion isn't just cash. It's the total value of the various aid, from equipment to cash we gave them as welfare.

The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion

did you even read the link, it is the cost of everything america has put into the entirety of the middle east, including the iraq and afghan wars, and also areas of eastern europe and northern africa.

 

[alexa]

did you even read the link, it is the cost of everything america has put into the entirety of the middle east, including the iraq and afghan wars, and also areas of eastern europe and northern africa.

It says about $1.7 trillion is the amount the US has paid for Israel's defence

 

[Apocalypse]

did you even read the link, it is the cost of everything america has put into the entirety of the middle east, including the iraq and afghan wars, and also areas of eastern europe and northern africa.

Actually it is attributing 3$ trillion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That's irrelevant of course, the source is an anti-Israeli propaganda-spreading website.
That it mostly attributes to Israel events and US spending that should not be attributed to it is also irrelevant, since it just makes up the figures.
For example, it claims that the US aid to Israel sums up at 247 billion, even though both Wikipedia and the CIA world fact book sum it up at 101 billion, which is way less than half.
Just another screw in the anti-Israeli propaganda machine, there are countless of hate sites like that on the internet.

 

[mbig]

You're missing a very large amount there. The trillion isn't just cash. It's the total value of the various aid, from equipment to cash we gave them as welfare.

The Cos to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion

No, it isn't.

"....In addition, Fienberg wrote that Stauffer included any loan or loan guarantees as costs, predicting–without evidence–that Israel would default on its loans and the U.S. would have to cover the principal and interest.

According to Fienberg, Stauffer also “counts ‘economic damage’ inflicted on the United States. He blames Israel for the Arab oil embargo, because the United States came to Israel’s aid when Arab states tried to destroy it in 1973.”
Stauffer blames the recession on the oil embargo, despite the fact that many factors–such as reduced American productivity–played a role.

Among other Deceptions, Stauffer also Outrageously counts private contributions from American Jewish individuals and organizations–totaling as much as $60 billion in grants or bonds. He complains that those donations are a “net drain” on the U.S. economy.

In fact, U.S. annual aid to Israel is about the same as what we spend to defend South Korea, and far less than what we have spent annually to defend Western Europe since 1945. If money is at issue here for Jenkins and Stauffer, why are they harping on aid to Israel and ignoring the far larger amount of money spent to subsidize the defense of South Korea, Japan and Western Europe, including our less-than-stalwart French allies?..."

CAMERA: WSJ Columnist Overstates U.S. Aid to Israel by Almost $1 Trillion

Everything on Infamous WRMEA is anti-Israel.

Also see
http://www.hfienberg.com/clips/israel.htm
On how Stauffer Inflated $100 Billion into $1.7 Trillion.

 

[Dav]

You're missing a very large amount there. The trillion isn't just cash. It's the total value of the various aid, from equipment to cash we gave them as welfare.

The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion

There are tons of glaring problems with those numbers, but here is one of the most glaring:

An estimate of the total cost to the U.S. alone of instability and conflict in the region—which emanates from the core, Israeli-Palestinian conflict—amounts to close to $3 trillion, measured in 2002 dollars.

Basically, it takes all of the money - inflation adjusted - that is related in some way to the entire region that the U.S. has spent over the past six and a half decades or so, and acts as if all of it is the fault of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Apparently, if it weren't for that one conflict, the region would be a peaceful paradise - and apparently, if it were a peaceful paradise, it wouldn't be of any value to us. The total cost includes (probably farcicle) numbers for aid to Egypt, Turkey, and... Greece, among other places, as well as things like "Presence and preparadness in the Gulf".

And its claim that the 1973 war alone cost us about a trillion dollars, even inflation adjusted, is something I find extremely unlikely. And did I mention the total lack of sources cited?

 

[Captain America]

I support Israel when they're right.

I do not support them when I feel they are wrong.

According to some, the latter makes me anti-semetic but I disagree. I do not think that our unconditional support of Israel does anybody any good around here. It is a stone in our shoe and a thorn in our side.

This is about government policy. Not about religion or culture.

 

[Demon of Light]

The blockading party has the right to inspect every object that is being brought into the blockaded territory.
After that the blockading party may decide to let the objects in, as Israel did.

UN to Distribute Turkish Flotilla Aid to Gaza | Middle East | English

I never said Israel didn't have a right to inspect the ships and if they clearly communicated their only desire was to inspect the ships to insure they were not smuggling weapons then allow them to pass it would be one thing, but Israel would not allow any ship through even if it was obviously not intended to provide military support. These ships, to put it simply, were not in any way a military threat and yet Israel's response was and we hear in the radio conversation that they clearly give a vague threat of military action.

