Over the course of this past summer, I've begun, slowly but surely, to ponder on the amount foreign aid that the U.S. hands out and how it affects our country as a whole financially and politically. In a future thread, I will look to examine our relationships with numerous countries overall, but I wanted to make a thread specifically for discussion on our military aid to the nation of Israel.

That particular relationship we have with them has always been ripe with controversey and debate.

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

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

If not, why? How much do you think it should be reduced?

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

The answer to this lies in whether or not you agree it is in the interests of the US to do so.

One one hand, such aid helps Israel survive in a hostile climate. On the other, it riles up the opponents of Israel and increases their distaste for the United States.

It is a balancing act. The US has been an ally of Israel since its inception and yet has never lent it military aid directly. It does supply money for its military budget, which keeps its angry neighbors at bay.

Since I believe in the concept of "Peace Through Strength", I feel that our aid to Israel keeps a war from breaking out, which is worth it.

Should it be reduced or increased?

As long as the situation in the Middle East remains a stalemate, then the current level seems to be sufficient.

Every president since the 1967 war has made it clear that they regarded the West Bank settlements in occupied territory as a violation of international law, yet we have continue to give more aid to Israel than any other country. The settlements have grown to such an extent that it is now politically impossible for Israeli leaders to withdraw from all of them in return for peace.

In addition, the laws governing US aid make it clear that such aid should not be used for aggressive purposes, yet Israel has used US equipment recklessly in civilian areas of Palestine and Gaza. This administration failed even to protest the reckless crushing of Rachel Corrie with a bull dozer when she was trying to protest the destruction of Palestinian homes.

I have always favored that the US should act to guaranty Israel's survival but our aid has gone far beyond that. We have made them into a regional bully. Furthermore, our aid is one of the main reasons for Arab anger toward the US. Any future military or financial aid should be conditional on real concessions to the Palestinians!

Here is a fact sheet on American aid to Israel (not just military aid).

I agree with Ted on every single point which is unusual for me on anything. I would however expand the "real concessions" to the Palestinians to a full honoring of UN resolution 242 which entails a pullback by Israel to the 1967 greenline (With minor mutually agreeable adjustments) as part of an overall peace settlement. The stick of withdrawing funds should be matched by the carrot of a willingness to fund much of the costs of the withdrawal and an offer to participate in a transitional peace force buffer between the two sides.

I also feel the issue of Israel's nuclear weaponry and their refusal to accept inspections needs to be addressed. Their noncompliance makes it harder to justify holding emerging nuclear countries like Iran to account.

Thanks for the link, Ted, but I'd like to keep the focus on our military aid to Israel because that aid in particular is the most controversial.

Why should Israel pull back to 1967 borders when it was Israel who was attacked in 1967? To the victor go the spoils. By that reasoning, Russia should return Kuril Islands which it reclaimed from Japan after WWII; Transilvania should go back to Hungary; half of California should go back to Mexico, etc.

As for Israel nuclear weaponry... what was the last time we allowed inspections of our nuclear arsenal? Or Great Britain? Or France? I feel that any sovereign country has a right to refuse any weapon inspections which could jeopardize its national security.

Because the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, which was definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war.



Would you apply the same thinking to Iran? Why should the US continue to give money to a country that refuses to sign the NPT?

The US Arms Export Control Act (AECA) strictly forbids the government from giving military assistance to any country that violates internationally recognized human rights. The construction, route and operation of Israel's separation barrier inside the West Bank violate international human rights and humanitarian law. So we're breaking our own laws by giving Israel money. I think America needs to start holding all countries to the same rules and regulations instead of playing favorites.

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

Yes, as long as the threat from every surrounding arab nation exists, but in the form below. To quote Rudy Giuliani - “Israel is an oasis of freedom in a desert of authoritarianism ... an outpost of democracy where democracy is unique."

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

It should be reduced. America is at a critical juncture where we need to scale back foreign aid and unnecessary programs. Israel produces it's own outstanding tanks, assault rifles and aircraft, not to mention their alleged nuclear capabilities. Aid should be given, not in outright money, but partnerships in research and development and technological aid.

If not, why? How much do you think it should be reduced?

