MVictorP
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2015
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 23
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm not in favor of giving our hard earned money to foreign powers for most reasons.
However..in the case of Israel...
Genesis 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed." Point: God has promised to bless the man or nation that blesses the Chosen People. History has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the nations that have blessed the Jewish people have had the blessing of God; the nations that have cursed the Jewish people have experienced the curse of God.
The Old testament is about a tribal, petty god. So of course it watches over Jews - they're the one writting these tales. What do you expect?
No relation whatsoever with the universal, forgiving god presented in the NT.
Well, no rational nation accepts being displaced, relocalised and abused for more than 60 years neither. Even unarmed ones.
Israel is a longstanding American ally. Not even the United States’ enemies question that relationship. The relationship is mutually beneficial, so “parasitic” is a wholly inaccurate description. Furthermore, as is the case with all nations, Israel will act in its national interest. There is broad overlap between the American and Israeli national interest, even as there are some differences, as well. That some differences exist does not undermine the basis for the bilateral relationship. No pairs of nations have identical interests.
Israel didn’t just “seize territory.” The historic experience is far more complex. Israel accepted the UN’s partition plan. The Arab side did not. The latter attempted to conquer Israel, but lost the war. Israel has fended off aggression for the duration of its independence since 1948. At the same time, Israel has ceded territory for peace. It gave up the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for Egypt-Israel peace. It offered to give up virtually the entire Golan Heights for peace with Syria in 2000, but President Hafez Assad rejected those terms. It was willing to give up all of the Gaza Strip and 97% of the West Bank in return for peace with the Palestinians when it accepted President Clinton’s bridging proposal in 2000 and up to 98% of the West Bank (along with all of the Gaza Strip) in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 initiative. The Palestinian leadership rejected both proposals.
Nations maintain relationships based on interests. The U.S. has longstanding partnerships with a number of moderate Arab states on account of shared interests. Those states include Egypt and Jordan.
The U.S. trades with many of the Arab states.
Israel has had a range of governments including left-of-center Labor governments, centrist Kadima governments, and right-of-center Likud governments. The U.S., too, has had governments with Democratic and Republican Presidents. This diversity in governing represents the political maturity that both the U.S. and Israel share. Whether one chooses a parliamentary democracy as in Europe, U.S.-style democracy, or some other form is immaterial. Those democratic states have representative and inclusive government.
Assistance (financial, educational, etc.) for people in poverty, need, etc., and foreign aid are not mutually exclusive.
That narrative is inconsistent with what happened. First, there was no independent Palestinian state at the time the UN addressed the issue of how to bring the British Mandate to an end. Instead, the land had been held by the Ottoman Empire and then Great Britain. Second, at the time the UN took up the issue, there were irreconcilable differences between the region's two peoples and the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) concluded that a partition plan that would create an Arab and Jewish state offered the most realistic approach for addressing those differences. The Jewish representatives accepted the plan. The Arab side did not. Upon Israel's declaring statehood at the expiration of the British Mandate, Arab armies launched an invasion aimed at eliminating it. Israel prevailed.
Had the Arab leadership had the foresight to accept the partition plan, things could have been much different. Considerable bloodshed could have been avoided. A prosperous Palestinian state could have existed alongside Israel on far more territory than it can possibly attain today. But that's not what happened and the short-sighted decision of the Arab leadership had enormous opportunity costs.
Haven't looked in to it
We should cut all military and financial aid to Israel and every country that receives aid from us tax payers.Should we give Israel more aid?
Israel asking U.S. for 50% increase in next defense assistance package | Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Israel reportedly wants the U.S. to increase its annual defense assistance package by half, to an average $4.5 billion. Defense News reported this weekend that Israel and U.S. officials have in recent months begun negotiations on the next 10-year aid package. The previous package, negotiated by the George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert governments in 2007, averaged $3 billion of assistance each year, for a total of $30 billion, from 2007-2017. The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants that to increase to $42-45 billion over the 2018-2028 period, Defense News reported, adding that President Barack Obama during his March 2013 visit to Israel “endorsed in principle” that range.
Defense News quotes “U.S. and Israeli experts” as saying that the amount would be separate from any package the United States offered Israel as compensation for the Iran nuclear deal now being negotiated between Iran and the major powers. Like the defense assistance package currently in place, it is also separate from the $1.2 billion in materiel the United States stores in Israel and which under certain conditions is available for Israeli use, and from the approximately $500 million in U.S. funds provided to Israeli anti-missile development each year.
Maybe you should look into things before you start talking about them.
I just did and I was right, it turns out. Most federal "aid" is actually in the form of loans.
Glad I could educate you today. Please don't respond further, I choose not to associate with snark.
I just did and I was right, it turns out. Most federal "aid" is actually in the form of loans.
Glad I could educate you today. Please don't respond further, I choose not to associate with snark.
To be honest, Israel buys US milspec hardware with this money. So, in aspect, it is like the US giving money to its own MIC.
However, once home, Israel usually reverse-engineers the US toy, then sell its secrets to China.
Not a bad deal for Israel.
