Why does Israel need foreign aid?

Apocalypse · Oct 15, 2016

Surrealistik said:
Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East

Israel is indeed the second largest supplier of arms to China behind Russia. Granted that article is fairly old, and Israel's market share has since declined, but it still remains a major supplier of arms to the PRC, and this is still a point of tension with the States.

Moreover Israel does indeed both develop weapon systems with US aid technological and economic that it later passes on to China, despite US displeasure and insistence to the contrary: Report: Israel Passes U.S. Military Technology to China - Defensetech

I wasn't asking you to base the two facts you've given, I said the math you did using these two facts is wrong. Yes Israel is the 2nd largest exporter of arms to China at least as to 2004, yes Israel receives arms from the US. Neither of these facts require basing. Your math however does. Israel does not regularly sell US arms it buys straight to China, it sells them IMI manufactured arms. There were as I said before cases where Israel was going to sell specific technologies to China and the US was against these deals and yes Israel canceled them.

I disagree; certainly Israel cooperates significantly on issues that are mutually beneficial to it and the States; this is apparent and to be expected. The real test is whether or not it is capable of curbing behaviours and policies of short term benefit to it per the US' request in exchange for the exceptionally generous aid and support the States has provided it; with respect to this litmus test, it has failed magnificently in recent years (and this includes arms deals, and sale of intelligence to rivals, even though Israel has indeed curbed them per US request on some occasions). If Israel would like to receive aid above and beyond those provided to most of our allies, its cooperation must likewise be above and beyond that exhibited by our allies, and thus far it has simply not met that criteria; even if you don't feel warrant being considered overall an 'uncooperative country', it is certainly uncooperative in several very salient dimensions that in my view begets serious pause as to whether it is deserving of such generosity well beyond that extended to our closest allies.

Though again, what you refer to as cooperation is not really cooperation, these are Israeli issues and disagreements over those issues is more than expected. Also I will again remind you that there is a difference between an allied country and a country you control, we're talking about sovereign nations here. For the third time your remark that Israel is an uncooperative country cannot be true simply based on the claim that it does not agree with the US on one or two domestic issues, that's just an illogical claim. As to you continuing with that "Israel sells US arms to its enemies" well I think you're getting confused here clearly for even if we refer to the cases in the past where Israel made deals that angered the US and had to cancel them per the US request these events were in the past and do not happen often. As I said from the beginning, and as clearly is the case here, you try to portray an image as if Israel regularly sells US arms to China and that is far from being the case, the US wouldn't be fine with it had it been the case as its anger at the deals that were attempted to be made in the past demonstrates. And it's not the case.

David Horowitz is a notorious pro-Zionist ideologue (honestly it's harder to choose a more biased voice on the matter), [...] than traditional close allies like Canada or the UK.

The article includes references to other sources and in fact what I was aiming at are the claims by high profile named US officials that reject what your'e saying here and claim that no other nation sees to the US interests as much as Israel does.

Everyone spies on everyone, sure; [...] with their intelligence services.

The extent of Israeli espionage on the US cannot be greater than the US one on US allies, Israel included. It might be the largest after China and Russia, and it might be not, but that's irrelevant to the fact that regularly spying on each other is something that allies do. If the US happens to be spying on Germany/UK/France/Israel more than any other country in the world no one would be shocked.
You're simply attempting to again portray a distorted picture as if Israel is this evil ally that spies on the US in a world where no one spies on anyone else while in reality all countries spy exactly the same way on one another.

Apocalypse · Oct 15, 2016

Ganesh said:
I completely recognize these folks for who they are: a bunch of psychopaths and crazies. Such exist in limited quantities anywhere, but in chaotic and destabilized regions they tend to come out of the woodwork. Do you think the ongoing non-settlement of Israel/Palestine has encouraged such people, or discouraged them? What has Israel contributed to the stabilization of the region? We have seen similar in other locales, the Shinning Path in Peru, the IRA in Britain, the nutty militias in Idaho, etc. Although ISIS probably wins the prize for non-human behavior.

But to get back to the point, how has Israel proved itself indispensable to the US in these matters? They have done nothing effective to stop ISIS or Al Qaeda, and in fact have enough of a handful with Hezbollah and Hamas, despite a fantastic intelligence service, and hope for more F-16s and smart bombs to carry on the struggle to the 22nd century. How does that support essential US strategic interests?

The I/P conflict has had minimal effect if any at all on the like of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, etc. that much is obvious just by looking at how they came to exist and where they take their strength from.
Israel does supply Western nations and even Muslim nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia with intel on ISIS and others in the region, and I would say they won't be agreeing with your claim that this intel is not essential.
If you're expecting Israel to actually bomb ISIS targets in Libya or whatever then you're just failing to recognize the facts for what they are; A) Israel is hated more than any Western nation and it getting involved in these attacks will only dramatically increase hostilities from the so-called moderates. That's the same reason why Israel wasn't joining the attacks on Iraq even though Iraq was targeting its cities with scud rockets, because the US and its other Western allies asked it not to. B) Israel is already a state that already has to constantly defend itself, it's not in the same position as that of Belgium or the Netherlands. C) Israel is not a global power like the US, France, the UK or Germany are.

I'll tell you what Mr A, you give me your money, and I will come to your factory, and order the things I'd like, and then take them home. That should keep your employees busy for a while, and will return the funds to you. In a way. Good deal?

If the US were getting none in return it would be meaningless, since that's not the case it isn't meaningless that the money is invested back in US economy.
What we have here as claimed by that high profile named US official in the article I referred to is a country that gives back things that are worth far more than what it gets in military aid.

The reference to essential returns us to our original point, one which I perceive you are dodging away from, like one of your high tech, made in Israel drones.

Yes, I'm dodging, because I'm the one who changed the claim from "there is no strategic interest for the US in this military aid agreement" to "there is no essential strategic interest the US would collapse without in this military aid agreement".

(Your link didn't open by the way)

U.S. Aid to Israel: Why It's a Must | Frontpage Mag

I'm sure Israel does, because it has nothing to lose. Votes in the UN are cheap, especially in the case of Israel which will not be affected by the vast majority, and probably any, decisions made. That's not a bad exchange for billions in aid, and a blanket promise of support, no matter the issue or event.

If they are so cheap it's a wonder how no other nation comes close to that percentage. And I love how you attack every example you've been given so far as if it's standing on its own and as if we're not talking about all of it combined.

It's like I'd go on a trip in France that costs me $400 and at every site say "what, $400 just for that?".

gunner · Oct 15, 2016

Ganesh said:
Tell us about the essential American interests that are great enough that they outweigh all other foreign aid recipients.

I don't know, sometimes we are guilty of over complicating things. Could it be possible that America views Israel as being in a precarious situation and is fully supporting a friend surrounded by hostile neighbours?

Surrealistik · Oct 15, 2016

Apocalypse said:
I wasn't asking you to base the two facts you've given...

The article I just cited does indeed state that US military technology is passed on to China through Israel; this was not successfully vetoed or stopped by the US. An elaboration:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/...ale-of-advanced-military-technology-to-china/

Other examples: U.S. Military Technology Sold by Israel To China Upsets Asian Power Balance | WRMEA | Israeli Military and Industrial Espionage

Such direct pass through may not be common but it most certainly happens. Moreover, Israel sells advanced weaponry to China that American technology and funding helped create, even though it may have been developed by the IMI; indirect flowthrough which as previously stated also present significant strain to relations. Beyond that, the sale of such hardware to China, whether or not developed with such funds remains a point of concern.

