• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel asking U.S. for 50% increase in next defense assistance package [W:98]

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

That's a pretty radical proposition. I'm not aware of any serious religious scholarship that sustains such a position.
 
Well, no rational nation accepts being displaced, relocalised and abused for more than 60 years neither. Even unarmed ones.

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.
 
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.

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. Canada never tried a "Lavon Affair" on the US, and Australia never did sold your military secret to China. Neither of these countries has an APAIC equivalent that corrupts your democratic system .

You relation with Israel is that of an abused women and her violent husband. We can do anything if you don't want to help yourself first.

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.

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, dio you think the US will take it so easily? You are inflicting on people things you wouldn't accept for yourselves. And besides, the Palestinian authority is more open to a solution than Israel - why would Israel want peace, if it's winning the war? This 97% mantra is bull****, as the said territory would be crissed-crossed will zionist hilltop forteresses, Jews-only highways and security fences, and you know it. Olmert, which is Israel's man in Palestine since the democratic election of Hamas, is meek as a lamb and look at the land Israelis are stealing in his WB as we speak so pleasantly.

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.

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.

The U.S. trades with many of the Arab states.

And makes war on the other ones. But at least, the reason why the US is ally with arab nations is clear: Oil. There is no such hard value with Israel.


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.

Look, it may have a vast palette of political choices indeed, but looking at the Knesset's composition will quickly make one draw the conclusion that Israel is a far-right country.


Assistance (financial, educational, etc.) for people in poverty, need, etc., and foreign aid are not mutually exclusive.

If money is such an un-problem, who are these guys in the street with the tea pouches? Why is this rich guy ripping his shirt off crying about taxes?
 
I doubt we "give" foreign aid to Israel or anyone else. Haven't looked in to it, but just knowing the way the US and the world works.... it's most likely a loan of some sort.
 
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.

First, there were a Palestinian people even if there were no Palestinian state - as much as there was a Jewish people before there has been a Jewish state. Even if it wasn't "their" country, the Palestinians there had some leeway in the way they were governing themselves. And of course the Jews accepted the Plan - it was their plan. They were the ones who had driven it. It would have been quite something if the Jews rejected their own plan, isn't it? Nobody cared about the Palestinians at that time - the Jewish people had just went throught the Holocaust, whether there wasn't a single Palestinian with money.

Second - the Arabs attacked with what? They have been disarmed by the UK before. Did Deir Yassin occured after may 15, or before?

The partition plan was wrong, because it was drawn on racial lines - racial lines, in this day and ages and after the race-cleansing horrors we just witnessed in WWII. What was the Ukrainians' claims to Israel, I still wonder.

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.

I don't believe that for a second. If there was peace between Israel and Palestine, the Israelis would have to break it to seize the rest of Eretz Yisrael.
 
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.
We should cut all military and financial aid to Israel and every country that receives aid from us tax payers.
 
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.

Congress forgives most of Israel's debt. So yeah, we are giving them money. I'm glad I could educate you today. In the future it would be prudent to know what you're talking about before you start talking.
 
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.
 
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.

I doubt that happens with any regularity. You have any links? (the part about selling secrets to china)
 
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...

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.

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...

This analogy, creative as it might be, has no relevance to the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

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.

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.

But at least, the reason why the US is ally with arab nations is clear: Oil. There is no such hard value with Israel.

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)

Sure.

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.

There has been new revelations of late.

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

What, no comments about the Lavon affair or the dealings with China?

This analogy, creative as it might be, has no relevance to the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Why not?

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.

I think Dems like Repubes also appreciate the generous contributions that AIPAC gives them. And no, it isn't corruption.

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.

Pharmaticals? Such a clean sector of entreprise. Ah well, I just learned that it wasn't all about jaffa oranges.
 
So much potential BS in your post, it's hard to know where to begin.

So I won't.

:2wave:

You could at least make an effort like I did for you.
 
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.

Well then, weren't they wrong. I suppose their hearts were in the right place though.
 
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.

Apologising for the Israelis!!!!

For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.

In 1967, at the height of the Arab / Israeli Six Day War, the Israeli Air Force attacked the USS Liberty, a US Navy spy ship that was monitoring the conflict from the safety of international waters in the Mediterranean. Israeli jet fighters twice identified the ship as American before hitting the vessel with rockets, cannon-fire and napalm, before three Israeli torpedo boats moved in to launch a second more devastating attack.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html#page=1
http://pr.aljazeera.com/post/101339900710/israel-knowingly-attacked-us-military-ship-in-1967
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Whatever they give we should make certain that the debt for that gift is paid off by taxpayers within a year. No more giving money away from the bank account of future Americans not even born.
 
That sir is more important than all the riches in the universe.

Do you honestly believe we can earn God's favor by giving money to Israel?
 
I'm a strong Israeli supporter, but honestly with the debt the US has if anything the "aid" we give should be in the form of loans to be payed back, we can't afford to just give out free taxpayer money.
 
The $30 Billion in increased military aid in 10 years just wasnt enough?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom