U.S. Aid To Israel

[dilloduck]

I was just going to post this on a seperate thread, but it seems to fit nicely here. Links at site:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/08/ct_results_a_disaster_for_demo.html

Yuppers---the dems have torpedoed one of thier own whose mistake was being strongly anti terrorist. Hate for Bush was stronger than the respect they had in Lieberman-(former dem VP candidate.)

 

[theHawk]

Does political idealism take a back seat to hatred? The anti-Israel mentality appears in my eyes to cross partisan lines, and I can find no logical reason for it.

Are we not at war with "terror?" And who exactly is it Israel is at war with? Yet their not wanting to be shelled every day by terrorists is grounds for calling for cutting off funds?

Since when does political idealism take a back seat to appeasing one group of people? The more poeple learn about history and what has been going on, the more they smell the bullshit.

Britain nor the U.N. ever had the right to take Palistine away from the Arabs and give it to the zionists. Personally I don't have a problem with the idea of Zionism itself(though it is somewhat racist, thats fine if they want to be like that...to each his own), I just don't agree with the way the land was taken and given to them so they could form their state. Naturally the Arabs are going to have a sour taste in their mouths after being literally robbed by the West of their land. Then the Jews exacerbate the problem by practicing apartheid.

Honestly, how do you expect people to react when they've been treated like dogshit by a group of people or government? I certainly don't condone cowardly terrorist acts, but thats simply a matter of how a war is being fought. If they were fighting with tanks and uniformed soldiers would their war still be unjust? I can't bring myself to say that it would be. If Arabs truely believe that land was wrongly taken from them then they have a "right to exist" in it just as much as Israel has a "right to exist".

Its not "anti-semitism" that leads me to believe the Arabs have a justified reason for wanting to wage war, its just the cold hard facts. I don't see how anyone could say that I am biased when I come to this conclusion, especially when I despise the religion of Islam, and most Arabs are Muslims.

Now, I think its a mistake to say that we are in a "War on Terror", implying that we will go to war against anyone in the world who uses terrorist tactics. Terrorism is a tactic to carry out a war. A war is carrying out a political agenda. So if we are in a "WOT", does that mean if separatists in country X in South America carry out a terrorist attack to further their polital agenda then we should go to war against them? No, of course not, because its not our war. We are not in a War against all terrorism in the world. We are at war with Islamic fanatics that seek to destroy the U.S. (Note I didn't say Israel)

I do believe that the U.S. and Israel have a common enemy in Iran. Iran has a big hand in screwing things up in Iraq for us and they are pursuing nuclear weapons. We should do everything to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, including invading and seizing all of their nuclear facilities in order to properly destroy them. I do not think we should fight on behalf of Israel to help preserve their state. Israel's fight against Palistinians and other surrounding Arabs is going to continue forever. Dealing with Iran's WMD ambitions is a completely different agenda. I'm all for nailing Iran (and Syria) in order to find and destroy such weapons that could be used against us by terrorists. What I am not for is sending our soldiers to try to police the situation between the Zionist Israelis and the angry Arabs (no matter what name of the week they give themselves: Hezbollah, PLO, Mighty Allah Brigade, Party of the Great Pedophile...ect ect ect).

Hopefully you can see that as a logical reason and not 'hatred'.

 

[Gunny]

Since when does political idealism take a back seat to appeasing one group of people? The more poeple learn about history and what has been going on, the more they smell the bullshit.

Britain nor the U.N. ever had the right to take Palistine away from the Arabs and give it to the zionists. Personally I don't have a problem with the idea of Zionism itself(though it is somewhat racist, thats fine if they want to be like that...to each his own), I just don't agree with the way the land was taken and given to them so they could form their state. Naturally the Arabs are going to have a sour taste in their mouths after being literally robbed by the West of their land. Then the Jews exacerbate the problem by practicing apartheid.

Really? Until recently, losing land was the usual misfortunes of losing a war. Palestine was a state within the country of Transjordan, a part of the Ottoman Empire; which, got their asses waxed in WWI.

Perhaps you should look beyond the surface at the reason why part of Palestine was portioned to the Jews. Nobody, to include the US, would offer the Jews a place to live. Israel was appeasement as much as anything else.

