Should President Obama Suspend Military Aide to Israel?

[Mustang]

LOL looks like this poll is not going the way the OP hoped

How do you know what I hoped. I was merely curious.

um because I've discussed this with you and you made your position clear.

The only position I think I've made clear is that I don't think the concept of principled conservatism holds up to closer scrutiny in the sense that extreme partisans change their so-called principles depending on who the principal players are. I see and hear evidence to back up that theory every single day when it comes to this forum and talk radio.

In THIS particular case, the issue as far as I'm concerned is the sanctity of innocent lives. Conservatives always seem to see the loss of innocent lives at the hands of our adversaries as a violation of human dignity and decency. I agree with that. But, as I suspected, in this case since the assault is being waged by Israel, there's no condemnation of Israeli leadership. MY view is the preventable wholesale loss of life of innocent civilians is reprehensible regardless of which side is pulling the trigger. I wouldn't make excuses for Israel doing it just because they're our ally or because of the holocaust because being the victim of an injustice isn't a license to perpetrate one yourself.

 

[SAYIT]

You don't think the Palestinian civilians are being terrorized by widespread Israeli military assaults on their homes, schools, and markets?

Don't you see?

Only THEY (the Palestinian civilians) have the power to make this all stop by denouncing Hamas.

That's not a fact. That's a contention.

The fact of the matter is that weapons we provided Israel are being used to engage in what amounts to essentially the indiscriminate killing of civilians not involved in the fighting.

That's not a fact. That's a contention.
BTW, are you getting the poll results you were hoping for?

 

[Peach]

Don't you see?

Only THEY (the Palestinian civilians) have the power to make this all stop by denouncing Hamas.

That's not a fact. That's a contention.

The fact of the matter is that weapons we provided Israel are being used to engage in what amounts to essentially the indiscriminate killing of civilians not involved in the fighting.

That's not a fact. That's a contention.
BTW, are you getting the poll results you were hoping for?

Israel is attacked, Israel responds, Israel fights better, reality.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I responded to the poll. But only after I did some research on the subject of aid to Israel to gather some objective evidence before deciding.

The information I needed was found in a 2012 report done by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It was a real eye opener, and can be viewed here:
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-Aid-to-Israel.pdf

I had to go no further than the CRS summary on page 2 to find the information for my decision on the poll.

Findings of significance:

1. "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II."

In other words, the US taxpayer, as Israel's primary benefactor, has foot a good chunk of change over the last 66 years.

2. The 2012 report went on stating, "To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance."

That average daily aid packet for those first 64 years the US taxpayer has provided to $4.923 million. Oh those poor starving Jewish refugees!

3. Also reported was the future 10-year US aid to Israel. "In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $3 billion military aid package that gradually will raise Israel’s annual Foreign Military Financing grant from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1 billion for FY2013 through FY2018. For FY2013, the Obama Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel."

That would put the 66 year total, 1948-2014, aid to Israel at somewhere over $121 billion. Those extra two years, 2013 & 2014 bumps the average daily aid packet the US taxpayer has been footing $5.023 million. And that doesn't account for the sums in supplemental aid from Congress like the recent $351 million or that given directly to Israel via the Black Budget. How much infrastructure would that $121+ billion pay for?

So for the poll, this conservative voted to stop further aid to Israel based on the above.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Hamas fires randomly aimed rockets into Israel.
Hamas hides behind women and children by placing their rocket launches in civilian areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, market areas.

Israel warns citizens of Gaza before retaliatory strikes and tells them to get out of targeted areas. Hamas forces citizens to stay in targeted areas.

The numbers will falsely indicate that Israel is targeting civilians.

Any of you people that are dumb enough to believe that Hamas is not manipulating the public outcry by deliberately putting women and children in harm's way deserve to labeled as S_T_U_P_I_D _ F_O_O_L_S!!!!!

Israel has a right to defend itself by retaliating against rocket attacks. The blame for the deaths of women and children in Gaza lies squarely on Hamas....cur dogs of the Middle East.

(For your edification: Cur dog definition, a worthless dog; mongrel.)