I'll defer to the pointy headed bean counters to assess the value of my above proposal, but it should be a fraction of the checks we write to Israel.



Defunct, unenforced diplomacy. What country has abided by the pact since 1928? Thinking that war cannot change borders is naive and assumes a level of human chivalry that is long since dead.

Well, the US State Department has it as one of its Treaties in Force. Can you explain why it's defunct? I can see unenforced...but most of the international resolutions and laws that would harm Israel are unenforced. And what's so wrong with diplomacy? By your reasoning, we should be able to start building giant settlements in Iraq.

Really... so what was the second world then?

A sporting event?


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

No.


If not, why? How much do you think it should be reduced?

It should be reduced by the same amount Israel makes peddling weapons to third world countries.

Israel is the fifth largest weapons producer on the planet. It doesn't need aid from the USA and only continues to recieve it because of the powerful Israeli lobby network that has a blatent stranglehold on US politics.

All this talk of Israel being supported because it 'is a democracy' is pure nonesense. Chile was also a democracy before the CIA helped to oust the democratically elected governement and install the dictator Augusto Pinochet on 11 Sept 1973.

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



If even Israelis are questioning your military aid, why continue?

To my knowledge, the Kellog-Briand pact does no such thing. It was a renunciation of aggressive war, and certainly didn't set state boundaries forever. text of the treaty

Should Israel continue to recieve military aid from the United States? Yes. We are morally and legally obligated to do so. Morally because it is a rare true functional democracy in the middle of a cesspool and legally under the Camp Davids accords.

If so, why? Should it be reduced or increased? See above. I don't think we should provide more that we are legally obligated to do. I think the figure is something around 1.7 billion military aid for Israel, and 1.3 for Egypt (no one seems to bring up Egypt much in these discussions). I think that is plenty.

Oh boy where to start? There is so much going on and I have been away a long time.

TedN5 "Every president since the 1967 war has made it clear that they regarded the West Bank settlements in occupied territory as a violation of international law"
Nope you are very mistaken in every word written. No US president has ever said that and in fact declared the opposite. Please cite a source. Second the US did not provide any aid until 1973 your source is a PLO propaganda site.

Dingo "a full honoring of UN resolution 242 which entails a pullback by Israel to the 1967 greenline"
That is not what UNSC 242 says at all. Please reread that resolution. The authors of the resolution state the opposite.

Dingo "I also feel the issue of Israel's nuclear weaponry and their refusal to accept inspections needs to be addressed. Their noncompliance makes it harder to justify holding emerging nuclear countries like Iran to account."
They are not in noncompliance, they did not sign the NPT so how can they violate a treaty that they are not a member of?

psyclist "Because the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, which was definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war."
Better tell that to a number of nations including Pakistan because they have done so. Also since the UN Charter states that the land West of the Jordan River belongs to the Jews they acquired it via a treaty not war. It is legally theirs to do with what they will.

psyclist "Would you apply the same thinking to Iran?"
The did sign the NPT and received technical aid for it, Israel did not.

psyclist "I think America needs to start holding all countries to the same rules and regulations instead of playing favorites."
I see we should treat nations friendly to us the same as we treat countries at war with us, rather insane idea.

Should Israel continue to receive military aid from the United States?
I think that Israel is big enough to support themselves. I think that they should cut aid to the US. That would effectively ground the entire US Air Force just for starters. If you think that this has been a one way street, you would be surprised to learn that Israeli technology and equipment is used throughout the entire spectrum. Besides then Israel will be free to supply advanced weapons to India and China without the US stopping the sales.

If so, why? Should it be reduced or increased?
I think that it should be reduced. US aid has greatly harmed the internal Israeli economy.

If not, why? How much do you think it should be reduced?
About 20% per year reduction, they would do better without it. And the Israeli government would finally be answerable only to Israelis.

Looks like I get to whip out that Senate Report on Foreign Aid again.
Source Link(PDF)
Last year the United States gave Israel about 2.62 billion dollars in aid.

Israel is by no means either poor or helpless.

Discounting Iraq, Israel is our #1 recipient of foreign aid even more than Afghanistan or many of the poorest countries on Earth combined.