Honestly, how do you expect people to react when they've been treated like dogshit by a group of people or government? I certainly don't condone cowardly terrorist acts, but thats simply a matter of how a war is being fought. If they were fighting with tanks and uniformed soldiers would their war still be unjust? I can't bring myself to say that it would be. If Arabs truely believe that land was wrongly taken from them then they have a "right to exist" in it just as much as Israel has a "right to exist".

Guess they should have chosen their allies more wisely. They lost. It's as fair as us taking most of the North AMerican continent from Native Americans, and or Spain and Portugal doing the same in South America. If you play that game, you have to decide how far back you want to go. Back to win true Palestinians who were NOT Arabs lived on the land? Or back to when Israel existed the first time? Or last week?

Its not "anti-semitism" that leads me to believe the Arabs have a justified reason for wanting to wage war, its just the cold hard facts. I don't see how anyone could say that I am biased when I come to this conclusion, especially when I despise the religion of Islam, and most Arabs are Muslims.

Their reasoning is Jews are not Arabs, and not Muslim. Apply that to us. You'd be called a genocidal racist in a heartbeat.

Now, I think its a mistake to say that we are in a "War on Terror", implying that we will go to war against anyone in the world who uses terrorist tactics. Terrorism is a tactic to carry out a war. A war is carrying out a political agenda. So if we are in a "WOT", does that mean if separatists in country X in South America carry out a terrorist attack to further their polital agenda then we should go to war against them? No, of course not, because its not our war. We are not in a War against all terrorism in the world. We are at war with Islamic fanatics that seek to destroy the U.S. (Note I didn't say Israel)

The same terrorists that call for the destruction of Israel call for the destruction of the US. So, it IS the same war.

I do believe that the U.S. and Israel have a common enemy in Iran. Iran has a big hand in screwing things up in Iraq for us and they are pursuing nuclear weapons. We should do everything to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, including invading and seizing all of their nuclear facilities in order to properly destroy them. I do not think we should fight on behalf of Israel to help preserve their state. Israel's fight against Palistinians and other surrounding Arabs is going to continue forever. Dealing with Iran's WMD ambitions is a completely different agenda. I'm all for nailing Iran (and Syria) in order to find and destroy such weapons that could be used against us by terrorists. What I am not for is sending our soldiers to try to police the situation between the Zionist Israelis and the angry Arabs (no matter what name of the week they give themselves: Hezbollah, PLO, Mighty Allah Brigade, Party of the Great Pedophile...ect ect ect).

Hopefully you can see that as a logical reason and not 'hatred'.

I see it as misguided reasoning. Land has been taken and retaken throughout history by conquest. The land Israel currently occupies, it occupied 2000 years ago. WHo took it from them THEN? Arabs. So again, how far back do you want to go before taking land by conquest is okay? WWII? The US Civil War? The Celts? Romans? Greeks? Egyptians?

Israel exists. It has existed this time since 1947. The Arabs just need to get over themselves and try getting up with the 21st century and out of the 7th.

 

[theHawk]

You are right, it is just a fight over land. My point is the Arabs are still willing to fight for it. Me and you can complain that they lost it, but that really doesn't matter and it doesn't change how they feel. Hey, if Israelis are willing to live in a constant state of war, fine. All I am saying is we should not be involved in it, at the very least not to the point where we start sending our troops there to die in the crossfire. We are not Israelis, there is no reason we should be fighting and dying for their independance.

 

[CSM]

.....We are not Israelis, there is no reason we should be fighting and dying for their independance.

Does that philosophy apply to ANY country or just Israel?...truly curious here.

 

[OCA]

You are right, it is just a fight over land. My point is the Arabs are still willing to fight for it. Me and you can complain that they lost it, but that really doesn't matter and it doesn't change how they feel. Hey, if Israelis are willing to live in a constant state of war, fine. All I am saying is we should not be involved in it, at the very least not to the point where we start sending our troops there to die in the crossfire. We are not Israelis, there is no reason we should be fighting and dying for their independance.

I'd take that 1 step further, that if Israel didn't rely solely on American financial and military aid that they would have been overrun long ago, I think that they should try and stand on their own two feet.