Moreover, mind that China isn't the only hostile state/rival that Israel sends hardware to in defiance of US wishes; Russia and even Iran are also destinations for such weaponry and military equipment: US investigates illegal military equipment shipments from Israel to Iran - Telegraph

Though again, what you refer to as cooperation is not really cooperation, these are Israeli issues and disagreements over those issues is more than expected...

First, the 'domestic issue' of Palestine has consequences that range beyond Israel's borders, and there is a concrete US interest in reducing associated tensions, particularly when one considers how the US is dragged into defending Israeli actions in the UN, and made to embarrass itself with lonely vetos on their resolutions (such as that regarding the 2011 settlement expansions), to say nothing of the other outcomes elaborated upon by Ganesh.

Second, even if these were to be considered strictly 'domestic issues' of Israel, it also happens to be a significant exporter of advanced arms and technology to US rivals, even if that arms and technology only occasionally represents direct pass through of US technology and weapons. Not every arms deal that angered the US has been cancelled; indeed, Israel remains a major supplier of military tech and weaponry to China and Russia.

Third, Israel engages in the sale of intelligence, including US secrets to China; such sales are longstanding, dating back to at least the 80s: Israel accused of selling US secrets to China | The Independent

I am not attempting to portray Israel as anything; I am simply reciting the facts on the country. Israel is a prolific and leading dealer of arms to China; Israel does sell US secrets and intelligence to China; these facts were, are and remain a point of considerable tension between Israel and the US.

Again I state that if Israel is to receive exceptional aid relative to our allies, then it must exhibit exceptional compliance beyond that exhibited by our allies who receive no such benefits.

The article includes references to other sources and in fact what I was aiming at are the claims by high profile named US officials that reject what your'e saying here...

Those US officials neither reject my claim that Israel generates tensions with the US through the sale of intel and weapons technology to foreign rivals, nor that Israel is not in fact the most cooperative and supportive US ally. A statement of the benefits of Israel cooperation does not disprove either. The absolute closest the article gets to the latter is the opinion of George J. Keegan Jr. on the value of Israeli intelligence; unfortunately his testimony is quite dated (the man died in 93 and retired in 77).

The extent of Israeli espionage on the US...

As the sole remaining superpower and having invested untold billions into its intelligence infrastructure, it wouldn't surprise me if US spying on Israel, as simply a matter of scale, were greater in dollar terms than Israeli spying on the US (unfortunately I haven't been able to find much definitive information on this); a disparity that I'm sure happens to exist in the case of every major US ally. That having been said, what's truly material is proportionality and Israel spying on the US is most certainly in disproportion to its size and far surpasses the level of spying by every other ally. Again, that the extent of such espionage is on par with our foremost rivals is rather foreboding ( http://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggressive-spying-us-mostly-hushed-250278 | http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/the-other-reason-china-is-catching-up-with-u-s-military.html the latter is a blog post that's useful as a link summary), and in conjunction with other indiscretions, it most certainly yields an unflattering picture of Israel.

Apocalypse · Oct 15, 2016

Surrealistik said:
The article I just cited does indeed state that US military technology is passed on to China through Israel; this was not successfully vetoed or stopped by the US. An elaboration:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/...ale-of-advanced-military-technology-to-china/

In this case Israel sold the technolgy to a European company. It did end up at China and the person responsible for that lost his job.

Other examples: U.S. Military Technology Sold by Israel To China Upsets Asian Power Balance | WRMEA | Israeli Military and Industrial Espionage

[...]

I am not attempting to portray Israel as anything; I am simply reciting the facts on the country. Israel is a prolific and leading dealer of arms to China; Israel does sell US secrets and intelligence to China; these facts were, are and remain a point of considerable tension between Israel and the US.

Again I state that if Israel is to receive exceptional aid relative to our allies, then it must exhibit exceptional compliance beyond that exhibited by our allies who receive no such benefits.

The selling of the Lavi jet is an incident that indeed fits what you're saying here, as although it was an IAI development US funds were indeed used in its development. But such incidents happened during the 90's, and later agreements between the US and Israel have been made with more conditions that were aimed at such sales. When you're saying that Israel selling arms to China is a concern for the present relations between Israel and the US you're painting a picture, as I previously said, as if Israel regularly sells China US technologies, it doesn't.

Moreover, mind that China isn't the only hostile state/rival that Israel sends hardware to in defiance of US wishes; Russia and even Iran are also destinations for such weaponry and military equipment: US investigates illegal military equipment shipments from Israel to Iran - Telegraph

Here you're referring to private arm dealers and not to the Israeli government. They are also a cause of concern to Israel itself.

First, the 'domestic issue' of Palestine has consequences that [...] elaborated upon by Ganesh.

The US being 'dragged into defending Israeli actions in the UN' is hardly that huge concern and I can't believe you think it truly is. As to the I/P conflict yes it doesn't help lower the already existing tensions in the Mideast but it's not a key cause in any of the surrounding conflicts. It did not cause the Syrian civil war or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those US officials [...] testimony is quite dated (the man died in 93 and retired in 77).

To quote directly:
"The supreme commander of NATO operations in Europe and head of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM), General John Craddock, speaking before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee in 2007, called Israel a "model state" and America’s closest ally in the Middle East. He noted that Israel consistently and directly supports U.S. interests and U.S. policy in the region."

As the sole remaining superpower [...] it most certainly yields an unflattering picture of Israel.

In the end your argument is just that, that Israel spies on the US more than you expect it to. That doesn't mean much, the US spies on Germany at a far larger scale than Germany probably does on the US, and I don't think it's safe to assume that the disproportionality between these two nations is smaller. This argument is a very weak one because after all Israel does not spy on the US for the sake of the US' enemies and does not attempt to sabotage US interests or cause harm to it., it does so to steal technologies as the US does with Israel, Germany and others. That's just the reality of this world.

Ganesh · Oct 15, 2016

Apocalypse said:
That which is baseless remains so until based you will agree.
I told you in the first exchange we've had here that random baseless assertions, are just that.

Already referred to OBL claim in a previous reply to you here and his claim. Yes, he said so, I guess we're taking terrorists' words for granted now without believing that they are meant to manipulate.
Also, I have not denied that it's one of the causes, I have pointed out that the claim that because of Israel the US is attacked is a claim that is meant to alter reality, and this is really what you're doing here.
They attack us because of Israel is perhaps the most common lie being told in relation to the Israel-US alliance by those who "criticize" it.

The anti-western terrorist acts we see today had their roots in the PLO's actions in the '60s, which were a result of anger over continuing western, and particularly US support of Israel. Arab states then joined in the boycott of 1973, again in protest of western and US support of Israel. Al Qaeda grew out of a nutty religious sect that made various pronouncements, but the two cornerstones of their angst, repeated often, were Israel and western forces and influence in Saudi and other Mid-East locations. Later and more radical terrorist groups formed as a result of the ongoing Israeli colonization of Palestine, and treatment of Palestinian people left in that territory. There are other aspects of radical and terrorist groups in the region, but to say that Israel is not a prime focus of discontent, and the rationale given for numerous terrorist acts over the years, is nonsense.

If the US were to abandon its efforts to control the oil states of the region, and tilt away from Israel, insisting on withdrawal from occupied territories, and making a comprehensive peace with neighbouring states, do you think terrorist acts against the US would increase, or decrease? That's a rhetorical question Mr A, and at any rate not one I expect to get a straight answer for. The rest of your post is mere spin and dodge, mere denial as you cannot accept a balanced account of the Mid-East, and need to save Israel at all costs. But maybe that's your job.

Apocalypse said:
Actually it isn't more than that when we're talking about the span of 68 years. To be frank I find it pathetic and I'm sure you do as well.