Do you really believe Israel warns them first? It is unlikely they do give warnings when that would also warn their targets and be completely against military strategy.

 

[Rocko]

How do you know what I hoped. I was merely curious.

um because I've discussed this with you and you made your position clear.

The only position I think I've made clear is that I don't think the concept of principled conservatism holds up to closer scrutiny in the sense that extreme partisans change their so-called principles depending on who the principal players are. I see and hear evidence to back up that theory every single day when it comes to this forum and talk radio.

In THIS particular case, the issue as far as I'm concerned is the sanctity of innocent lives. Conservatives always seem to see the loss of innocent lives at the hands of our adversaries as a violation of human dignity and decency. I agree with that. But, as I suspected, in this case since the assault is being waged by Israel, there's no condemnation of Israeli leadership. MY view is the preventable wholesale loss of life of innocent civilians is reprehensible regardless of which side is pulling the trigger. I wouldn't make excuses for Israel doing it just because they're our ally or because of the holocaust because being the victim of an injustice isn't a license to perpetrate one yourself.

Conservatives aren't pacifists. They understand military action is a necessary evil sometimes. It is also understood civilian causalities in times of battle are sometimes unavoidable. Now in this case conservatives are just as outraged by the killing of civilians, they are just pointing the blame in the correct direction, unlike you. No one is making excuses for Israel, because they don't need excuses for doing the right thing. I believe it's you that is overlooking the role Hamas is playing in the death of their own people.

 

[Mustang]

Don't you see?

Only THEY (the Palestinian civilians) have the power to make this all stop by denouncing Hamas.

That's not a fact. That's a contention.

The fact of the matter is that weapons we provided Israel are being used to engage in what amounts to essentially the indiscriminate killing of civilians not involved in the fighting.

That's not a fact. That's a contention.
BTW, are you getting the poll results you were hoping for?

I split it up to see if there was a schism based on philosophical affiliation. In part, I was interested in that possibility because of something I heard Mark Levin say on his show. Despite the fact that my poll allowed people to self-identify, my poll does NOT seem to bear out Levin's contention that liberals are considerably more likely to side against the Israeli IDF assault.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You don't think the Palestinian civilians are being terrorized by widespread Israeli military assaults on their homes, schools, and markets?

So if Canada were a pack of terrorists and were lobbing missiles, rockets and mortars into the US, Building tunnels and slipping into the Country kidnapping people and murdering them, all with the support of the Canadian Government and her people, you would demand the US just accept the losses? Do nothing to stop them?

Further if Canada were hiding the terrorists amongst the supportive civilian population and launching those attacks from schools hospitals and roof tops of residential buildings you would demand the US do nothing to stop them?

Really?

I repeat.......

Is Canada under a blockade and occupation?

 

[Rocko]

So if Canada were a pack of terrorists and were lobbing missiles, rockets and mortars into the US, Building tunnels and slipping into the Country kidnapping people and murdering them, all with the support of the Canadian Government and her people, you would demand the US just accept the losses? Do nothing to stop them?

Further if Canada were hiding the terrorists amongst the supportive civilian population and launching those attacks from schools hospitals and roof tops of residential buildings you would demand the US do nothing to stop them?

Really?

I repeat.......

Is Canada under a blockade and occupation?

The Palestinians are not under occupation, and what do you think would happen if Israel didn't control their borders, realistically?

 

[SAYIT]

How do you know what I hoped. I was merely curious.

um because I've discussed this with you and you made your position clear.

The only position I think I've made clear is that I don't think the concept of principled conservatism holds up to closer scrutiny in the sense that extreme partisans change their so-called principles depending on who the principal players are. I see and hear evidence to back up that theory every single day when it comes to this forum and talk radio.

In THIS particular case, the issue as far as I'm concerned is the sanctity of innocent lives.

Camel crap. If that was your concern you'd find the child abuse in which Palestinians engage - tossing generation after generation of their kids into a pointless fire - to be the issue.
It's clear your concern lies elsewhere.