I still think that if there was no Israel the M.E. situation would be vastly different today, I don't buy the argument that if there were no Israel they would turn their full attention to us since they say their main beef with us is our support of Israel.

 

[dilloduck]

I'd take that 1 step further, that if Israel didn't rely solely on American financial and military aid that they would have been overrun long ago, I think that they should try and stand on their own two feet.

I still think that if there was no Israel the M.E. situation would be vastly different today, I don't buy the argument that if there were no Israel they would turn their full attention to us since they say their main beef with us is our support of Israel.

Do you think that if the Jews were run out of Israel that muslims would forgive and forget Americas' support for Israel and we would be best buddies with Islamic countries?

 

[OCA]

Do you think that if the Jews were run out of Israel that muslims would forgive and forget Americas' support for Israel and we would be best buddies with Islamic countries?

Well it would take more than that, we would have to remove all bases and personnel on Arab lands. I don't know, I guess what i'm asking is for America to bring as much pressure to bear on Israel as we do on everybody else. In my opinion Israel perpetuates as much of the shit as it get heaped upon them.

I do not believe that Israel truely wants peace with its Arab neighbors.

 

[theHawk]

Do you think that if the Jews were run out of Israel that muslims would forgive and forget Americas' support for Israel and we would be best buddies with Islamic countries?

I doubt we'd be forgiven. I think of it as passing the point of no return....
That being said, it doesn't mean we should continue to blindly support Israel.

The United States of America did just fine without the existance of Israel, so lets not pretend our existance relies on Israel's.

 

[dilloduck]

Well it would take more than that, we would have to remove all bases and personnel on Arab lands. I don't know, I guess what i'm asking is for America to bring as much pressure to bear on Israel as we do on everybody else. In my opinion Israel perpetuates as much of the shit as it get heaped upon them.

I do not believe that Israel truely wants peace with its Arab neighbors.

Why would America have to do that if we quit supporting Israel ? The official governments in the area have welcomed the presence of American bases. Do you think Bin laden etc. would be happy with any Americans in Saudi Arabia even if Israel is gone?

I think Israel would be happy with living in peace with it's neighbors. The problem would still be that Israel would be happier to rid itself of all non-jews yet still expect it's welfare check from the USA.

 

[katie_scarlett]

I maybe misguided but I believe we should support Israel.
I understand the Arabs being upset by the exsistence of the State of Israel & I can understand them being pissed by land being taken they feel belongs to them.
Which IMO is the root of the problem because both sides believe that land belongs to them. Having said that I still believe Israel has the right to exsist.
As someone pointed out in another thread it was their land 2000 years ago.
They were removed from their land & sent to Persia I believe.
And Jeruselum came under Persian rule.
I personally find the rise in anti-semticism world wide frightening.
I think most of Europe wouldn't blink if Iran carried out it's threat to wipe Israel off the map. I think that sentiment is growing in our own country.
I certainly don't believe should we change our policy & no longer support Israel the Arab community would be appeased.
I could be wrong but the radical muslims don't hate us because we support Israel but because our culture threatens their way of life.
Should democracy truly take hold in the muslim nations of the world the hold the clerics have on the people would be in danger. Thus their power would be gone. Right now the clerics have most of the power over there.
They tell the people what to think, what to do, ect.
In a democratic society that hold would be broken.
I trust Israel a heck of a lot more than any of the muslim countries.
It may be naive thinking but it's my opinion.

 

[Working Man]

It may be naive thinking but it's my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Anti semitism may look like it on the rise, but is probably not. People have various reasons for not liking Israelis, and that includes Jews, but may not be specificaly aimed at the Jews of Israel.

In the US, American Jews draw criticism for various reasons, just as Italians, Irish, Polish, Indians (7-11 types, not the ones on horses),, etc, etc..

The difference is that, in most cases, if you publicly criticize a Jew in the US, you are called an anti semite. And perhaps you may be referred to as a hate monger. This may, or may not be the truth itself. But, be prepared for some stiff criticism. Now,, as one gets the "bad rep", so to speak, for being critical of a jew,,, what do you think that person is going to do??? Change their attitude to be more benevolent to the jew??? I don't think so.. And sometimes we see what people do when they are pressured to keep their opinions to themselves.