I'll take it as a compliment but no, unfortuantely I never got paid for this. And no, neither you nor I nor that guy you read the opinion of or the janitor in the hotel you've been staying at last vacation or anyone you probably ever met know of Israel's capabilities when it comes to an aerial strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities. And yes it is hysterical when you pretend that you do.

Surrealistik · Oct 15, 2016

Apocalypse said:
In this case Israel sold the technolgy to a European company. It did end up at China and the person responsible for that lost his job.

I think it's pretty clear in this case that routing the technology through Europe was an attempt at plausible deniability and loophole exploitation. Of course the man responsible is going to be fired if caught, but he knew full and well where that tech was ultimately headed.

The selling of the Lavi jet is an incident that indeed fits what you're saying here, as although it was an IAI development US funds were indeed used in its development. But such incidents happened during the 90's, and later agreements between the US and Israel have been made with more conditions that were aimed at such sales. When you're saying that Israel selling arms to China is a concern for the present relations between Israel and the US you're painting a picture, as I previously said, as if Israel regularly sells China US technologies, it doesn't.

Again, much Israeli/IAI weaponry sold to China stems from US funds and technologies, even if indirectly. This remains a point of tension with the States, particularly given the rapid modernization of the Chinese arsenal which has doubtlessly been helped by such sales.

Here you're referring to private arm dealers and not to the Israeli government. They are also a cause of concern to Israel itself.

The problem is that the arms dealers have probable covert connections to Israeli intelligence; I suggest reading the full article.

The US being 'dragged into defending Israeli actions in the UN' is hardly that huge concern and I can't believe you think it truly is. As to the I/P conflict yes it doesn't help lower the already existing tensions in the Mideast but it's not a key cause in any of the surrounding conflicts. It did not cause the Syrian civil war or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Political embarrassment and loss of face/legitimacy in the eyes of the ME is indeed a substantial liability, as is ME instability which is only worsened by such unconditional support, and Israeli expansionism. It is improbable that we will ever agree as to the scope, and magnitude of Israel's recalcitrance here as it appears our positions on the matter are pretty well solidified, so further dispute of this is pointless.

To quote directly:
"The supreme commander of NATO operations in Europe and head of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM), General John Craddock, speaking before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee in 2007, called Israel a "model state" and America’s closest ally in the Middle East. He noted that Israel consistently and directly supports U.S. interests and U.S. policy in the region."

Again, John Craddock's statements do _not_ obviate substantial tensions with Israeli arms, spying and intelligence sales, nor do they in anyway state that Israel is the most cooperative and pro-American ally in the world. George's statements inched closer to that effect, but even they do not say as much.

In the end your argument is just that, that Israel spies on the US more than you expect it to. That doesn't mean much, the US spies on Germany at a far larger scale than Germany probably does on the US, and I don't think it's safe to assume that the disproportionality between these two nations is smaller. This argument is a very weak one because after all Israel does not spy on the US for the sake of the US' enemies and does not attempt to sabotage US interests or cause harm to it., it does so to steal technologies as the US does with Israel, Germany and others. That's just the reality of this world.

Yes, that Israeli spying and theft of US tech is on par with its leading rivals is indeed salient, and is indisputably a point of significant tension. Furthermore tensions of this magnitude is unknown amongst our other close allies; if Israeli spying weren't exceptionally and materially prolific and disturbing, it would not be subject to such greater concern.

Apocalypse · Oct 15, 2016

Ganesh said:
The anti-western terrorist acts we see today had their roots in the PLO's actions in the '60s, which were a result of anger over continuing western, and particularly US support of Israel. Arab states then joined in the boycott of 1973, again in protest of western and US support of Israel. Al Qaeda grew out of a nutty religious sect that made various pronouncements, but the two cornerstones of their angst, repeated often, were Israel and western forces and influence in Saudi and other Mid-East locations. Later and more radical terrorist groups formed as a result of the ongoing Israeli colonization of Palestine, and treatment of Palestinian people left in that territory. There are other aspects of radical and terrorist groups in the region, but to say that Israel is not a prime focus of discontent, and the rationale given for numerous terrorist acts over the years, is nonsense.

If the US were to abandon its efforts to control the oil states of the region, and tilt away from Israel, insisting on withdrawal from occupied territories, and making a comprehensive peace with neighbouring states, do you think terrorist acts against the US would increase, or decrease? That's a rhetorical question Mr A, and at any rate not one I expect to get a straight answer for. The rest of your post is mere spin and dodge, mere denial as you cannot accept a balanced account of the Mid-East, and need to save Israel at all costs. But maybe that's your job.

The notion I'm arguing against here if we weren't clear enough is the one that suggests that because of Israel and because of support for Israel the US faced terror attacks the like of 9/11, San Bernardino, etc. This is pure and simple crazy talk and should be treated as such. It has long been argued by those who oppose the 'anti-Israeli camp' that they're so obsessed with Israel and are so deeply invested in lies and made up realities concerning Israel that they'd claim anything that would help them present the entity they hold such inhuman hatred for as demonic and vile. To quote Abba Eban when he referred to the anti-Israeli nations bulk in the UN; If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. The same applies as you see to anti-Israeli propagandists such as yourself and has been demonstrated so far at several points;

A) When you refused and continue to refuse to recognize that your claim that no strategic interest is being served by the agreement is a false claim as if your life is on the line even though you are clearly aware of it.
B) When you exaggerated the magnitude of the I/P conflict to suggest that it's world-altering and of huge concern even though it really is nothing in comparison even to 5 years of civil war in Syria not in casualties and not in the effect on radicalization.
C) When you finally chose to blame Israel for attacks on Western targets as if without Israel there would be no 9/11 or no San Berandino or no Paris attacks.

Finally when you claim I cannot accept a "balanced view of the Mideast" that's just an overkill, as your position so far has been the most radical and out of touch with reality as it could be in relation to anything surrounding Israel, especially on the parts I stated above that are mere random and baseless remarks and thus shall not even be addressed.

Apocalypse · Oct 15, 2016

Surrealistik said:
I think it's pretty clear in this case that routing the technology through Europe was an attempt at plausible deniability and loophole exploitation. Of course the man responsible is going to be fired if caught, but he knew full and well where that tech was ultimately headed.

Maybe, maybe not. I can't simply deny that nor can I accept it the way you do.

Again, much Israeli/IAI weaponry sold to China stems from US funds and technologies, even if indirectly. This remains a point of tension with the States, particularly given the rapid modernization of the Chinese arsenal which has doubtlessly been helped by such sales.

Yes we've already covered that, and no it doesn't remain a point of tension. Otherwise it would have been addressed in the agreement. Israel being a competition to the US was a point of tension as it was indeed addressed in the agreement, for example.

The problem is that the arms dealers have probable covert connections to Israeli intelligence; I suggest reading the full article.

Excuse me for my French but that's just bollocks. Israel has no interest to arm the like of Iran, or Russia for that point that regularly arms Israel's enemies.

Political embarrassment and loss of face/legitimacy in the eyes of the ME is indeed a substantial liability, as is ME instability which is only worsened by such unconditional support, and Israeli expansionism. It is improbable that we will ever agree as to the scope, and magnitude of Israel's recalcitrance here as it appears our positions on the matter are pretty well solidified, so further dispute of this is pointless.

There's no political embarassment in defending Israel, that's your point of view due to your biased position on Israel as a state. The UN operates by vote and Israel's enemies have an advantage at that front, so the US uses its veto, might I add as it should be. ME instability, as can be seen in the modern era ME, has close to nothing to do with Israel. ME instability is to be frank almost entirely on the Syrian civil war, suggesting that at present time we can look at the ME with all the bloodshed and say "well the conflict surrounding Israel is a major problem" is ridiculous and is only done by those who wish to convince themselves of the lie that their obsession with Israel is justified.

