My figures are drawn from a Senate report that referenced USAID and the State Department.

I posted this link earlier in the debate.

We should see your source to see which are the most recent because mine reflected fiscal year 2004' and Israel receive substantially more aid than Egypt (almost a $billion more).


I see no reason to wait ten years. Thats tens of billions more dollars that are needed elsewhere.


For free?

There's a difference between aid and trade, I have no problem with Israel and the US buying from one another.

I do have a problem with giving handouts to a rich nation.

I am using the 2005 figures from the US Department, but which has aid to Israel 2.6 vs Egypt is 2.1 billion not a whole lot of difference. The government spent the equal of 25 times the combined amount on just Hurricane Katrina so far. The US is spending an amount equal to all the aid that we have provided Israel over the years per year in Iraq. Pretty small potatos to me.

Israel has provided equipment at greatly reduced costs or gratis to the United States. They have provided massive amounts of technology and intelligence also gratis. Would they be able to afford to continue, at this time I don't think so. They have also worked with the US when they have foreign sales to avoid endangering Americans. No other country does that.

Seems to be either an unhealthy fixation with Israel or as I stated a tempest in a teapot, considering this way less than one tenth of a percentage of the budget.

Well you certainly seem to be doing your level best to make that point...

For my part, I do not regard the multiple billions of 'aid dollars' poured into Israel, regardless of any constraints on behalf of the Israeli's as well as the billions yet to come, as 'small potato's'.

I am well sensible of turnea's point that this money could be doing a lot of good some where in the world instead of propping up Israel's arms industry.

As for the Egyptians, the ONLY reason they are getting any military aid from the USA is because the Israeli's are. Cut the money to Israel and you can cut the money to Egypt as well.


With regards to the other points you made. The USAF may indeed use avionics from Israel, but I doubt very much if this is because the USA needs Israel to produce its avionics. I find it far more likely that the Israeli's need the USAF to buy their product.

From your posts though, it almost sounds like a threat from the Israeli side. Cut our lucrative funding and we'll start dealing with the Chinese and your airforce will be grounded...

I don't know about any one else, but that sounds like blackmail to me.


Pure Rubbish.

Israel has repeatedly attempted to circumvent the USA and deal with unscrupulous nations like the Chinese and only American vigilance has prevented it in the past.

Israel has also been caught, repeatedly, spying on the US and stealing classified information and technology.

Also, many other countries quietly deal with the USA when engaged in foreign sales to protect the USA. I know for a fact that Denmark does this. I also know that Danish companies, in particular Mærsk Sealand, have often provided services, free of charge to the US military in times of need.

There is nothing 'unique' about Israel cooperation with the USA except in the propaganda Israel puts out to high light its 'special relationship' with the USA to justify its continue suckling at Americas breast.

No. As Funwayo [welcome to AD by the way] said...they simply don't need it. Israel is by far the strongest military power in the Middle East and is capable of repellling any attack directed at it, without our help. I do understand the point that "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" though, however when I say we should stop giving it MILITARY aid, I also believe that we should continue to stand by Israel politically and remain a close ally. Being close with a country and giving it money are not mutually exclusive.


I would have to see the actual numbers, but I think we should be giving them as close to nothing as possible...they simply don't need our help.

CP

I can agree since the US has been reducing aid to Israel, Egyptian aid should be reduced as well.

As for blackmail, hardly more like a reality check. Israel has to defend itself and provide for it's citizens. This takes money, and the reality of situation in the world advanced military technology is a ready source for income.

Israel has no attempted to circumvent the USA. The Phalcon deal was presented to the US and the US voiced no objection, and it contained no US technology so Israel went ahead with the deal. It wasn't until three years later that the US said anything.

You have the spying cases backwards. There have been repeated spying by the US on Israeli technology, and intelligence, not the other way around.

As for how the US spends it's money I truly believe that is our choice.

Israel has certainly been a better ally of ours that just about all of the European allies.

Thanks to those of you who haven't gone off topic, as I see so many here have.

The issue isn't Rachel Corrie vs. the IDF, nor is it about land rights.

I want to know if it remains prudent to continue our policy of military aid to Israel. I think we should, but it should be drastically reduced. I think DTOM had a good idea of limiting aid to helping strengthen their defense industry instead of handing them our money to buy our weapons.