NOW,, let me qualify this last part.. If you truly believe something, and I mean TRULY believe in an idea, or philosophy, and want to share it, do it... But you had better be prepared to take some shit from those who don't like your open views. If you say things just to get your rocks off, or just to pick on a people, then you probably do deserve to be held responsible for your comments.

Case in point. Mel Gibson. Mel has had some run ins with Jews for some time now. So, he probably has some strong feelings about jews, and he would definitely be savy to who the players are in Hollywood. His comments made during his DUI arrest were probably what he really feels. I have no problem with that, AS FAR AS THE WAR REFERENCE. I don't think he is an anti semite either.

And, as far as being right, or wrong on a subject, better to have had the opportunity to speak your mind, then to have been bullied into keeping it to yourself. Wouldn't you agree that the First Amendment, to the US Constitution should be protected at all cost??? This freedom has to be extended to those people who say things that are controversial as well, not just the ones who say nice things all the time.

 

[katie_scarlett]

It may be naive thinking but it's my opinion.

Anti semitism may look like it on the rise, but is probably not. People have various reasons for not liking Israelis, and that includes Jews, but may not be specificaly aimed at the Jews of Israel.

In the US, American Jews draw criticism for various reasons, just as Italians, Irish, Polish, Indians (7-11 types, not the ones on horses),, etc, etc..

The difference is that, in most cases, if you publicly criticize a Jew in the US, you are called an anti semite. And perhaps you may be referred to as a hate monger. This may, or may not be the truth itself. But, be prepared for some stiff criticism. Now,, as one gets the "bad rep", so to speak, for being critical of a jew,,, what do you think that person is going to do??? Change their attitude to be more benevolent to the jew??? I don't think so.. And sometimes we see what people do when they are pressured to keep their opinions to themselves.

NOW,, let me qualify this last part.. If you truly believe something, and I mean TRULY believe in an idea, or philosophy, and want to share it, do it... But you had better be prepared to take some shit from those who don't like your open views. If you say things just to get your rocks off, or just to pick on a people, then you probably do deserve to be held responsible for your comments.

Case in point. Mel Gibson. Mel has had some run ins with Jews for some time now. So, he probably has some strong feelings about jews, and he would definitely be savy to who the players are in Hollywood. His comments made during his DUI arrest were probably what he really feels. I have no problem with that, AS FAR AS THE WAR REFERENCE. I don't think he is an anti semite either.

And, as far as being right, or wrong on a subject, better to have had the opportunity to speak your mind, then to have been bullied into keeping it to yourself. Wouldn't you agree that the First Amendment, to the US Constitution should be protected at all cost??? This freedom has to be extended to those people who say things that are controversial as well, not just the ones who say nice things all the time.[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree the First Ammendment should be protected for everyone.
I think we could use some more respect for differing opinions in this country on all sides. It's the ability to be able to express our opinions without fear that makes America unique.
Lol , I don't know what to make of what happened with Mel Gibson.
I agree he most likely said what he really felt but I don't hold it against him.
He's obviously a troubled person & I hope he does get whatever help he needs.

 

[Working Man]

I don't know what to make of what happened with Mel Gibson.
I agree he most likely said what he really felt but I don't hold it against him.
He's obviously a troubled person & I hope he does get whatever help he needs.[/QUOTE]

I know where he is coming from. I used to drink, then I would get drunk, then I would fall down. What problem???? hee hee hee..

Know what the difference is between a five and a 10??? about three more drinks.. The trouble starts is when you get drunk at 2, and go home with a 10,,, only to wake up at 10 and see that you really went home with a 2, or worse,, it has extra parts!!!:tdown2:

Mel has probably gone home with 8's and woke up next to 10s.. I am never so lucky...:huh:

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I see it as misguided reasoning. Land has been taken and retaken throughout history by conquest. The land Israel currently occupies, it occupied 2000 years ago. WHo took it from them THEN? Arabs. So again, how far back do you want to go before taking land by conquest is okay? WWII? The US Civil War? The Celts? Romans? Greeks? Egyptians?