It really makes little sense as Israel's per capita income makes them a rich country by world standards. Israelis in general enjoy all the creature comforts Americans hold dear.

Meanwhile people in Africa, parts of Asia, and Latin America go starving and die by the millions of preventable disease due to lack of health funding...

My answer should be clear. If Israel wants something from the US it can pay for it. The aid should drop substantially and be shifted to countries and causes in actual need of those funds.

I find the "fiscal discipline" angle on this a weak one, though. Seeing as if the US cut all foreign aid or doubled it, it would have almost no appreciable affect on the economy and very little on the deficit compared to our other funding areas.

Remember foreign aid is less than 1% of the federal budget.

That's how little we give as a proportion of our income.

[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,Sep 21 2005, 10:28 AM]
[quote=psyclist,Sep 20 2005, 02:56 PM]Because the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, which was definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war.

[/quote]
To my knowledge, the Kellog-Briand pact does no such thing. It was a renunciation of aggressive war, and certainly didn't set state boundaries forever. text of the treaty[quote]Senator SWANSON. The term "self-defense" is not confined to defense of any territory, but any national may send troops into any territory where it may be necessary for its self-defense.
[/quote]

From what I read, the Kellog-Briand act was the basis for the decisions made at the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948. So it was Nuremberg were the ruling came about, not from the treaty. I'll try and read up on it as well as address other posts after work.

The German Reich signed on to the pact, and then launched an aggressive war. Japan did the same. Israel didn't launch an aggressive war, and the argument could be made that the occupied territory is fundamental to their defense as they were attacked. The pact doesn't set a time limit on occupation as deemed necessary for defensive purposes. Furthermore, Israel didn't exist at the time it was drawn. Is Israel even a signatory to begin with? I doubt it.

Edited to add: Link to signatories. Israel isn't one of them.

Foreign aid is not given on the basis of need, as we are not the world's keepers. It is given based on what we can get out of it. Those desiring a shift of funds from Israel to these other parts of the world need to make a case of how we will benefit from that shift, not how the recipients will. In the same vein, any arguments that we should continue aid to Israel at the current level would need to demonstrate that we are essentially getting our money's worth out of the deal, otherwise it should be reduced. Vague statements such as 'they are the only democracy in the Middle East' show no quantitative benefit...we shouldn't be spending billions of dollars with no better idea of what we're getting out of it than that.

That is a judgment call, not a hard and fast rule.

A responsible policy maker would reject self-interest as the primary reason for foreign aid.

The fact is, we are all the world's keepers, whether we choose to live up to the responsibility or not.

I understand why you would say this, but I disagree completely with this in practice. Pragmatism drives all foreign policy. One can argue whether that should or should not be true, but that ignores the basic fact that it is indeed true. Everyone does everything in their own self-interest. What is the basic goal of any of our foreign diplomats? Protecting our interests. The interest of the other countries are essentially irrelevant, unless they impact our interests. This is simply true. This doesn't preclude 'humanitarian' projects...it just changes the motivation for doing them. This is why so many 'global' initiatives fail to get anything done..they ignore the basic premise that drives all foreign policy. This 'Don Quixote' approach seldom works...they would be much more successful if they recognized this basic premise, and worked within it, demonstrating how the various countries themselves would benefit from funding various humanitarian or other 'global' issues, rather than emphasizing the 'need' that exists.

So, with that in mind, I stand by my initial comments...aid to Israel needs to be examined in this light, as well as aid to any other countries. If we get more perceived benefit from giving aid to Isreal than we do to other causes, then that is where the aid will go. Arguing otherwise is, IMHO, a pointless exercise. All of human history and human psychology demonstrate this.

Strictly speaking, you are correct. Only the Carter Administration overtly regarded the settlements as illegal. However, the US did go along with UN resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471 which described the settlements as being illegal. (See this neutral site). To be perfectly correct, I should have stated that every US administration since 1967 has opposed the expansion of the settlements. The meaning of my statement remains valid for purposes of this topic. We have continued to give huge amounts of aid to Israel despite its continuing expansion of the settlements over US and world objections.