Isreal recieved approximately 2.15 Billion in FMF (Foreign Military Finance) and was scheduled to recieve about 100 million more for the 2005 fiscal year.

The diverse Israeli defense industry is reportedly worth about 3.5 Billion

Now, I believe that we should help Israel strengthen their defense industry but we're giving more and more money to Israel that, for one, I believe is too much, and two could be better spent domestically.

I believe that Israel does not need this large and ever increasing flow of money because:

- The mere possibility of Israeli nukes are a deterrent.

- If they aren't, our military pledge is. No country would dare invade Israel with our support behind them.

Our pledge to defend Israel is deterrent enough for any country who wishes to launch a massive operation.

This money could be spent on numerous domestic causes, or even help with international causes that need more fof our attention, like fightingAfrican poverty and disease.

This would also benefit us politically because we'll be seen less and less of a "puppet master" in the region and could ease ways for promoting regional stability.

I think this is a wrong assumption. Compare your view with how former Israeli top-officials look at this issue.


http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Israel

This enormous U.S. aid is obviously not helping in solving the whole conflict in the middle east. Increased military spending leads to an intensification of the conflict. All this money, in my opinion, should be spend on more important issues.



???? ????

I won't go into that one ....

To all:

The reduction of aid is not a reduction of military aid. The reduction leading to elimination is for ESF [Economic Support Funds] [the military aid is FMF, Foreign Military Financing]. The theory is that the reduction leading to elimination will allow Israel to become economically independent/self-sufficient [I'll let you figure out why Israel would like to be such, but for a hint via elimination, it is not ego/pride]. The phase out is supposed to be over 10 years, with $120 million in reduction each year, but $60 million of that reduction will be transferred to military aid, and so, at the end of the 10 years, Israel will receive $2.4 billion per year in military aid.

The aid given to Israel over time otherwise breakdowns as follows:

From 1949 to 1973, Israel received $3.1 billion in aid from the U.S., with roughly half of that going to Israel between 1971 and 1973 as military loans. Prior to 1971, Israel had received only $277 million in military aid, all as loans. We otherwise maintained an arms embargo against Israel from 1947-1962 [we were hoping to avoid an arms race]. The embargo ended when Kennedy persuaded Congress to provide missiles to Israel [in 1962]. During the Six Day War, LBJ reimposed the embargo.

In 1968, after the Arab League rejected an Israeli peace/settlement offer, Congress persuaded LBJ to go along with the sale of Phantom fighter-interceptors to Israel. That was the first time that we gave Israel the qualitative edge it needed to oppose the rather numerically superior Arab armies. In 1971, Nixon proposed the first large military loans and in 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, Israel received its first military grant in aid from the U.S.

Since 1974, aid packages to Israel have been between $2-3 billion per year, though the breakdown of that aid has changed. At the start, the split between ESF and FMF was about equal, with the FMF slightly larger than the ESF. In 1981, Israel began receiving its ESF as grants, and four years later, its FMF also began to be received entirely by way of grant. In 1987, the FMF was $1.8 billion and the ESF $1.2 billion, and so it remained over the course of the next 12 years.

But so the picture is clear, I will call that "regular" aid. "Irregular" aid included various packages such as that following the Camp David Accords, wherein Israel received $2.2 billion in ESF loans and $800 million in FMF grants. In 1998, following the Wye River Accords, Israel received $1.2 billion over three years to help pay for withdrawing troops from Gaza and the West Bank. The ESF Israel has received has, in no small part, gone to repaying prior loans made to Israel by the US. Military aid is, again, largely reserved for the purchase of weapons. Israel's annual defense budget is about 10% of GDP, or $10 billion. So, the $2 billion or so received is roughly one-fifth of the total defense budget.

Oh, one more to complete the picture. Israel receives its aid in lump sum payments, which are used whenever possible to purchase US bonds, which of course, bear interest. So we can count the method of lump sum payment as providing further aid via the interest accruing on the purchased US bonds [and for a selfish motive in continuing the same, it helps strengthen the US bond market].