Codswallop. The US has a much more sane relation with Canada, the UK and Australia, for exemple. I never heard that the UK pulled a "USS Liberty" on the US...
If, say, China suddenly decided that California is now the "home of the Cherokee people" and these proceded to an ethnic cleansing against non-red people there...
I can see no interest for the US to have Israel as an ally. Please name one, and no, the facility with which Israel finds the US ennemies and uses for its citizen's money are not among them.
But at least, the reason why the US is ally with arab nations is clear: Oil. There is no such hard value with Israel.
I doubt that happens with any regularity. You have any links? (the part about selling secrets to china)
The main expression of Congressional support for Israel has been foreign aid. Since 1985, it has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid ($121 billion, not inflation-adjusted) since World War II. Seventy-four percent of these funds must be spent purchasing US goods and services. More recently, in fiscal year 2014, the US provided $3.9 billion in foreign military aid to Israel. Israel also benefits from about $8 billion of loan guarantees.
The U.S.S. Liberty incident was a terrible and accidental tragedy. The incident was repeatedly and exhaustively investigated and every investigation reached the same conclusion that Israel did not deliberately attack the U.S.S. Liberty. Moreover, it should be noted that friendly fire incidents have affected the U.S. and U.S. allies in the past. Such tragedies have never been used as justification to destroy the bilateral relationships.
That transcript, made by a Post reporter who was allowed to listen to what the Israeli Air Force said were tapes of the attacking pilots' communications, contained only two references to "American" or "Americans," one at the beginning and the other at the end of the attack.
The first reference occurred at 1:54 p.m. local time, two minutes before the Israeli jets began their first strafing run.
In the Post transcript, a weapons system officer on the ground suddenly blurted out, "What is this? Americans?"
"Where are Americans?" replied one of the air controllers.
The question went unanswered, and it was not asked again.
Twenty minutes later, after the Liberty had been hit repeatedly by machine guns, 30 mm cannon and napalm from the Israelis' French-built Mirage and Mystere fighter-bombers, the controller directing the attack asked his chief in Tel Aviv to which country the target vessel belonged.
"Apparently American," the chief controller replied.
Fourteen minutes later the Liberty was struck amidships by a torpedo from an Israeli boat, killing 26 of the 100 or so NSA technicians and specialists in Russian and Arabic who were working in restricted compartments below the ship's waterline.
Analyst: Israelis wanted it sunk
This analogy, creative as it might be, has no relevance to the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Repeated U.S. Administrations--Democratic and Republican--have concluded that the relationship is in the U.S. interests on grounds of regional stability/security and economic/trade grounds.
Commodities trade is not the sole criterion on which the utility of partners is judged. The U.S. and Israel have significant pharmaceutical-related trade that benefits the health of both countries' peoples. A lot of collaboration takes place in technology and scientific fields and both countries benefit from such collaboration.
So much potential BS in your post, it's hard to know where to begin.
So I won't.
:2wave:
That narrative is inconsistent with what happened. First, there was no independent Palestinian state at the time the UN addressed the issue of how to bring the British Mandate to an end. Instead, the land had been held by the Ottoman Empire and then Great Britain. Second, at the time the UN took up the issue, there were irreconcilable differences between the region's two peoples and the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) concluded that a partition plan that would create an Arab and Jewish state offered the most realistic approach for addressing those differences. The Jewish representatives accepted the plan. The Arab side did not. Upon Israel's declaring statehood at the expiration of the British Mandate, Arab armies launched an invasion aimed at eliminating it. Israel prevailed.
Had the Arab leadership had the foresight to accept the partition plan, things could have been much different. Considerable bloodshed could have been avoided. A prosperous Palestinian state could have existed alongside Israel on far more territory than it can possibly attain today. But that's not what happened and the short-sighted decision of the Arab leadership had enormous opportunity costs.
The U.S.S. Liberty incident was a terrible and accidental tragedy. The incident was repeatedly and exhaustively investigated and every investigation reached the same conclusion that Israel did not deliberately attack the U.S.S. Liberty. Moreover, it should be noted that friendly fire incidents have affected the U.S. and U.S. allies in the past. Such tragedies have never been used as justification to destroy the bilateral relationships.
This analogy, creative as it might be, has no relevance to the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Repeated U.S. Administrations--Democratic and Republican--have concluded that the relationship is in the U.S. interests on grounds of regional stability/security and economic/trade grounds.
Commodities trade is not the sole criterion on which the utility of partners is judged. The U.S. and Israel have significant pharmaceutical-related trade that benefits the health of both countries' peoples. A lot of collaboration takes place in technology and scientific fields and both countries benefit from such collaboration.
I doubt that happens with any regularity. You have any links? (the part about selling secrets to china)
Oh dear, do we have to bring that into it. I really oppose our foreign policy being established on a biblical verse, sorry but NO!!!
That sir is more important than all the riches in the universe.
The Old testament is about a tribal, petty god. So of course it watches over Jews - they're the one writting these tales. What do you expect?
No relation whatsoever with the universal, forgiving god presented in the NT.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?