It is too bad that you are correct, because those resolutions contradict 4 international laws and treaties and have no legal basis. The UN Charter states just the opposite, but that is not the matter at hand.

Since the year 2000, US aid to Israel has fallen from 4.1 billion to 2.6 billion a year, Egypt is getting 2.1 billion a year. So I would say that aid has been reduced by over 1/3 already.

Not only do I disagree with that assertion, I suspect you may not be entirely clear on its implication.


Pragmatism
In short, pragmatism is about results. Focus on results is not always predicated by self-interest.

One can be pragmatic in pursuit of any goal, the goal itself is a judgement call, however.


There is nothing inevitable about self-interest as a primary concern. One can just as easily choose to be concerned about another's need both on the personal and national levels.

Examine your assumption here, I think you will find you are stating what appears obvious, declaring a postulate rather than reaching a logical conclusion.

I argue that the relative severity of a need be part of the decision making process. The life-and-death concerns of the poor world outweigh the minor political concerns of Israel or even the minor financial concerns of the US.

I would rather see millions of people living and the US spending a little more money than see millions dead and the US pinching pennies.

I agree with every word of this sentiment (Another first!) Perhaps Syria should look at the Golan Heights as a "lesson learned" not to attack these guys? Ditto Egypt and Jordan, respectively.


Well, except for being surrounded on all sides by adherents to a radical death cult who are willing to die themselves in order to push the Jews into the sea. But yeah, they have cable TV and good Italian restaurants.

Your point on foreign aid as a % of GDP is valid (although it excludes private donations I believe). However, I don't see how a specific couple of billion for Israeli military aid is such an affront vs. the billions in sugar subsidies or millions to study frog mating or whatever. There are plenty of spending targets worth picking off before we get to Israeli military aid.


Rachel Corrie (seen here burning a homemade US flag) was protesting with the International Solidarity Movement. They did such a nice job that the weapon-smuggling tunnels remained open, and the Palestinians were able to get enough guns through to kill several Israeli children in Sderot. I'm proud to live in a country that funds Israeli killer bulldozers, considering the alternative. Made right here in Illinois!

Yes, pragmatism was perhaps not the best word here, it only explains part of how I think foreign policy works. I think foreign policy is not only imminently pragmatic, as opposed to idealistic, but also inherently selfish.



I could debate this, but I think that goes beyond what the real question here is. I do think it is a fact that current foreign policy is motivated by self-interest, and that anyone trying to accomplish a broader goal would get better results if they worked within that assumption, rather than butting heads with it.



Is there any other conclusion to reach if you examine foreign policy decisions? But, I think we're debating around ourselves here. I suspect you are postulating what should be, whereas I am describing how I think things are.



Yes, now we are at the root of the issue. I state that the only relevant concern in how we form our policy is indeed our concerns. In short, the life-and-death concerns of the poor only affect our policies if that also has an effect on the U.S. I am not arguing here that it should be that way, simply that I feel it is indeed that way.



Globally, that is an easy argument to make. I am not even disagreeing with it. However, it leads to the following issue...at what point should this income redistribution then stop? It would be pretty easy to extrapolate from this to the point where income gets redistributed until everyone is in the same boat...in short, communism. I say that not to inject an inflammatory term, but merely to indicate where resistance to this concept comes from. Much better results would be achieved, IMHO, if the argument were not that we should help these people because they really need it, but that we should help these people because doing so in turn helps us. Even purely humanitarian aid helps us in that it presents a better image of us to the rest of the world, and that is certainly worth something. There are a variety of other ways in which aiding such causes does indeed create a benefit back to the US. When put in such terms, it is much harder to argue against, and therefore much easier to get funding for. You have argued in other threads about how the US (and the rest of the developed world) should be contributing more to such causes...I think the reason they don't is precisely because it is not being put forth in this manner. When push comes to shove, programs which benefit us will always get priority over programs that don't. To get humanitarian programs to move up that list, they need to be put forth in ways that demonstrate benefit to us. Arguing from an idealistic viewpoint sounds great, but has it gotten the desired results? Obviously not. I guess I am arguing that idealism needs to be put forth pragmatically

..and enough money to buy their own weapons.