Now, for Julian:

Re the 1967 borders. Israel will NEVER return to those borders and no one should expect them to do so. The narrow waist of the country prior to the Six Day War more or less made the country indefensible. Well, there's the old narrow waist and also the rather small size of the country [in purely geographic terms]. Prior to the Six Day War, the planning was for Israel to begin its initial deployment in event of war IN ENEMY TERRITORY. You've heard the phrase "strategic depth", yes? Prior to 1967, Israel had none. Which is why they will never go back to the 1967 borders. I otherwise believe that a modern tank could drive from the eastern border of that old narrow waist to the Mediterranean in something less than one hour, with such a move quite literally tearing Israel in two. And while military control of an area might be preferable to no control, such control does not provide the same impetus and motivation to secure the necessary territory as does having some of your own quite literally living there. And so that area has and will continue to be settled [and some other areas as well]. Lastly, on this point, that was one reason why Israel pre-emptively launched the Six Day War, i.e., they had no strategic depth. The other reason was simply that Israel does not maintain a large standing army and relies on the mobilization of reserves in event of war. Going back to size, because the population of Israel is relatively small, and because of the reliance on mobilized reserves, Israel cannot afford to maintain a military call-up for a long period of time lest the Israeli economy crumble [i.e., Israel can't have almost its entire fighting age male population on military duty and expect to have an economy for long]. And so they launched the Six Day War.

And re Israel, Egypt and peace. Israel and Egypt have already made peace, so no need to nudge them [vis-a-vis each other]. Egyptian influence on the rest of the Arab world is largely illusory, since one of the problems Israel had during the decade surrounding the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars is that first Nasser and Assad, and then Sadat and Assad, were vying for the leadership of the Arab world [Sadat finally came to his senses and understood that Egypt's economy would always remain in the rubbish bin so long as Egypt was more or less perpetually at war or on a war-footing with Israel and he was murdered for coming to that understanding and putting it into practice].

Re Muslim popular opinion. Well, that would also change to some degree if the Arab world had a free press and received reliable information from something other than a state-controlled media. The opinion on Israel is otherwise mixed, since along with the hate is also admiration for their military and other success [such other success, by the way, serves to rub the Palestinian wound raw].

Re why Jewish persons might be moving to the West Bank. The part that the Palestinian Arabs and their misinformed and misguided supporters never tell one about, to wit, the expulsion of Jews from the West Bank following Israel's War of Independence. While the misguided, miscreant loons who are currently settling in Hebron are just that, more than a few other Jews were expelled from their "ancestral" homes in Hebron [and other places as well]. So if anyone wishes to speak of some "right of return," I would hope that such anyone would have the good grace to include their right of return as well [but they never do, thereby demonstrating either their malice or their ignorance, and with no reference to you].


Now, for Moif:

Are you claiming that our NSA does not intercept Israeli government and military communications? So we spy on them as well, so let's drop the feigned injury to US pride.


One last note for all. Helicopter gunships on the West Bank. Some of us would like some of you to put that into proper context. You do recall, yes, those two Israeli soldiers who took a wrong turn while driving in the West Bank and found themselves in the middle of a Palestinian funeral procession? And they were set upon, and then "rescued" and taken to a PA police station, but such station was literally overwhelmed, and the two soldiers were then beaten, lit on fire, and otherwise murdered. And we all saw that Palestinian "gentleman" waving his bloody hands from that window after the fact? And Deborah Sontag of the NY Times reported that she observed the after the murders celebration which included a "parade" route and such exhortations as "here is where we beat his face, here is where we gouged his eyes." At the time, more than a few Israelis called the death of those two their "lynching." The official response of the government of Israel was its first use of helicopter gunships on the West Bank [they blew the PA station to bits]. In other less angering and inflaming situations [as it were], Israel otherwise "overreacts" in a designed and purposeful attempt to get the Palestinians to understand that actions have consequences, and that the blowing up of the no. 9 bus, the Sbarro's pizza joint, and Rachel Levy, is going to cost them rather much, so please think about what you are doing before you do it, since the consequences will be brutal and violent. And we in the West may not understand that, but most of those Arabs who still retain in large measure the mindset of their ancestors, when there was no effective police force, will understand that revenge becomes a form of deterrence, to wit, the rather brutal and violent response sending the message that we are essentially strong and so it was most foolhardly for you to have violated us....

So you claim, but I was thinking of the J10 rather than the Phalcon.

Lots of nations were sold the F16, as far as I am aware, Israel is the only one that gave the tech to the Chinese so they could build the J10. Of course Israel denies this most strenuously... but then Israel also denied that Jonathon Pollard was a spy as well...


Oh, without a doubt... but the matter at hand is the military aid paid by the USA to Israel, not the other way round.


Yes, I'd like to think so. Unfortunately I think its more likely that the USA has no choice at all but has been forced into paying vast sums of money to Israel due to special interest groups in the US.


Really?

How many troops does Israel have in Afghanistan then? or Iraq?

If Israel is such a great ally, why does the USA have to operate spy's against Israel as you've just pointed out?

What exactly is it the USA is paying all those billions of dollars of military aid for?

Israel isn't an ally. Its an expensive liability.



KivrotHaTaavah

I am not American and I can assure you pride in America is not any issue of mine.

Second, That the USA spies on Israel makes no difference in this context because Israel is the one biting the hand the feeds it... not the USA.

If the USA were receiveing billions of dollars in military aid from Israel, then I'd accept the comparison.

Hmm I'm not sure what you were seeing. The only things I saw being burnt down was synagogues by Hamas. I don't really see your average Palestinian having much use for those. Second, the destruction and looting was of buildings that were already trashed by Israelis. The pictures I remember were of an Israeli taking a sledge hammer to his former house so that the Palestinain moving in would have to deal with it.

The point is, destruction of property does not automatically mean they don't want independece. Just look at the riots after a championship in America.

I think the issue of aid goes much deeper than a tit-for-tat relationship or anything else- you have to ask yourself- why does Jewish poeple get a homeland in a place they had not lived in for about 2000 years? Why do we support them so heavily as a nation in the first place?

All the way through my fundamentalist upbringing they answered this question- because the end times will not come until the Temple is rebuilt. They also quoted the verse "those that bless my poeple are blessed, those that curse my poeple are cursed"- so that the US will reap untold bounty by supporting Gods poeple.

This is really the heart of our unquestioning loyalty to a country that is not loyal to us. They have intentionallly fired upon and murdered our sailors. They have spied on us.

That nation (seperating for a moment the Jewish poeple from the nation of Isreal) is THE reason we have instability in that region- that whole region would not be as unstable IMHO without Great Britains and the US's intervention in that area in the first place. Oh well, hindsite is 20/20 I suppose.

But- Isreal has not been a good steward of our dough. They have killed our sailors, spied on us, and developed Nukes. In other words, in the middle east, they are the ONLY ACTUAL nation with WMDs- and makes no bones about using them if neccesary. If anything, we should be hitting them with sanctions!

So, the question is - why? When there is so much of a greater need around the world?

2 reasons-

1) A great PAC and lobbyist (s)
2) A great deal of religious fanatics in the US that want to see the "rapture" in thier lifetime.

Actually, it is much longer then that. It is, in any sense of the word, ludicrous. It would be like England claiming part of United States now. Or Spain claiming South America, and Portugal Brasil and so forth, it was theres.. Less then 200 years ago..


The Biggest amount of Jews in the world happens to reside in United States. So why do not they make it their "home country"? Could it be that the United States does not like jews? Are they really anti-semetic, and just want to get rid of the jews (hence Palestine conflict?).


The closest thing the Jewish population have (an amount of around 15 million worldwide) that would resemble a "home country", is United States of America. However you wish to debate it, it would simple make sense that United States would acknowledge this, and solve it once and for all.

1.) Of course, Israel should never be without American military aid. America is protecting a free nation where democracy rules and peace is preferred (though not attainable it seems) and that is a treasure, especially in the middle-east, worthy of protecting.

2.) Increased, Israel is under the threat of every Arab nation wanting to wipe them out. Complete extermination would befall the land of Israel if we appeared to not care or abandon the country, it is important that Israel be maintained and perfected security-wise.

3.) Reduction would be folly at this stage of terror.

Should Israel continue to recieve military aid from the United States?

No- our artificle propping up of this nation for no other reason than wishing for some kind of biblical prophecy is causing American casualties and is throwing good money at a bad hole in the ground. Isreal is the reason we even have an unstable middle east- no Isreal, much less problems. We can just evacuate all Jews to the US. The end of Isreal as a nation is no great sorrow or loss. Only loss of innocent poeple would be- so evacuate the nation and let the Arabs have it.