 

[Peach]

I responded to the poll. But only after I did some research on the subject of aid to Israel to gather some objective evidence before deciding.

The information I needed was found in a 2012 report done by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It was a real eye opener, and can be viewed here:
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-Aid-to-Israel.pdf

I had to go no further than the CRS summary on page 2 to find the information for my decision on the poll.

Findings of significance:

1. "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II."

In other words, the US taxpayer, as Israel's primary benefactor, has foot a good chunk of change over the last 66 years.

2. The 2012 report went on stating, "To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance."

That average daily aid packet for those first 64 years the US taxpayer has provided to $4.923 million. Oh those poor starving Jewish refugees!

3. Also reported was the future 10-year US aid to Israel. "In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $3 billion military aid package that gradually will raise Israel’s annual Foreign Military Financing grant from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1 billion for FY2013 through FY2018. For FY2013, the Obama Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel."

That would put the 66 year total, 1948-2014, aid to Israel at somewhere over $121 billion. Those extra two years, 2013 & 2014 bumps the average daily aid packet the US taxpayer has been footing $5.023 million. And that doesn't account for the sums in supplemental aid from Congress like the recent $351 million or that given directly to Israel via the Black Budget. How much infrastructure would that $121+ billion pay for?

So for the poll, this conservative voted to stop further aid to Israel based on the above.

The world OWES Israel, not the other way around. The US makes up the slack, actually, we owe the most for not getting into WWII sooner.

 

[Mustang]

um because I've discussed this with you and you made your position clear.

The only position I think I've made clear is that I don't think the concept of principled conservatism holds up to closer scrutiny in the sense that extreme partisans change their so-called principles depending on who the principal players are. I see and hear evidence to back up that theory every single day when it comes to this forum and talk radio.

In THIS particular case, the issue as far as I'm concerned is the sanctity of innocent lives. Conservatives always seem to see the loss of innocent lives at the hands of our adversaries as a violation of human dignity and decency. I agree with that. But, as I suspected, in this case since the assault is being waged by Israel, there's no condemnation of Israeli leadership. MY view is the preventable wholesale loss of life of innocent civilians is reprehensible regardless of which side is pulling the trigger. I wouldn't make excuses for Israel doing it just because they're our ally or because of the holocaust because being the victim of an injustice isn't a license to perpetrate one yourself.

Conservatives aren't pacifists. They understand military action is a necessary evil sometimes. It is also understood civilian causalities in times of battle are sometimes unavoidable. Now in this case conservatives are just as outraged by the killing of civilians, they are just pointing the blame in the correct direction, unlike you. No one is making excuses for Israel, because they don't need excuses for doing the right thing. I believe it's you that is overlooking the role Hamas is playing in the death of their own people.

I never stated that I thought any and all military action was unwarranted. But that doesn't mean that this kind of assault was necessary the way it's been conducted.

You see, Israel could have conducted a different kind of military incursion which relied more on ground forces. Such an action could have been more discriminate in choosing targets AND preventing civilian casualties. Instead, Israel chose to rely on air assaults and artillery which was fired from a distance. That kind of assault virtually guaranteed more civilian casualties.

 

[dilloduck]

I responded to the poll. But only after I did some research on the subject of aid to Israel to gather some objective evidence before deciding.

The information I needed was found in a 2012 report done by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It was a real eye opener, and can be viewed here:
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-Aid-to-Israel.pdf

I had to go no further than the CRS summary on page 2 to find the information for my decision on the poll.

Findings of significance:

1. "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II."

In other words, the US taxpayer, as Israel's primary benefactor, has foot a good chunk of change over the last 66 years.

2. The 2012 report went on stating, "To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance."

That average daily aid packet for those first 64 years the US taxpayer has provided to $4.923 million. Oh those poor starving Jewish refugees!

3. Also reported was the future 10-year US aid to Israel. "In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $3 billion military aid package that gradually will raise Israel’s annual Foreign Military Financing grant from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1 billion for FY2013 through FY2018. For FY2013, the Obama Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel."