It's not just a matter of "give me back grandpa's land!", it's also the small matter of continuing abuses: knocking down people houses and orchards, using government red tape to make new building permits virtually impossible to obtain, and forcing people to pass through multiple security checkpoints, spending hours each day just to travel short distances.

Does that philosophy apply to ANY country or just Israel?...truly curious here.

Ideally, any country. It is not the job of the american taxpayer to correct the problems of the world (usually, foreign aid makes the problem worse, since money goes to governments). If someone wants to help the country of their choice, they should donate their own money.

I'd take that 1 step further, that if Israel didn't rely solely on American financial and military aid that they would have been overrun long ago, I think that they should try and stand on their own two feet.

I still think that if there was no Israel the M.E. situation would be vastly different today, I don't buy the argument that if there were no Israel they would turn their full attention to us since they say their main beef with us is our support of Israel.

Another hypothetical to contemplate: If somehow Israel and it's neighbors did manage to work out a lasting, peaceful solution--what would happen to it's aid from Washington? Would it be threatened? Why yes, it would. Or more threatened than it is now, anyway. Why should the Israeli government do something which would disrupt their income stream?

It's really not a lot different than the conservative arguments against welfare. If you give someone government checks for being unemployed, then they will have a stronger tendency to remain unemployed. Getting a job is tough, and you don't want to do anything to disrupt the monthly checks.

 

[Gunny]

You are right, it is just a fight over land. My point is the Arabs are still willing to fight for it. Me and you can complain that they lost it, but that really doesn't matter and it doesn't change how they feel. Hey, if Israelis are willing to live in a constant state of war, fine. All I am saying is we should not be involved in it, at the very least not to the point where we start sending our troops there to die in the crossfire. We are not Israelis, there is no reason we should be fighting and dying for their independance.

I have to parrot CSM's question .... does this apply to every Nation, across the board? Or just Israel?

I don't see us sending troops to support Israel, and frankly, I don't know where that idea comes from. They don't need us. The IDF is still allowed to conduct warfare as it should be. We would be in their way.

As far as supplying financial and military aid, we do the same for far-less-deserving Nations. I don't see the point to singling out Israel.

I DO know that appeasement has NEVER worked. Not once that I can recall. I disagree with those that believe if we cut off support for Israel and remove every last vestige of the US from the ME that those nimrods who make a living at hatred and war are suddenly going to adopt a "live and let live" attitude. That is naivete at it's finest.

 

[Gunny]

It's not just a matter of "give me back grandpa's land!", it's also the small matter of continuing abuses: knocking down people houses and orchards, using government red tape to make new building permits virtually impossible to obtain, and forcing people to pass through multiple security checkpoints, spending hours each day just to travel short distances..

Are you referring to Israel, or the US?

 

[theHawk]

I have to parrot CSM's question .... does this apply to every Nation, across the board? Or just Israel?

I would think so, but not many countries in the world are in the same situation as Israel.

I don't see us sending troops to support Israel, and frankly, I don't know where that idea comes from. They don't need us. The IDF is still allowed to conduct warfare as it should be. We would be in their way.

We have not commited troops yet, true. But I have no doubt a Democratic President wouldn't hesitate to send our troops to police the border.

As far as supplying financial and military aid, we do the same for far-less-deserving Nations. I don't see the point to singling out Israel.

I don't really mind so much sending military "aid", but it is SO much money that we taxpayers are largely paying for Israel's war. 1/3 of our foreign aid budget goes to Israel, which is about the 16th richest country in the world. We've given them over 80 billion since 1949 and add 50 billion in interest that we are paying for. Israel has a gdp per capita about the same as Euro countries like Spain and Britian, yet those countries aren't lobbying us for 'aid'.
There is no need for me to "single out Israel", it sticks out like a sore thumb to the American taxpayer.

I DO know that appeasement has NEVER worked. Not once that I can recall. I disagree with those that believe if we cut off support for Israel and remove every last vestige of the US from the ME that those nimrods who make a living at hatred and war are suddenly going to adopt a "live and let live" attitude. That is naivete at it's finest.

I never said appeasment would work. In fact I said we are past the point of no return on that issue. We already have our own war against Islam, nothing is going to change that. But lets not ignore that the main reason we are in this position now is because of our past support of Israel.