If so, why? Should it be reduced or increased?

Eliminated completely, sanctions by all nations of the world until they give up every WMD- they are the only actual nation in that area to have them, and plans to use them. They need to be isolated and punished for this alone.

It has never been in America's best interest to help this false construct of a nation- it has been only to appease the strong religious right's view on the "end times'.

CR, isn't your post a bit hypocritical when you rail against Israel's policies on one hand yet call for ethnic cleansing on the other?
Or a bit hypocritical when you blame the religious right for propping up Israel, yet conveniently forget the democratic administrations and the large number of pro-Israel liberals who have committed just as much 'propping'?


Followers of Manifest Destiny said much the same of the Indian Nations..........

Come, come... you surely cannot accept that the reason we protect a democracy and an ally is simply for bible-thumpers delight and anticipation? We protect Israel because it is a staging ground for American troops and interests in the mid-east, we need not worry about an embassy bombing from natives of Israel, moreover we must concern ourselves with Arab terrorists... or perhaps I just made your point.

Yes, we can evacuate all of the Jews to America, but I do not think many would be willing to come. They did not have a homeland until the U.N. gave them one. They will die for their homeland, for the very idea that there is a place to call home. They are united under the flag of Israel and as a country who helped give them that flag I say it is foolish to hoist the mainsails and return home without a backwards glance.

Israel is not a false construct, it is a sovereign nation with elections, with taxes, with citizens. We cherish Israel for being an ally, and although weak in comparison to the Arab nations wanting their blood they are far from weak, the Mossad are more efficient that our own intelligence community and we benefit from their information every single day. False construct? I think that term would have been appropriate fifty years ago when Israel was just an idea.

And the end of these so-called palestinians would be a great sorrow or loss... how? Israel is NOT the reason the middle east is unstable, Arabs are the reason it's unstable. If tomorrow these "palestinians" put down their guns, there would be no more war. If tomorrow the Israelis put down their guns, there would be no more Israel. Besides, your statement is the height of hypocrisy as it's coming from someone who is sitting in Alaska. Care to be "evacuated" so that your state can be given back to Russia? For that matter, everyone in the US should be evacuated to whatever continent their ancestors are from so that the Indians can have their land back. Too bad Indians haven't started blowing up busses and killing children yet.

If so, why? Should it be reduced or increased?

I actually do believe that military aid should be stopped, but for a different reason than most. If we totally pull ourselves out of that conflict, there will be no one holding Israel on a leash anymore. The fact that we do to begin with is mindboggling to me. At that point, they would be free to deal with those barbarians in whatever way they felt like, and this whole mess would be resolved in a matter of weeks. Anyone else in the middle east that so much as raises their voice would be next.

I can't agree with this. I don't believe the Arabs have any more right to the land than the Jews do. The land belongs to the people, whom so ever they are. It doesn't belong to one ethnic group over the other.

There were always Jews living in Palestina and the state of Israel was founded with a UN mandate. That Israel acts the way it does and that the Israeli's have ethnically cleansed Palestinians to make way for their own expansion does not mean the state of Israel has no moral foundation.

Also, I don't agree that the removal of Israel would make any difference to the current culture of 'loserdom' that the Arabs have created in the face of overwhelming western and Jewish superiority. It would merely mean the Arabs would have to look for a new scapegoat to explain away the problems they themselves have created.


I do not believe that Israel should be cast adrift. NO democratic nation should be isolated in this manner.

The withdrawal of military aid I can agree with, even advocate, since I do not believe Israel needs it at all and it helps to perpetuate the culture of violence and the indifference to civilian casualties in IDF actions.

I also agree that Israel should be brought to account for its nuclear chemical and biological weapons. It doesn't matter whether or not they signed some treaty or other. Just having such weapons puts Israel beyond the pale, as it does any other nation...

But, when it comes to ordinary aid, I see no reason why the USA shouldn't provide some support to Israel, though I think there are many other nations more in need.