The fact is no Arab state would attack Israel. If Israel where to launch a missile strike against Iran right now, it's neighbors would complain, whine and stay right were they are because Israel's military is more than a match for any of them.


Even if you add private donations it's still a low number... 15th in the world when it come to development assistance as a percentage of income. (about 0.32%)


We can do all three at once, the point remains the aid is unnecessary and an outright waste when compared to other needs.


This debate is on whether we should lower aid to Israel and that's precisely where my argument focuses.

I'm under no illusion the government will make the correct decision, I'm merely outlining what that decision is.

The fact is one cannot argue foreign policy is "inherently" selfish simply because it usually so.

Every bit selfishness in our policy comes from conscious decisions of policy makers. Don't excuse their actions by saying "that's just the way it is".

They are entirely responsible for their decisions.


It's not a matter of income redistribution. Economics is not a zero-sum game. No one is advocating hading out checks to the poor around the world, merely providing resources to finance a economy that grows itself.


..again my focus is on the correct decisions, not the likely ones. Arguing for aid either way is likely to fail as most politicians are currently unable or unwilling to consider long term gain from global poverty reduction.

It's not a matter of how the argument is phrased, they simply don't care to allocate the funds, nor will they (in this country) for quite some time.

Here it is:
UN Resolution 242

A couple of relevant quotes.
"the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security"

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"

I'm not so sure. During the first Gulf war Saddam launched scud missiles at Israel hoping to draw them in to the conflict. He did this in spite of the fact that he was losing badly at the time. He was actually hoping for an Israeli retaliation because he believed that would likely win him support and draw others in for his defense.

Dingo, the UN Resolution you are referring to requires security guarantees for the pull-back. It must be read in context and not spiced to include just the first sentence.

Actually I think he was just hoping the other Arab states would abandon their offense. In other word's quit cooperating with the coalition.

I doubt he ever dreamed they would turn around face Israeli troops.

They tried that once, didn't work out too well.

The fact is there is no reason to give away weapons to Israel.

There is no reason for them to be our #1 foreign aid recipient year after year.

Considering the other needs, the people literally dying for help, it's reprehensible that all we can seem to do is supply weapons to a state already armed to the teeth.

Changes nothing. Security guarantees are not what is holding Israel back. Israel will not accept a full pullback and withdrawal from the West Bank settlements under ANY circumstances.

I think satisfying our part of the Camp David agreements is plenty at this point, but I don't think you are correct when you say that Israel has nothing to fear. They are armed to the teeth because they have to be. They are surrounded by nations which want them gone, and who has come to their aid when they were invaded in the past? We might be willing to provide weapons for them, but who has ever sided with them militarily at the moment of truth? Israel is largely on its own.

..and doing just fine.

I think mentioning the previous invasion as a case for aid is a losing prospect they whipped all their neighbors at once in under a week with minimal casualties and picked up some more territory.

...and they need help?

If Israel wants something more than we are obligated by law to give(which sure isn't the 2.62 billion we gave them last year), let them buy it.

..and as soon as we can find a way out of that legal obligation, let's do so.

This statement is beyond the pale! You can believe whatever propaganda you want to about the International Solidary Movement but your demeaning of Rachel Corrie is absurd. You believe that flag burners should be run over with bulldozers? She was protesting US funding of Israeli policies (the very thing we are discussing) after refusing to burn an Israeli flag. Rachel Corrie was an idealistic young woman who believed that Palestinians were being unjustly treated and had the courage of her convictions to attempt to try to protect them. Her death was a tragedy and the fact that no independent investigation took place to determine the circumstances is criminal. For those with a less poisoned viewpoint here is a Wikipedia Article that discusses her, her death, and the requests for an investigation in words that are much more neutral than I would use.

Supporters of Likud policies should realize that they have alienated millions of people who formerly supported security guarantees for that country. There may come a time when that alienation becomes important.

Not sure whether it makes my viewpoint more or less "poisoned" but the photo I linked was in the same wikipedia article that you just linked. I included it intentionally so people could read who she was. I also linked the ISM.