Again, John Craddock's statements do _not_ obviate substantial tensions with Israeli arms, spying and intelligence sales, nor do they in anyway state that Israel is the most cooperative and pro-American ally in the world. George's statements inched closer to that effect, but even they do not say as much.

Nor are they expected to. They're given as evidence that the US values Israel as an ally, even though you paint a false picture about its relations with the US.

Yes, that Israeli spying and theft of US tech is on par with its leading rivals is indeed salient, and is indisputably a point of significant tension. Furthermore tensions of this magnitude is unknown amongst our other close allies; if Israeli spying weren't exceptionally and materially prolific and disturbing, it would not be subject to such greater concern.

No it's not. The US spies and engages at theft of tech from its allies as well. For the thousandth time your argument is a nonsensical one and quite desperate too.

oneworld2 · Oct 15, 2016

Masterhawk said:
Israel has a ppp per capita of $34,300 which is higher than that of Czech Republic ($31,600), Cyprus($32,800), Slovakia($29,700), Portugal($27,800), and Poland($26,500). None of those countries get any foreign aid so why should Israel?

View attachment 67208578

Ok, I kinda lied about Portugal and Poland not receiving foreign aid from the US but it's so tiny. For those who say that Israel needs a strong military, let me say this: Israel didn't need help repelling the first arab invasion or winning the six day war in.... well..... six days. They even have nuclear weapons.

I'm not saying that I think Israel should go away. Israel is one of the few countries in the middle east which respect different religious beliefs. Although muslims living in Israel face some discrimination, its nothing compared to what christians and atheists face in many neighboring countries. They also have the most stable government in the middle east and are one of the few democracies in the middle east + north africa.

I think you'll find that Foreign Aid isn't quite what many people think it is................... which is the benevolence of richer states towards poorer states. A view that rich donor nations surely would want their populations to believe was the case. Who dislikes Father Christmas ?

It's a great way of turning public money from the donor country into the private pockets of shareholders of companies in the donor country.

It's also a great way to manipulate/limit the actions foreign governments , pay off client state managers etc etc

As for US aid to Israel , you would have to see who benefits from it. IMO the US arms corporations haven't done too badly out of it. Or US construction corporations. High tech US corporations.

Nor has successive US governments by having a staunch ally state in and around the worlds biggest oil hotspot . A state that they can use for clandestine iffy operations like Iran/Contra .

They , the US elites , must think its worth it because they have been blocking the , more or less unanimous world consensus on the , two state solution for around 30 years

Surrealistik · Oct 15, 2016

Apocalypse said:
Maybe, maybe not. I can't simply deny that nor can I accept it the way you do.

There is no way this man did not know the weapons would ultimately end up in China.

Yes we've already covered that, and no it doesn't remain a point of tension. Otherwise it would have been addressed in the agreement. Israel being a competition to the US was a point of tension as it was indeed addressed in the agreement, for example.

It absolutely does remain a point of tension; I've provided recent articles as well as older ones establishing as much.

Excuse me for my French but that's just bollocks. Israel has no interest to arm the like of Iran, or Russia for that point that regularly arms Israel's enemies.

In otherwords, you did not read the full article. Though the motivation cannot be fully ascertained, it looks as though it may have been a bid to disrupt Iran/US nuclear talks:

"Israeli media carried only brief versions of the report, suggesting that the matter may be subject to the country’s strict military censorship.

Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper, Alex Fishman, a military-affairs commentator, suggested that the report may have been leaked by US officials as a coded warning to Israel not to try to sabotage the nuclear negotiations with Iran, which were continuing yesterday.

A blogger, Richard Silverstein pointed the finger at two possible culprits who he said were well-known arms dealers living in Binyamina-Givat Ada. The pair had come to the attention of Israeli and US authorities on suspicion of violating the arms embargo on Iran in the past, Silverstein wrote, but had never been charged or prosecuted. “There can be no doubt that they are colluding with Israeli intelligence,” he added."

There's no political embarassment in defending Israel, that's your point of view due to your biased position on Israel as a state...

When there is consensus with foundation against such things as aggressive settlement expansion, yes, there is plenty of political embarrassment to be had; if such matters were not privy to political embarrassment, Obama would not have lobbied the PA not to put statehood recognition to the UN, and otherwise invested considerable effort in heading it off. The unanimity/near unanimity suggests very strongly that the US is on the wrong side of the issue, besides the basic ethics concerning the region and its history; there is a reason such unanimity exists. Further, we will clearly never agree about whether Israeli/Palestinian tensions contribute to the general malaise and instability of the ME, but if the US didn't think that to be true, it wouldn't be wringing its hands over Israel uncooperativeness on the issue, nor would Obama identify a two state solution as an invaluable step forward in diffusing ME tensions and making progress in a broader fight against Islamic extremism and terrorism.

Nor are they expected to. They're given as evidence that the US values Israel as an ally, even though you paint a false picture about its relations with the US.

Of course Israel has value as an ally; the question is whether it has enough value, and demonstrates enough compliance with American interests to justify billions of dollars of aid other close allies don't get; I don't find this to be convincing given that we don't have a basis of comparison of the value provided by other allies (the UK involvement in recent US wars and conflicts cost it tens of billions of dollars for example, to say nothing of intelligence cooperation; then there is the value of Canadian oil guarantees and so on). Further you made the specific claim that Israel was the most cooperative and US interest aligned ally in the world and cited this as proof which it clearly is not.

No it's not. The US spies and engages at theft of tech from its allies as well. For the thousandth time your argument is a nonsensical one and quite desperate too.

Since your position has been reduced to gainsay on this point, there is no further value in disputing this. The indisputable fact remains is that the US is very alarmed at the level of Israel sourced espionage and this is a significant point of political tension which is a material basis for challenging aid to Israel, including such recent escapades as leaking Iranian nuclear negotiations to Congress.

Phys251 · Oct 15, 2016

Masterhawk said:
Israel has a ppp per capita of $34,300 which is higher than that of Czech Republic ($31,600), Cyprus($32,800), Slovakia($29,700), Portugal($27,800), and Poland($26,500). None of those countries get any foreign aid so why should Israel?

View attachment 67208578

Ok, I kinda lied about Portugal and Poland not receiving foreign aid from the US but it's so tiny. For those who say that Israel needs a strong military, let me say this: Israel didn't need help repelling the first arab invasion or winning the six day war in.... well..... six days. They even have nuclear weapons.

I'm not saying that I think Israel should go away. Israel is one of the few countries in the middle east which respect different religious beliefs. Although muslims living in Israel face some discrimination, its nothing compared to what christians and atheists face in many neighboring countries. They also have the most stable government in the middle east and are one of the few democracies in the middle east + north africa.

Excellent question. Hillary's stance on Israel, which is basically to support them to the end, is probably my single least favorite position that she has. What we need to be doing is to have a closed-door meeting with Bibi in which we say, "Either you get your act together and stop oppressing the Palestinians, or we are going to cut back military aid significantly."

Someone around here once said that we should support their Iron Dome and literally nothing else. IMO that is not a bad idea.

Ganesh · Oct 15, 2016

MadLib said:
What civil conflict? The Palestinian conflict occurs outside of Israel proper and is very low-level. I'm referring to the fact that there is an infinitely smaller chance of the Israeli government being overthrown by a coup or fighting a civil war than any other country in MENA, including Turkey.