This is exactly what the Arab nations think. By using Israel as a "staging ground" and to our ensure our SELF-interest in the Middle East legitamizes the Arab world's anger with America. Now not only is Israel a threat to them but the US is by association. Both of the reasons you gave are centered around military superiority over the Arabs so of course they're going to lash out at America. Our military support for Israel has become a liability and subjected us to attacks that took innocient American lives. While I don't think that Israel would be over run by Arab states if the US cut funding tomorrow, we can always jump in and help them out just like we did Kuwait.

psyclist

You can't help them if they are all dead...

I'm a bit puzzled by VDemosthenes idea of Israel being a staging ground for the USA... just exactly what has the US ever staged from Israel?
Anything?
Nothing springs to my mind.
Perhaps loreng59 can think of something...?

Nor can I think of any hostile situation where Israel would gladly accept US troops on the ground in Israel. The central ethos of the Israeli government (regardless of who is in power) seems to be to make Israel strong enough to stand on its own and defend itself.

The Jews have long memories and they know all too well that today's benefactors can become tomorrows oppressors.

So, I don't think Israel wants to be liberated by the USA or be a US staging post either. They want the means to defend themselves and they want to be independent of any other military power.

There are only two instances that I can think of. The US Air Force conducted Operation Nickel Grass in 1973 to re-supply Israeli Armed Forces for around 30 days and we did deploy Patriot Missile batteries to Israel during Desert Storm to combat the SCUD threat.
The Israeli Arrow II system should negate the need for a repeat of that. I can't think of any other operational deployment. We have conducted joint training in the Negev Desert many times, but training only.

Unless the biblical Armageddon actually takes place, I can't forsee anything on a massive scale happening.

Why don't we take the Palestinians instead? Or, you would rather have educated, highly skilled, westernized Jews here? Or, the better question is, why can't Jordan and Syria, two neighboring arab nations, take Palestinians, the people who share the same language and culture?
Nobody ever heard of a ethnic group called "Palestinians" until fairly recently. From Wikipedia:


Also, it's a common misconception that Jews didn't live in Palestine for 2000 years. According to the book Jews in Palestine in 1820s, long before Zionism movement, the population of Jerusalem had 10,000 Jews, roughly the half of the entire city's population.

The J10 was nothing to do with the F16, try the Lavi, remember that one an Israeli design that was far superior to the F16 and the US did not want it to get to market. Again Israeli technology, not American. Wrong plane, wrong technology.

Pollard has nothing to do with this, but he was passing along information that the US agreed to trade with Israel and then refused. Over 20 years in prison is another story. No American spy has ever service any time.

How America decides to spend it's money is none of Europes business. It is ours.

Israel has been asked not to supply troops because the administration is still kissing up to the Arabs. You must also note that Israel does not want American troops in their country. Why, because it's not America's fight.

Why would the American's want superior technology, gee I might be able to think of a reason or two, just a guess there though.

I suppose that depends on which source you read:

Link.


Link.



Pollard has everything to do with this. He is an Israeli spy caught spying on the USA.

Link.

It seems to me that Pollard, and the many other cases of Israel abusing western democracies like New Zealand and Canada for blatant own gain is the perfect example of how Israel treats its 'allies'.



Without a doubt, but pray tell me where does Europe factor into all this? I am not aware that Europe has made any move to stop the USA sending military aid to Israel.

Perhaps you are trying to imply that I, as a European have no business telling America how to spend their money. If so, then allow me to point out that this is a political debate forum, open to any one who abides by its rules, and you don't decide upon which subjects I am justified in expressing my opinion.



Israel has been 'asked' not to supply troops because Israeli troops would only exasperate any situation involving Arab nations. This means Israeli troops are a liability, which is what I said. Israel is a liability because the USA cannot rely on it for any sort of military alliance.

Selling avionics to the USAF does not make Israel an ally. It makes Israel a business partner.



What superior technology?

This is an interesting point. No other country in the world gets attacked over and over, and hears urges of "restraint" from the USA. If we pull our aid, the Israelis could unleash hell on the barbarians in the West Bank and Gaza, win decisively, and end the conflict. No other peace I'm aware of has ever started without one side or the other "winning."

sorry but relating to our prior off-topic discussion ...Click here to see a yahoo photo of Palestinians swarming the car of their newest dead Islamic Jihad leader, who was bombed by Israel over the weekend. The guy on the left is expressing his solidarity with Rachel Corrie by wearing a Caterpillar T-Shirt. He doesn't get irony either.