That would put the 66 year total, 1948-2014, aid to Israel at somewhere over $121 billion. Those extra two years, 2013 & 2014 bumps the average daily aid packet the US taxpayer has been footing $5.023 million. And that doesn't account for the sums in supplemental aid from Congress like the recent $351 million or that given directly to Israel via the Black Budget. How much infrastructure would that $121+ billion pay for?

So for the poll, this conservative voted to stop further aid to Israel based on the above.

The world OWES Israel, not the other way around. The US makes up the slack, actually, we owe the most for not getting into WWII sooner.

What a sucker-----you've bought the whole guilt trip......Explains everything.

 

[Rocko]

I responded to the poll. But only after I did some research on the subject of aid to Israel to gather some objective evidence before deciding.

The information I needed was found in a 2012 report done by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It was a real eye opener, and can be viewed here:
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-Aid-to-Israel.pdf

I had to go no further than the CRS summary on page 2 to find the information for my decision on the poll.

Findings of significance:

1. "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II."

In other words, the US taxpayer, as Israel's primary benefactor, has foot a good chunk of change over the last 66 years.

2. The 2012 report went on stating, "To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance."

That average daily aid packet for those first 64 years the US taxpayer has provided to $4.923 million. Oh those poor starving Jewish refugees!

3. Also reported was the future 10-year US aid to Israel. "In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $3 billion military aid package that gradually will raise Israel’s annual Foreign Military Financing grant from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1 billion for FY2013 through FY2018. For FY2013, the Obama Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel."

That would put the 66 year total, 1948-2014, aid to Israel at somewhere over $121 billion. Those extra two years, 2013 & 2014 bumps the average daily aid packet the US taxpayer has been footing $5.023 million. And that doesn't account for the sums in supplemental aid from Congress like the recent $351 million or that given directly to Israel via the Black Budget. How much infrastructure would that $121+ billion pay for?

So for the poll, this conservative voted to stop further aid to Israel based on the above.

The world OWES Israel, not the other way around. The US makes up the slack, actually, we owe the most for not getting into WWII sooner.

I think the world owes Israel a fair deal just like every other nation, the only thing is Israel doesn't seem to get a fair deal at all, does it?

 

[Mustang]

um because I've discussed this with you and you made your position clear.

The only position I think I've made clear is that I don't think the concept of principled conservatism holds up to closer scrutiny in the sense that extreme partisans change their so-called principles depending on who the principal players are. I see and hear evidence to back up that theory every single day when it comes to this forum and talk radio.

In THIS particular case, the issue as far as I'm concerned is the sanctity of innocent lives.

Camel crap. If that was your concern you'd find the child abuse in which Palestinians engage - tossing generation after generation of their kids into a pointless fire - to be the issue.
It's clear your concern lies elsewhere.

No offense, but you're no Kreskin.

 

[Mustang]

I responded to the poll. But only after I did some research on the subject of aid to Israel to gather some objective evidence before deciding.

The information I needed was found in a 2012 report done by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It was a real eye opener, and can be viewed here:
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-Aid-to-Israel.pdf

I had to go no further than the CRS summary on page 2 to find the information for my decision on the poll.

Findings of significance:

1. "Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II."

In other words, the US taxpayer, as Israel's primary benefactor, has foot a good chunk of change over the last 66 years.

2. The 2012 report went on stating, "To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance."

That average daily aid packet for those first 64 years the US taxpayer has provided to $4.923 million. Oh those poor starving Jewish refugees!

3. Also reported was the future 10-year US aid to Israel. "In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $3 billion military aid package that gradually will raise Israel’s annual Foreign Military Financing grant from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1 billion for FY2013 through FY2018. For FY2013, the Obama Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel."

That would put the 66 year total, 1948-2014, aid to Israel at somewhere over $121 billion. Those extra two years, 2013 & 2014 bumps the average daily aid packet the US taxpayer has been footing $5.023 million. And that doesn't account for the sums in supplemental aid from Congress like the recent $351 million or that given directly to Israel via the Black Budget. How much infrastructure would that $121+ billion pay for?