Israel proper, in pragmatic terms, is the historical Palestine, because that is where Israeli authority extends. Within that boundary, civil conflict does absolutely dominant daily life, and is notable to say the least in relation to any other stable nation. I agree though that neighboring countries have even worse issues.

MadLib said:
What do you think influence is? Our forging ties with Europe due to cultural and political similarities is a historical anomaly. The overwhelming majority of "influence" in history has come at the price of war or money.

I'd say this is true, except to the extent that there is a clear spectrum of influence and agreement between nations, some clearly more hard edged than others. There is a clear difference between, say, countries in the EU, or the US and Canada, or Australia New Zealand, or others in terms of influencing political and economic decisions, and American political capital in the Mid-East today. Given American actions in the region, its influence today comes solely from the threat of military action, or the support of others against military aggression, or the promise of what is a fortune in aid money, in relation to the economies so enticed. All else has been exhausted.

MadLib said:
Your mistake is assuming that us having influence over Israel means that they have to essentially be our client state. We still have divergent interests in a wide variety of areas. The alliance, and thus the benefits to us of giving foreign aid, comes where our interests meet.

continued below...

The lavishing of aid, unprecedented in history I'd say, other than perhaps the lend-lease, British-American relationship to stop fascism in the '40s, suggests, as Mr Apocalypse maintains, a unique and vastly beneficial relationship, indeed one indispensable to the US. But the evidence is simply not there. I don't think anyone expects Israel to be a client state, but I can imagine popular opinion that wants Israel to deal honestly with its neighbours, to seek peace, to not spy on the US, to not sell arms to potential advisories, and to not run roughshod over the former inhabitants of its territory, or cling to an ideologically rigid, ethically based, discriminatory society.

Where do our interests meet? Mr A has given some rather flaccid examples of the US buying new drone systems, and other similar technologies that are actually pretty widespread in the world today, and also alluding to- but not specifying- invaluable intelligence information. He also mentioned Israel voting with the US in the UN. What here is invaluable to the extent of being indispensable? I'm sure the Mossad has headed off more than one disaster, probably MI-6 and others have also done their share. What else?

The fact is that not supporting Israel would have been invaluable to the US over the years. It would have increased US influence with Arab states, perhaps warded off Soviet infringements there during the cold war, assured a more dominant position vis a vis oil supplies, avoided the oil shocks of 73, and maybe even tamped down the terrorist activities we see today. I'm not saying this should have been the preferred course of action, but just presenting a more neutral examination of the region.

Israel has ignored American interests repeatedly over the years, from invading Sinai in 56, to developing nuclear weapons, to ignoring world opinion and colonizing conquered territories after 67, to dodging US brokered peace deals, to selling arms to clients not in US interests, to spying to extract desired technologies from America.

The US has supplied Israel with tens of billions of dollars in direct aid in recent years, came close to a nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union in defense of Israel in 1973, and has suffered multiple terrorist attacks, and thousands of casualties in support of a tiny nation that clearly goes its own way, and supports the US only when that coincides with its own interests. What kind of a deal is that?

Apocalypse · Oct 16, 2016

Surrealistik said:
There is no way this man did not know the weapons would ultimately end up in China.

Of course there is you speak like the US never meant to send weapons to one place and it ended at another.

It absolutely does remain a point of tension; I've provided recent articles as well as older ones establishing as much.

What recent articles? The only recent incident was the one we've discussed above and as I said it wasn't a real incident.

In otherwords, you did not read the full article. Though the motivation cannot be fully ascertained, it looks as though it may have been a bid to disrupt Iran/US nuclear talks:

Hilarious. So because some blogger said "there is no doubt they are involved with Israeli intelligence" it makes it so? How bizarre.

When there is consensus with foundation against such things as aggressive settlement expansion, yes, there is plenty of political embarrassment to be had; if such matters were not privy to political embarrassment, Obama would not have lobbied the PA not to put statehood recognition to the UN, and otherwise invested considerable effort in heading it off. The unanimity/near unanimity suggests very strongly that the US is on the wrong side of the issue, besides the basic ethics concerning the region and its history; there is a reason such unanimity exists. Further, we will clearly never agree about whether Israeli/Palestinian tensions contribute to the general malaise and instability of the ME, but if the US didn't think that to be true, it wouldn't be wringing its hands over Israel uncooperativeness on the issue, nor would Obama identify a two state solution as an invaluable step forward in diffusing ME tensions and making progress in a broader fight against Islamic extremism and terrorism.

If your arguments have now become "The US does so, so it means that this and that", then we could just agree that the US vetos because it knows it's the right thing to do and that the US has this military aid deal with Israel because it knows it's the right thing to do.

Of course Israel has value as an ally; the question is whether it has enough value, and demonstrates enough compliance with American interests to justify billions of dollars of aid other close allies don't get; I don't find this to be convincing given that we don't have a basis of comparison of the value provided by other allies (the UK involvement in recent US wars and conflicts cost it tens of billions of dollars for example, to say nothing of intelligence cooperation; then there is the value of Canadian oil guarantees and so on). Further you made the specific claim that Israel was the most cooperative and US interest aligned ally in the world and cited this as proof which it clearly is not.

That was answered on several occasions. Yes it does. Intelligence wise alone it is worth more than two times that sum. As to the statement that Israel is more cooperative than any other that too was shown to be true as the facts are that Israeli-US intelligence cooperation is greater than any other, Israel stands with the US at about 94% of UN decisions and American officials praise Israel as the most cooperative ally, so that's a funny thing to try and dispute. You've made a false statement and simply refuse to recognize it.

Since your position has been reduced to gainsay on this point, there is no further value in disputing this. The indisputable fact remains is that the US is very alarmed at the level of Israel sourced espionage and this is a significant point of political tension which is a material basis for challenging aid to Israel, including such recent escapades as leaking Iranian nuclear negotiations to Congress.

Am I expected to simply repeat my words time after time? I said from the beginning that this argument was a weak one, that every nation spies on every other and that when your thought line is "I have to prove Israel is bad for the US" instead of "I have to look at reality for what it is" then no wonder you'll be making such arguments. Germany, the UK, France and even Israel have more to worry from US spying on them than vice versa. Allies spy on each other and you won't see France recalling its ambassador from the US over one incident or another.

RetiredUSN · Oct 16, 2016

Those poor peace worshipping Palestinians.

Using humanitarian aid money to build tunnels for terrorist use, and killing as many as 160 child laborers in the process.

Surrealistik · Oct 16, 2016

Apocalypse said:
Of course there is you speak like the US never meant to send weapons to one place and it ended at another.

Relaying forbidden weaponry and tech through Europe is a known MO for skirting export restrictions both domestic and those levied by the US. Is there technically some minute chance that this guy is innocent and knew nothing of the European company's intent to relay the parts to China immediately after acquisition? Yes. Is it much more probable he knew exactly what he was doing and was consciously attempting to skirt export restrictions? Absolutely. This is the head of Israel's export control for ****'s sake; he is not a blithering incompetent. A company doesn't simply buy high tech military parts then instantly relay them without obvious intent.

What recent articles? The only recent incident was the one we've discussed above and as I said it wasn't a real incident.

It very much was a real incident, and US outrage was likewise very much real. Further, even though Israel has to its credit significantly scaled back direct arms exports to China, it continues to indirectly aid and abet Chinese defense developments via the sale of dual use technologies: An Inevitable Headache: US Allies Sell Defense Technology to China | The Diplomat

I will readily admit that other close allies such as the Europeans likewise engage in problematic export of dual use tech, but again we should hold Israel to a higher standard on the basis of exceptional support extended to it that is not provided to other close allies.

Hilarious. So because some blogger said "there is no doubt they are involved with Israeli intelligence" it makes it so? How bizarre.