Saying over the radio for everyone to hear that they were "not responsible for what might happen to your ships or passengers" is hardly how you talk when your intent is simply to prevent the transfer of weapons to a hostile entity. Hell, it may have directly incited the incident on the Turkish ship.

 

[alexa]

Saying over the radio for everyone to hear that they were "not responsible for what might happen to your ships or passengers" is hardly how you talk when your intent is simply to prevent the transfer of weapons to a hostile entity. Hell, it may have directly incited the incident on the Turkish ship.

That I think is a very good point. Ever since I listened to the communications on a previous Free Gaza boat when Israel said to them twice, 'we will fire on you', I have been conscious that this may have had something to do with the Turkish response.

According to an Australian journalist who was on another ship, they said to that ship that there would be lethal consequenses. If they said that to the Mavi Marmara, there is no question that could be the reason some passengers decided to do some attempt at fighting back.

 

[jujuman13]

I support none of the above.
No sides in this entire centuries old back and forth bickering and fighting seem "right" or "on track" in any direction other than around and around.

Obvously no sides are interested in true negotiation, peace, tranquility and at least trying to bury the hatchet.

Oh you are so very wrong with regards to your last sentence.

The Palestinian side (Hamas) are very interested in burying the hatchet albeit in any and every Jew's head.

 

[Apocalypse]

I never said Israel didn't have a right to inspect the ships and if they clearly communicated their only desire was to inspect the ships to insure they were not smuggling weapons then allow them to pass it would be one thing, but Israel would not allow any ship through even if it was obviously not intended to provide military support.

Quite the paradox Demon.
How is one to know what's on the ship if he doesn't inspect it?
Do you read your own comments before posting them? It would save us both plenty of time it will.

These ships, to put it simply, were not in any way a military threat and yet Israel's response was and we hear in the radio conversation that they clearly give a vague threat of military action.

Saying over the radio for everyone to hear that they were "not responsible for what might happen to your ships or passengers" is hardly how you talk when your intent is simply to prevent the transfer of weapons to a hostile entity. Hell, it may have directly incited the incident on the Turkish ship.

A desperate move.
To warn the noncomplying ship to stop or to be attacked is an international procedure, not an Israeli one.
I've watched a TV show on the Discovery Channel the other day where an Australian navy ship was chasing a ship they suspected to be smuggling in drugs.
They told the ship in the communication "Stop immediately or you will be shot down".
Obviously they didn't shoot it down, after it didn't comply they've simply boarded it and stopped it by force.
You're only proving the clear and obvious double standards that exist when one is referring to Israel.

 

[Mell]

I support peace and human rights standards, rather than any country in particular.

 

[ecofarm]

I support Israel because I support peace (through democracy) and human rights (which Hamas has totally abandoned). I question Israel's actions - sometimes I think those actions were excessive or ill-planned, but I don't think Israel is actively engaged in an attempt to enslave others while Hamas does just that. We could also contrast Israel with Iran, and I doubt many people would prefer Iranian power and influence.

You see, a declaration of supporting peace, human rights and fluffy kittens means nothing without context and judgement; it's just bland wallpaper. It's not as if anyone here does not support peace and human rights.

I don't think anyone here is a big supporter of meaningless violence and oppression. I dunno... anyone here support Hamas?

 

[Apocalypse]

We could also contrast Israel with Iran, and I doubt many people would prefer Iranian power and influence.

You'd be surprised.

 

[ecofarm]

Context being people educated and intelligent enough to use the internet for political debate (I should have wrote "people here" but that was getting repetitive). I would be surprised if many people on this forum would prefer Iranian influence. Most people who act that way are probably just trolling. I mean, come on... democracy vs. theocracy lacking basic human rights? How is there even a moment of decision?

Only religious nutbags and likely-insane med-case trolls support Iran and/or Hamas. We should be real. I don't intend to be mean to those people, but let's call it like it is. How could a mostly sane person have access to the internet and be like "I want to support the totalitarian religious authorities!" lol

I understand the whole "devil's advocate" thing and I want to give the people of Iran a fair shake just like the next guy, but really... one's gotta be a moron (of such caliber that extentuating circumstances can fairly be assumed) to support Iran or Hamas.

There's one other possibility... that people are deeply ignorant. Perhaps I should not underestimate that.


Look, I don't care about Jews. I'm an atheist. I don't care what the bible says, or the koran; I don't care if someone in those books promised something or did something. I don't care who drew first blood, who was there first or who owes them payback.



I support democracy - end of story.

And if you support peace and human rights, you should support democracy too.

 

[Gardener]

Context being people educated and intelligent enough to use the internet for political debate (I should have wrote "people here" but that was getting repetitive). I would be surprised if many people on this forum would prefer Iranian influence. Most people who act that way are probably just trolling. I mean, come on... democracy vs. theocracy lacking basic human rights? How is there even a moment of decision?