Just because people are "idealistic" that doesn't mean that they are right. Especially when their actions result in the deaths of more innocents. I note your absence of outrage over the dead schoolchildren vs. the "heroic" martyr Ms. Corrie. Since when is siding with our most evil of enemies and expressing hatred for America "heroic."

Here are some "other Rachels" that deserve our sympathy. None of them was standing in front of a bulldozer. Nor are their names living on in rich hagiographic indignation like Ms. Corrie.




Right. The Palestinians want to kill Jews because of their security policies. Just like '48 and '67 and '73 and the pogroms of the 18th century and.... Give me a break. The current platform of every leading "Palestinian" organization is to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Why won't you take them at their word? Or is your threat about being "alienated" intentionally ominous?

And this kind of raw partisanship is going to do what for Israel? Both sides will argue they were playing defense in each of those occassions. How does damning a bulldozed girl and avoiding the issue of Israel's refusal to engage in peace talks based on UN guidelines involving an ultimate pull back to the 1967 territorial lines serve the cause of peace? What's your solution? Do you think we should continue to fork over 3 billion dollars a year to secure the illegal settlements? And please tell me what interest of this country is served by doing so?

1 - I wasn't aware that condemning murderous terrorists was "partisan." But, seeing as so many refuse to do so, maybe you are right.
2 - Whatever is so magical about the 1967 lines that the UN loves so much, it didn't seem to prevent their being crossed to attack Israel now did it? Do they have any right to worry when the Palestinians are lobbing mortars at them even while they withdraw from Gaza?
3 - Refusal to enter peace talks? They promised Arafat everything and he started killing children. Again, give me a break.
4 - Back to the topic, I think we all agree that military aid could be reduced, starting now and phased over several years. Of course, not all of our aid is military aid to "secure the illegal settlements" but indeed Israel should be self-sufficient and our countries should continue to share technology, equipment and intelligence.

I can't even imagine you believe that answers 1, 2, and 3 are anything other than a nakedly partisan diversion from responding to what I said. Deliberately bulldozing a peaceful demonstrator against Israeli policy is not the sort of thing one justifies accept from an emotion of extreme out of control partisanship. International UN guarantees are what legitimized the Israeli territory in the first place. It's rank opportunism to subsequently pick and choose at your convenience and drag this country along into noncompliance in the case of 1967. "Israel's refusal to engage in peace talks based on UN guidelines" is what I said. Your disingenuousness in pretending otherwise is revealing.

I don't understand "partisanship" in this context - are you accusing me of being a member of the Likud party?
I've read the interview with the bulldozer operator, a Russian immigrant with years of experience operating heavy equipment, and he says that he did not see her. Which makes sense given the limited visibility of that model. Which is why normal guidelines dictate operating it with an outside guide. Which didn't happen for whatever reason, no doubt exacerbated by the chaos generated by the "peaceful" protestors. No one seriously believes that she was "deliberately" bulldozed. She was stupid and naive and wrong, but she was still killed in a tragic accident. This kind of propaganda rivals the Palestinian fake funerals and fake murder movies.

And let's not forget - that "peaceful" protest killed Israeli schoolchildren. Weapons smuggled through the very real tunnels being "protested" killed innocent kids. Still waiting for the outrage from the "non-partisans."

The road map requires Palestinians to stop killing Jews. They have not stopped. Why do legalities matter for one side, and not the other?

carlitoswhey

And just how many people did Rachel Corrie murder?


Corrie was trying to stop the demolishing of the houses of civilian Palestinians...

Since when was trying to protect innocents equal to 'siding with our most evil of enemies'? Or are you trying to suggest that all Palestinians are 'evil enemies of the USA'?



Rachel Thaler - murdered by terrorists.
Rachel Levi - murdered by terrorists.
Rachel Gavish - murdered by terrorists.
Rachel Corrie - murdered by the IDF.

Can you spot the difference? ...or should I say, similarity? Cause what I see is murder, plain and simple and the difference is, the IDF is the military of a nation that refers to itself as a democratic nation subject to law. The others are terrorists...

But lets not beat about the bush. Rachel Corrie is but one of many demonstrators, innocent bystanders, journalists, activists and children murdered by the IDF with no regard to any laws. Neither UN, US or Israeli.