I didn't say that, I said they had probable connections to Israeli intelligence and the article goes on to provide some context. These two arms dealers have been involved in illicit sales for many years and have never been prosecuted which strongly insinuates such involvement. Some more info on them: Two Israelis suspected of selling Iran arms were investigated 10 years ago - Diplomacy and Defense - Haaretz.com

If your arguments have now become "The US does so, so it means that this and that"...

Actions do very much insinuate intent, and it is absurd to argue otherwise. If you can ascribe other motives to Obama's considerable and sustained attempt at convincing Abbas not to go through with a UN vote over Palestinian statehood, by all means. Also, at least on the surface, yes, the US does send Israel military aid because it feels it's the "right thing to do", and there's no doubt a swath of politicians genuinely feel that way (particularly evangelicals) as opposed to being persuaded via AIPAC bundling.

Further, Obama and key members of his administration have plainly stated that a two state solution is an indispensable component of unwinding general ME tensions and extremism:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out

Obama aide says we can't defeat ISIS without resolving Palestinian issue

That was answered on several occasions...

No, it does not. You made a very specific claim that Israel is the ally most cooperative (you were speaking generally not in terms of intelligence coordination) and most representative of US interests. The statements of those officials were both dated (both retired prior to the 80s), and failed to articulate and prove directly or even indirectly anything remotely close to that claim. None of the cited officials in the articles said that Israel is the most cooperative ally, and isolated factoids from the article such as UN overlap by itself proves exactly nothing. Moreover Israel is not even a member of the Five Eyes; how on earth can it be said to have the closest intelligence cooperation? In order to prove such a fantastic claim you have to systemically go over Israel's contributions, missteps, expenditures and achievements in furtherance (or detriment) of US interests vs those of other allies. This article utterly lacks such requisite comprehensiveness.

Am I expected to simply repeat my words time after time?...

I have to admit I find it completely ironic, and projecting no less, that you accuse others of holding to a partisan line of thought instead of 'looking at reality for what it is' given that the level Israel spying is _factually_ a point of concern for the States, and _factually_ is of greater concern than spying by its other allies. The reality is that no other ally is worried about as much in terms of espionage activities against the States, and Israeli espionage is, has been and continues to be a point of especial concern for US officials, and no amount of downplaying changes this.

Apocalypse · Oct 16, 2016

Surrealistik said:
Relaying forbidden weaponry [...] A company doesn't simply buy high tech military parts then instantly relay them without obvious intent.

I haven't simply denied the possibility the probelm is that you recognize on one hand that it might have been an actual mistake and on the other hand you actually assume it was deliberate.

It very much was a real incident, [...] An Inevitable Headache: US Allies Sell Defense Technology to China | The Diplomat

I will readily admit that other close allies such as the Europeans likewise engage in problematic export of dual use tech, but again we should hold Israel to a higher standard on the basis of exceptional support extended to it that is not provided to other close allies.

Had it remained such a concern of the US it'd have been addressed in the agreement. It really isn't.

I didn't say that [...] Two Israelis suspected of selling Iran arms were investigated 10 years ago - Diplomacy and Defense - Haaretz.com

Again you're assuming things, this time you're also assuming something which is illogical. You're expecting me to accept your claim that Israel has an interest to arm Iran. The facts are that these are private dealers.

Actions do very much insinuate intent, and it is absurd to argue otherwise. If you can ascribe other motives to Obama's considerable and sustained attempt at convincing Abbas not to go through with a UN vote over Palestinian statehood, by all means.

The motive was never even questionable solving the conflict is something the POTUS wants as an achievement and part of his legacy and the deep involvement in the conflict of so many US Presidents and other world leaders such as the President of France is exactly that.

Also, at least on the surface, yes, the US does send Israel military aid because it feels it's the "right thing to do", and there's no doubt a swath of politicians genuinely feel that way (particularly evangelicals) as opposed to being persuaded via AIPAC bundling.

The majority of politicians (and citizens) of the US feel that way, your "particularly evangelicals" remark joins the list of remarks you've made so far such as "Israel is not a cooperative country" that are just outright false.

Further, Obama and key members of his administration have plainly stated that a two state solution is an indispensable component of unwinding general ME tensions and extremism:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out

Obama aide says we can't defeat ISIS without resolving Palestinian issue

And I take it he cannot be wrong? These are absurd remarks.

No, it does not. [...] This article utterly lacks such requisite comprehensiveness.

Irregardless of the fact that you never really retire and you always stay in touch with those who are active, you're saying here that what was true for the 80's about the Israeli-US relationship isn't true for present time where these relations have greatly improved, that makes no sense to you as well I'm certain. Additionally the facts I laid out are all supportive of an argument that no US ally supports the interests of the US more than Israel does, whether the reference to the Israeli-American intelligence cooperation or the other references. I can also point out the fact that the Israeli public opinion is the most pro-American of all Western nations by far. There's really an endless amount of examples that can be given. The funny thing is that you actually made the claim Israel is an uncooperative country based on three minor examples with one of them being exaggerated, one of them being irrelevant and the third one not being half as significant as you claim it to be, and even after all that you maintain that position which is false.

I have to admit I find it completely ironic, [...] and no amount of downplaying changes this.

It doesn't even require downplaying, it's like you'd claim that the US isn't an ally to Germany or Israel because it was caught at spying on them on a large scale, it'll be ridiculous, so why is it not ridiculous in this case? Because you seem to have found some level of proportionality that those who cross it can no longer be considered allies? I don't think I'm being unfair here by calling it a non-issue, not at all.

Surrealistik · Oct 16, 2016

Apocalypse said:
I haven't simply denied the possibility the probelm is that you recognize on one hand that it might have been an actual mistake and on the other hand you actually assume it was deliberate.

The point is that it is _far_ more probable he was deliberately attempting to skirt US prohibitions

Had it remained such a concern of the US it'd have been addressed in the agreement. It really isn't.

The reason why dual use isn't pursued as aggressively is because of the level of plausible deniability involved and the difficulty of comprehensively forbidding its export without unduly imposing on legitimate economic trade; that should be obvious. As the article relates, this is a headache for the States.

An interesting report that takes a closer look at the dual use phenomenon among other things: http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP43.pdf

Again you're assuming things, this time you're also assuming something which is illogical...

In the case of attempting to disrupt Iran-US nuclear talks there is nothing illogical about that. Furthermore Israeli intelligence is privy to information and objectives neither of us have any clue about, so it is baseless to presume there is no 'logical reason' to supply Iran with certain weapons (off the top of my head, introduction of sabotaged or subverted components into key Iran weapon systems readily comes to mind, nevermind behind the scenes realpolitik quid pro quo).

The motive was never even questionable solving the conflict is something the POTUS wants as an achievement...

Talking about reaching and illogical, this is a pretty prime example of such. Obama lobbied Abbas extensively to withdraw his attempt at statehood recognition from the UN because he wants credit for resolving the conflict, and not because he wants to avoid political embarrassment and a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of other ME countries? Even if that's true, it's absurd on two points:

A: UN recognition of Palestinian statehood, even if it passed, would not actually resolve the conflict, or come anywhere close to that.

B: When you consider it is in Obama's power to deny such a bid per US veto power as he ultimately did; he never had to deal with Abbas at all, particularly if political embarrassment is no consideration/object.

Obama's actions clearly speak to an attempt to avoid what he felt to be (and what was often described) as a politically embarrassing UN veto.

The majority of politicians (and citizens) of the US feel that way, your "particularly evangelicals" remark joins the list of remarks you've made so far such as "Israel is not a cooperative country" that are just outright false.