Only religious nutbags and likely-insane med-case trolls support Iran and/or Hamas. We should be real. I don't intend to be mean to those people, but let's call it like it is.

How could a mostly sane person have access to the internet and be like "I want to support the totalitarian religious authorities!" lol

I understand the whole "devil's advocate" thing and I want to give the people of Iran a fair shake just like the next guy, but really... one's gotta be a moron (of such caliber that extentuating circumstances can fairly be assumed) to support Iran or Hamas.


There's one other possibility... that people are deeply ignorant. Perhaps I should not underestimate that.

There are certainly many who post their support for Islamists, and for my money, there are a couple of things going on. Much of their support is acting out because of their self loathing -- a self loathing that is transferred to the culture in which they live taking the form of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". Also, they represent the fundamentalist portion of the left -- a group that mirrors the fundies of the right in that they do not form their opinions based upon values, but on group think and dogma.

 

[ecofarm]

a self loathing that is transferred to the culture

"Monocultures begin in the mind and are then transferred to the landscape" -Vandana Shiva. Of course, I believe it works the other way as well.


Ecofarms cannot just exist on electronic paper, they must exist in our minds, be transferred to our landscape and become our tomorrow.

 

[lizzie]

I
I don't think anyone here is a big supporter of meaningless violence and oppression. I dunno... anyone here support Hamas?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least a couple who do, but I suspect it's out of ignorance (willful or blind) rather than an informed stance.

 

[Demon of Light]

That I think is a very good point. Ever since I listened to the communications on a previous Free Gaza boat when Israel said to them twice, 'we will fire on you', I have been conscious that this may have had something to do with the Turkish response.

According to an Australian journalist who was on another ship, they said to that ship that there would be lethal consequenses. If they said that to the Mavi Marmara, there is no question that could be the reason some passengers decided to do some attempt at fighting back.

It also is evidenced by the nature of their resistance. If their actions were planned out and not spur of the moment they would have had more people armed and they would have been better armed. Their actions are more akin to that of a frightened or enraged mob than anything else and that was most likely the result of Israel's own actions.

Quite the paradox Demon.
How is one to know what's on the ship if he doesn't inspect it?
Do you read your own comments before posting them? It would save us both plenty of time it will.

I read them. Did you? After all, I said:

I never said Israel didn't have a right to inspect the ships and if they clearly communicated their only desire was to inspect the ships to insure they were not smuggling weapons then allow them to pass it would be one thing

Israel did not say this because their intention was that the ship not pass through even if it was only carrying humanitarian aid.

To warn the noncomplying ship to stop or to be attacked is an international procedure, not an Israeli one.

That doesn't mean much to the people receiving the threat.

I've watched a TV show on the Discovery Channel the other day where an Australian navy ship was chasing a ship they suspected to be smuggling in drugs.
They told the ship in the communication "Stop immediately or you will be shot down".
Obviously they didn't shoot it down, after it didn't comply they've simply boarded it and stopped it by force.
You're only proving the clear and obvious double standards that exist when one is referring to Israel.

They weren't carrying drugs, guns, or anything but humanitarian aid and naturally the kind of things you find on any ship.

I support Israel because I support peace (through democracy) and human rights (which Hamas has totally abandoned). I question Israel's actions - sometimes I think those actions were excessive or ill-planned, but I don't think Israel is actively engaged in an attempt to enslave others while Hamas does just that. We could also contrast Israel with Iran, and I doubt many people would prefer Iranian power and influence.

You see, a declaration of supporting peace, human rights and fluffy kittens means nothing without context and judgement; it's just bland wallpaper. It's not as if anyone here does not support peace and human rights.

I don't think anyone here is a big supporter of meaningless violence and oppression. I dunno... anyone here support Hamas?

I don't think supporting Israel can ever mean supporting peace. I think Israel has a right to defend itself, but that does not mean they can do anything they want in the name of self-defense. Israel consistently uses disproportionate force.

 

[obvious Child]

There are tons of glaring problems with those numbers, but here is one of the most glaring:


Basically, it takes all of the money - inflation adjusted - that is related in some way to the entire region that the U.S. has spent over the past six and a half decades or so, and acts as if all of it is the fault of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Apparently, if it weren't for that one conflict, the region would be a peaceful paradise - and apparently, if it were a peaceful paradise, it wouldn't be of any value to us. The total cost includes (probably farcicle) numbers for aid to Egypt, Turkey, and... Greece, among other places, as well as things like "Presence and preparadness in the Gulf".

And its claim that the 1973 war alone cost us about a trillion dollars, even inflation adjusted, is something I find extremely unlikely. And did I mention the total lack of sources cited?

Did you fail to read this part:

Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion. About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs—about $1.7 trillion—arose from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that amount has been incurred since 1973

So basically your argument is "no citations = you wrong" Typical Dav.