The IDF has a long, long history of gunning down people who get in their way, whether they be Palestinian, Israeli's or outsiders make no diffeerence.


Turnea is dead right in his assessment. There are many places that need the help the US pours into the middle east and the sheer quantity of money lavished on these murderous nations, whether it be Israel or Egypt makes no difference to me, its nothing short of gross corruption.

...under which there were tunnels. Through which weapons were smuggled. Complicity with terror does not make you a "civilian" nor innocent.


The weapons were real. The dead schoolchildren were real. Just because the world, including the USA, legitimizes a criminal regime on the doorstep of Israel, does not make anyone "innocent." The blame for the poor pitiful Palestinians lays right at the feed of the Arab world. They would rather create and exploit tragedy, as long as it means dead Jews and continuing their corrupt regimes.
We seem to have a different definition of murder, moif. Walking into a pizza place with a bomb around your waist, or pulling the trigger of an AK-47, that's murder. Bulldozing a home and a protester falling under debris is not murder.

Propaganda, fed by the Pali-wood studios and a compliant news media who create and show movies of intifada that doesn't even exist, in order to exort the ignorant masses to jihad and kill Jews. It's worse than Goebbels - France 2 television never showed his work as "news."

moif - a personal question - are you stupid enough to stand in front of a bulldozer in a war zone? If you did so and you were killed, would that make you a hero?

Carlitoswhey-

I find it hard to believe that you'd bring up the number of Israelis killed.



cite

Hopefully this puts an end to the pointless tennis match of who killed who and who needs to stop killing who. Both sides need to stop killing each other, that much is obvious.

Let's get back to the issue of why we support Israel and why they need it.

Over the years Israel has received billions of dollars in military aid from the United States her allies. Ever sice the emergence of Israel as a sovereign nation its defence force has been equipped to repel any invasion from an outside force. In 2005 Israel is now at a state where it can produce advanced military technology on its own. Hence, the United States should consider reducing military aid to Israel.
The United States should cut its military aid to Israel by 70%.

Rachel Corrie's death was a tragic accident, not a "murder". If anything, the bulldozer driver can be accused of "involuntary manslaughter". She deliberately put herself in a harm's way. As a person who just graduated from MSF class, one of the things they teach is to "never position your bike directly in front of the truck where 1) driver can not see you 2) driver may not be able to stop his vehicle to prevent collision.
Certainly you moif can see a difference between deaths of Rachel Corrie and victims of homicide bombings. If this is not moral relativism, I don't know what is.
I never been known on this forum for hawkish views. On contrary, I criticized Israel quite often in the past. I guess, a turning point for me was the Gaza withdrawal. That was a chance for palestinians to get something for nothing, to have a head start for their supposed dream - the nation of Palestine. All I saw was pictures of palestinians looting, burning, and breaking of greenhouses, buildings, community halls, etc. - the property and equipment that took jews years and years to build and cultivate, and that could have been used by a young Palestinian nation - was stolen, broken, demolished. I've seen quite a bit of small nations gaining independence after the collapse of Soviet Union; I have several close relatives in Lithuania, Ukraine, and other former Soviet republics. All the infrastructure and equipment left by Russians was carefully preserved and used. From Baikonur space launching station to Ignalina power plant to Opera Theater in Vilnius to heavy machinery factories in Ukraine - new governments stepped in and nationalized the inheritance left by Russians. This is the behavior of people who are ready for independence.

I'll tell you what EH. If you want to trash your home for whatever reason (Maybe you feel you want to clean out the bad spirits) be my guest. I can assure you there will be no "turning point" in my feelings about your right to your property because your standards are different from mine. Bulldozing Palestinian homes and running over protestors in the process is neighbor trashing. I think the latter is much worse.

turnea:

Actually, there are reasons to give military aid to Israel. First, there is our selfish motive in requiring that Israel use 74% of our military aid to buy arms from US manufacturers. That operates as a subsidy of our armaments industry and it helps keep people employed. It also provides the arms makers with just that much more money to use for R & D purposes, which helps our own military.