So for the poll, this conservative voted to stop further aid to Israel based on the above.

The world OWES Israel, not the other way around. The US makes up the slack, actually, we owe the most for not getting into WWII sooner.

The people of the world may very well owe the Jews (as well as plenty of other groups of displaced people like the Kurds) some respect and deference, but Israel is a country, and the WORLD doesn't owe Israel a damn thing.

 

[Rocko]

The only position I think I've made clear is that I don't think the concept of principled conservatism holds up to closer scrutiny in the sense that extreme partisans change their so-called principles depending on who the principal players are. I see and hear evidence to back up that theory every single day when it comes to this forum and talk radio.

In THIS particular case, the issue as far as I'm concerned is the sanctity of innocent lives. Conservatives always seem to see the loss of innocent lives at the hands of our adversaries as a violation of human dignity and decency. I agree with that. But, as I suspected, in this case since the assault is being waged by Israel, there's no condemnation of Israeli leadership. MY view is the preventable wholesale loss of life of innocent civilians is reprehensible regardless of which side is pulling the trigger. I wouldn't make excuses for Israel doing it just because they're our ally or because of the holocaust because being the victim of an injustice isn't a license to perpetrate one yourself.

Conservatives aren't pacifists. They understand military action is a necessary evil sometimes. It is also understood civilian causalities in times of battle are sometimes unavoidable. Now in this case conservatives are just as outraged by the killing of civilians, they are just pointing the blame in the correct direction, unlike you. No one is making excuses for Israel, because they don't need excuses for doing the right thing. I believe it's you that is overlooking the role Hamas is playing in the death of their own people.

I never stated that I thought any and all military action was unwarranted. But that doesn't mean that this kind of assault was necessary the way it's been conducted.

You see, Israel could have conducted a different kind of military incursion which relied more on ground forces. Such an action could have been more discriminate in choosing targets AND preventing civilian casualties. Instead, Israel chose to rely on air assaults and artillery which was fired from a distance. That kind of assault virtually guaranteed more civilian casualties.

So let me get this straight, in your opinion should have to risk more casualties in order to limit casualties in the Gaza Stripe? It doesn't work that way anywhere in the world. Why are you placing the onus on Israel to limit civilian casualties? Don't you think there would be significantly less casualties if Hamas got rid of their tactics?

 

[Billo_Really]

America is considered the moral leader of the world. I won’t bother to comment on the merit of that claim (either made by us or others). But it’s a simple fact that American foreign policy often has a strong moral element to it. For example, during the cold war, we promoted policies to encourage the Soviet Union to allow the emigration of Russian Jews to Israel. Furthermore, President Carter famously elevated human rights in his dealings with other nations. In fact, I believe the US always includes restrictions on the use of military aid and the weapons we supply to allies in the sense that we won’t allow them to be used except for defensive purposes.


With that said, the IDF shelling and bombing of Gaza is arguably not about self-defense considering the nature of the assault and the civilian death toll which is completely one-sided in terms of numbers. In that regard, the numbers of seen are quite shocking. I won’t claim the number I’m providing is an official one, but what I’ve seen reported on the news is approximately 1,400 Palestinian deaths, mostly civilians, compared to 56 Israeli soldiers and 3 civilians.


The Israelis are using our military aid and weapons we supply to engage in these wholesale deaths which is the result of targeting civilian areas.

So, in the interests of human rights and the American interest of not being seen as condoning the killing of so many innocent lives, including women and children, should President Obama suspend military aid to Israel in the interest of trying to stop the killing of so many civilians?

Absolutely!

Not only should Obama suspend military aid to Israel, he should:

• freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• outlaw AIPAC within the continental United States
• stop protecting Israel with our veto in the UNSC

Then he should submit a resolution to the Security Council telling Israel they got 90 days to get their asses out of the OPT, or that decision will no longer be theirs to make.

 

[Rocko]

Mustang, what's your opinion on this?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu54aSM6QOE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu54aSM6QOE[/ame]

 

[Billo_Really]

Anyone who didn't vote "yes", has no sense of humanity!