Yes, a majority of politicians and citizens presently support Israel over Palestine. That having been said, it is factually true that evangelicals in particular hold this view: New Poll Reveals Evangelical Christians Fuel Republican Support For Israel - News ? Forward.com

Further, my statement concerning Israeli uncooperativeness was, as previously and repeatedly stated, concerned with several salient elements of Israeli policy that matter to the US, are sources of tension, and are material cause to challenge aid subsidies.

And I take it he cannot be wrong? These are absurd remarks.

If he's wrong, so are many of his top advisors, think tanks and academics reviewing the issue. The fact is that Obama and many other credible forces are indeed of the view that the Israel-Palestinian conflict contributes greatly to ME instability and Islamic extremism, and that Israeli exasperation of this conflict is a point of continual concern for the United States.

Irregardless of the fact that you never really retire...

They retired prior to the 80s; a lot changes in 36+ years, nevermind the fact that again, the article simply does not prove your claim. A scattering of factoids and anecdotes is simply not credible evidence that Israel is the most cooperative and amenable to US interests of all allies.

It doesn't even require downplaying, it's like you'd claim that the US isn't an ally to Germany or Israel because it was caught at spying on them on a large scale...

US officials have factually and consistently exhibited far more alarm and concern about Israeli spying and espionage than that of any other ally. It is in their own words a substantial problem and especial point of tension.

Ultimately seeing as basic facts I've presented in support of my argument aren't being acknowledged, I think I'm going to leave the argument here, as partisan lines have been drawn, will not be moved, and any further exchange will clearly prove fruitless and a further waste of time.

Apocalypse · Oct 16, 2016

Surrealistik said:
The point is that it is _far_ more probable he was deliberately attempting to skirt US prohibitions

The point is that you're assuming things.
Better to neither deny nor accept.

The reason why dual use isn't pursued as aggressively is because of the level of plausible deniability involved and the difficulty of comprehensively forbidding its export without unduly imposing on legitimate economic trade; that should be obvious. As the article relates, this is a headache for the States.

What plausible deniability? And if the US were to actually take it as a high priority they would have no problem at all to form such an agreement that only imposes conditions against such sales, it doesn't do so and it doesn't intend on doing so because it's not a present time issue. Does it not occur to you that the reason there has been a significant cut in such sales at some point during the 90's is the US making its voice heard?

In the case of attempting [...] nevermind behind the scenes realpolitik quid pro quo).

And for the who knows what time, you're assuming things. I don't think we're that far off at this point from actually discussing conspiracy theories here.

Talking about reaching and illogical [...]
Obama's actions clearly speak to an attempt to avoid what he felt to be (and what was often described) as a politically embarrassing UN veto.

Everything Obama does in relation to the conflict is to try and solve it for the reason I've mentioned. If he thinks that a UN resolution is the wrong step he would oppose it and he's right the unilateral actions of the Palestinians in the different UN organizations are counterproductive. Him trying to convince Abbas to drop it, and by the way Israel does the same through its own diplomatic channels, are indeed attempts to move the process to a better place. The US vetoing it would not be seen as a "gesture" by the Palestinians after all, withdrawing the UN bid will.

Yes, a majority of politicians and citizens [...]

Again you bring in facts for that which was not questioned. Your remark suggested it's the Evangelicals who are the ones who hold this view as if it's not one that is held by the majority of US politicans and citizens.

Further, my statement [...] material cause to challenge aid subsidies.

Yes I referred to these as the irrelevant, the insignificant and the exaggerated. Arm sales to the PRC, spying, and the I/P conflict.

If he's wrong, so are many of his top advisors

That's how it usually works.
The I/P conflict is on a low scale compared to only 4 years of the Syrian civil war or the last several years of the Iraq&Afghanistan conflict. It has not much to do with these conflicts at all and did not trigger them.

They retired prior to the 80s; a lot changes in 36+ years, nevermind the fact that again, the article simply does not prove your claim. A scattering of factoids and anecdotes is simply not credible evidence that Israel is the most cooperative and amenable to US interests of all allies.

I will conceed and agree that it is a relative concept and thus not really something that can be proven on a factual level, but I simply do not agree that after seeing all the facts as they are one can logically claim that Israel is not a cooperative country. And yes, it will be my opinion, based on the same facts and opinions of course, that there is no country that sees to the interests of the US more than Israel does. And again, relations have improved significantly during these years, they weren't half as good back then as they are today.

US officials have factually and consistently exhibited far more alarm and concern about Israeli spying and espionage than that of any other ally. It is in their own words a substantial problem and especial point of tension.

And if you repeat it again and again it wouldn't mean more than it did at the first time. I accept that US officials have made such statements on several occasions (with a great timing if I might add), but that's just politics. It'd actually mean something had the US not been spying on Israel at a far larger scale and had it not spying on pretty much all of its other allies. Everyone spying on everyone else is where this argument should have ended.

Ultimately seeing as basic facts I've presented in support of my argument aren't being acknowledged, I think I'm going to leave the argument here, as partisan lines have been drawn, will not be moved, and any further exchange will clearly prove fruitless and a further waste of time.

That's rich considering you still haven't taken back your claim that Israel is an uncooperative country, which started this discussion, but your decision is yours.

Ganesh · Oct 16, 2016

MadLib said:
I'd still bet on the Mossad over the CIA in terms of pure ability to stop a terrorist attack. Israel has dealt with Arab terrorism for far longer than we have, and their fight against Hezbollah in particular can give us lessons in our fight against al-Qaeda, given how the latter borrowed much of its strategy from the former.

Sure, and the British gained considerable experience vis a vis the IRA, with lessons no doubt shared, and the CIA has also learned some hard lessons over the years. No doubt the Mossad is of value on occasion, but the point here is the question- is Israel an indispensable partner, one necessary to the essential strategic interests of the US? One also has to factor in the points that if the US declined to play the great game for control of Persian Gulf oil, and- notably- taken a neutral position on the Israel/Palestine question, Arab terrorism would be a tiny issue for the defense establishment, along the lines of the Shining Path in Peru, or the New Caledonia independence movement.

MadLib said:
We'd supported Israel for a long time, but al-Qaeda only became our enemy after American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia to deter Saddam. I'm not saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has no impact on anti-American terrorism, but I don't see it as necessary to be where we are today.

Al Qaeda was the brainchild of OBL, a religious nut who saw a conspiracy of Jews and Christians against Muslims. How many more suicide bombers was he able to recruit by pointing out that there was indeed a Jewish takeover of a Muslim country, and it had the undeniable and unlimited backing of the US? If the US, and the west treated the Mid East in a more or less neutral fashion, would OBL have just been considered a raving nut, or perhaps at best an extremist with unfounded ideas? I don't know the answer, but it is undeniable that many, if not most, extremist and terrorist activities in the region have Israel/Palestine, rightly or wrongly, as a central sticking point.

MadLib said:
Not necessarily; they might have been emboldened by our invasion of Iraq for similar reasons and tried to pass the buck to us. That being said, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Israel's ability to strike Iran, so you might be right.

I'm only paraphrasing acknowledged experts in the field, who are making an estimate which could of course be off base, but I do think Mr A's notions of powerful and completely secret weapons at the disposal of Israel are implausible.

MadLib said:
It's not so much about popular opinion as about our ability to work with the regimes in question, although the two are related. At the time it was beneficial to secure the cooperation of Iraq against Iran and Syria against the al-Qaeda insurgents who came into Iraq through Syria. If we had bombed the countries on the suspicion of nuclear activity, their incentive to cooperate with us would be reduced to zero.

As far as Iraq/Iran goes, neither side were of much use to the US, and indeed having them both destroy each other would have been the favoured outcome. The US supported Iraq only because it did not want to see a convincing Iranian victory. Iraq was in a desperate enough position at that point that the US would have probably had the leverage to quash the nuclear program. Both Iraq and Syria were dead against Al Quaeda, and needed no encouragement from the west to take them on.

MadLib said:
I'm glad you asked that! The Gulf War was a primary example of our friendship with Israel paying dividends. Israel had every right and reason to retaliate against Saddam when he was firing Scuds at them, but doing so was likely to destroy the Arab coalition we had built up to evict Saddam from Kuwait. Do you think they would have refrained from defending themselves against unprovoked attacks on their citizens if we didn't have influence over them?

My guess is that they restrained themselves because they probably received notice their planes would be shot down by US forces if they went into action. You're right that it would have blown apart the Arab coalition, something unacceptable at that point, for a number of reasons important to US strategic interests. This simply reinforces the point of what a strategic liability Israel is for the US. Given the right conditions, and diplomatic finesse, the US proved it could function with Arab countries to the extent its real interests were met. The only fly in the ointment was- Israel.

Ganesh · Oct 16, 2016

MadLib said:
Syria and Iraq were hardly innocent victims. Could you imagine if Iraq had nukes when they invaded Kuwait? I believe something like 10% of the world's known oil supply was under Iraq's control after the conquest of Kuwait - and with nuclear weapons, they could have moved into Saudi Arabia (40% of the world's oil) relatively unopposed. Saddam having the ability to turn the gas on and off for us would be devastating to us economically and impact our ability to implement liberal reforms at home (think the OPEC embargo), not the least because a right-wing populist in the vein of Trump could more easily capitalize on liberal politicians' perceived weakness and impotence in fixing the problem and destroy what progress had been made.

No, those regimes, and most all others in the region, are not remotely innocent. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bit of a sidetrack here, and at any rate the stoppage of such is beyond the capability of Israel, beyond its immediate neighbours, and only then with no small amount of surprise and luck.

As for the oil, yes that is a problem, and the reason the area has seen so much turmoil and conflict. But Israel's ability to assure the flow of oil to the west is extremely marginal, if existent, and again, the nature of its founding and presence really only serves to provide yet more friction in a troubled region. It is also worth noting, just as a point to ruminate on, that even the most extreme regimes in the area, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are more than eager to sell their oil to the west, as without that they would be nothing.

Jack Hays · Oct 16, 2016

Masterhawk said:
Israel has a ppp per capita of $34,300 which is higher than that of Czech Republic ($31,600), Cyprus($32,800), Slovakia($29,700), Portugal($27,800), and Poland($26,500). None of those countries get any foreign aid so why should Israel?

View attachment 67208578

Ok, I kinda lied about Portugal and Poland not receiving foreign aid from the US but it's so tiny. For those who say that Israel needs a strong military, let me say this: Israel didn't need help repelling the first arab invasion or winning the six day war in.... well..... six days. They even have nuclear weapons.

I'm not saying that I think Israel should go away. Israel is one of the few countries in the middle east which respect different religious beliefs. Although muslims living in Israel face some discrimination, its nothing compared to what christians and atheists face in many neighboring countries. They also have the most stable government in the middle east and are one of the few democracies in the middle east + north africa.

US aid was important in Israel's victory in the Six Day War. Israel gets foreign aid because it is a democracy surrounded by undemocratic enemies.

Ganesh · Oct 16, 2016

gunner said:
I don't know, sometimes we are guilty of over complicating things. Could it be possible that America views Israel as being in a precarious situation and is fully supporting a friend surrounded by hostile neighbours?

People have friends, nations only have interests.

Jack Hays · Oct 16, 2016

Ganesh said:
People have friends, nations only have interests.

That sounds wise but it's wrong. The countries known as the "Five Eyes" (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) are actually friends, as are some others. The statement about friends vs interests is usually hauled out by a politician advocating something dishonorable.

Ganesh · Oct 16, 2016

Apocalypse said:
The notion I'm arguing against here if we weren't clear enough is the one that suggests that because of Israel and because of support for Israel the US faced terror attacks the like of 9/11, San Bernardino, etc. This is pure and simple crazy talk and should be treated as such. It has long been argued by those who oppose the 'anti-Israeli camp' that they're so obsessed with Israel and are so deeply invested in lies and made up realities concerning Israel that they'd claim anything that would help them present the entity they hold such inhuman hatred for as demonic and vile. To quote Abba Eban when he referred to the anti-Israeli nations bulk in the UN; If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. The same applies as you see to anti-Israeli propagandists such as yourself and has been demonstrated so far at several points;

A) When you refused and continue to refuse to recognize that your claim that no strategic interest is being served by the agreement is a false claim as if your life is on the line even though you are clearly aware of it.

When challenged to provide evidence of the huge support Israel provides the US, in proportion to the unprecedented aid and security guarantees it receives, your response was a list of items such as a new type of drone (one among thousands burgeoning today), new military tactics like dropping grenades on rooftops, and others of that sort. You also cited votes in the UN for such things as the Cuba embargo, and of course that old saw, Israel has great intelligence services (although you had no examples). When challenged again that these were pretty weak examples of indispensable help, you fell back on Israel being in a constant state of war. So in other words, Israel cannot come to peace terms with its neighbours, so the US has an obligation to help it fight on for another century or so. Why? You have not answered that question.

Apocalypse said:
B) When you exaggerated the magnitude of the I/P conflict to suggest that it's world-altering and of huge concern even though it really is nothing in comparison even to 5 years of civil war in Syria not in casualties and not in the effect on radicalization.

Yes, and I suppose it is nothing in comparison to the trench warfare of WW1 either. But we are not talking about either, we are discussing Israel/Palestine, and that, along with the scramble for oil, are of no doubt the defining and overriding issues of the region, from a global perspective, and have been for the last half century at least. Try to stay focused here Mr A.

Apocalypse said:
C) When you finally chose to blame Israel for attacks on Western targets as if without Israel there would be no 9/11 or no San Berandino or no Paris attacks.

I blame the terrorists that committed those crimes. My point here, stripped of the hyperbole, is that Israel's injection into the Middle East, and then its hardline approach to anything like honest negotiation of outstanding issues, is, and has been, a sore point and source of friction between the Arab world and the west, and the source and inspiration of much of the extremist and terrorist acts seen since about the 1960s. Yes, there are other issues and points of friction between the region and the west, but this is a big one, and a liability the US has taken on, for some reason, and that improved laser range finder, or better model drone reconnaissance plane, or support of the Cuba embargo, do not come close to compensating for all the angst produced over the years.

Apocalypse said:
Finally when you claim I cannot accept a "balanced view of the Mideast" that's just an overkill, as your position so far has been the most radical and out of touch with reality as it could be in relation to anything surrounding Israel, especially on the parts I stated above that are mere random and baseless remarks and thus shall not even be addressed.

My view is actually a very moderate one. Israel has done some great things. It deserves security and peace. Its violent beginnings were morally questionable and probably illegal, but given the history of the time, understandable. But I don't think Israel will ever see a real peace until it can honestly face its past, and make a deal that acknowledges that neither side is perfect in its history. Relentless spin and distortion, such as you are doing here, will only serve to discredit the nation, and ensure future animosity and lack of respect.

Why does Israel need foreign aid?

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

gunner

Surrealistik

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Ganesh

Surrealistik

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Surrealistik

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice

Ganesh

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

RetiredUSN

Surrealistik

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Surrealistik

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Ganesh

Ganesh

Jack Hays

Traveler

Ganesh

Jack Hays

Traveler

Ganesh