Another selfish motive is simply that in terms of the Middle East, we have almost zero of what we would call on the ground intelligence. The Mossad excels in that area. And so with our military aid, and the leverage that comes with it, we can expect the Mossad to share information with us. And after 9/11, that cooperation and sharing of information is vital.

Another selfish motive is that the regional power imbalance created by our military aid to Israel has curbed Arab aggression and has allowed us to avoid a circumstance, another Arab war against Israel, that might require the introduction of US forces.

Another selfish motive is that we have operated jointly to develop certain weapons systems. One of those systems is the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system. In 2000, Israel went ahead and deployed that system.

Now, to address something you and some others have said, true, the IDF is superior to any and all Arab armed forces. But for those who understand anything at all about the Yom Kippur War, or more correctly, the Yom Kippur War of the IDF's Northern Command, the primary lesson of that War was and is that once the quantity gets large enough, there is a qualitative improvement, i.e., there is a certain quality in quantity. The IDF was better trained, better led, had superior motivation, and for the most part, had better equipment, but the ratio of forces was out of all proportion to what had been conceived and planned for [something like 12:1 when it came to tanks]. And so the IDF's Seventh Brigade hung on by the veritable skin of its teeth in what has become known as the Valley of the Tears. And word on the street is that the Syrians now have some 4,000 tanks. And truth be told, while I have the utmost admiration and respect for those in the Seventh and Barak brigades at that time, the reality is that if the Syrians had had even halfway decent leadership, they would have crossed the Purple Line, crushed the IDF, and rolled down on into the Galilee [blame it on the rigidity of their then Soviet mentors]. So while I would think that we could cut back some on the military aid, too much would be a rather egregious mistake, and would hurt them as well as us.


To some of the rest:

Please spare me the Rachel Corrie nonsense. She was somewhere were she ought not to have been, was stupid enough to get down in front of a bulldozer, and so she got run over. And never mind for now the ridiculously absurd, and outright, lies told immediately after the fact by some of her ISM "friends." And speaking of absurdity, I just "loved" that ZMAG article comparing the late Oscar Romero to the late Ms. Corrie. Sorry, but if the left is ready to make that equivalence, then the left is (a) stupid and/or ( entirely and otherwise devoid of a moral compass. And, lastly, please spare me the "peace activist" part. She hated her own country, and that's what it was all about. Just ask those at Evergreen State. And while you're there, ask them why they aren't human-shielding, as it were, in the Sudan, in Tibet, in North Korea, in Kashmir, etc. And tell them that I'm shocked that they didn't have their favorite cop-killer deliver her eulogy via video hook-up from death row [I mean, hey, if he can give the commencement address for Evergreen State, he can say some words for Rachel during her funeral]. And I'm otherwise still waiting for the PA to name that street after her, as promised. But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, and speaking of our dead, how about: Marla Bennett, Benjamin Blutstein, Dina Carter, David Gritz, and Janis Coulter? And how about Shoshana Greenbaum, Nava Applebaum, Alan Beer, Alisa Flatow, Jacob "Koby" Mandell, Yitzhak Weinstock, Nachshon Wachsman, Joan Davenny, the unborn child of Mara Frey, Sara Duker, Matthew Eisenfeld, Ira Weinstein, David Boim, Leah Stern, Yael Botwin, Dov Dribben, Malka Roth, Avraham Boaz, Aaron Elis, Lee Akunis, Moran Amit [ironically enough, and cruelly so, murdered in Abu Tor Peace Forest], Esther Kleinman, Hannah Rogen, Moshe Gottlieb, Gila Kessler, Abigail Leitel, Shmuel Taubenfeld [he lived all of 3 months], Tehilla Nathanson [3 years old], Yitzhak Reinitz, etc........

You can google yourself silly looking for the coverage of their deaths provided by such unworthy organizations as Moveon.org, DemocracyNow, Counterpunch, Truthout, etc. You won't find much, if anything, about them. American deaths only matter to them when the dead American in question had been bashing Jews and/or burning the American flag, in which circumstance, they are "heroes" who were "murdered" by those they seek to destroy.

And, lastly, then there's 18 year old Rami al-Malakh, who was executed by Islamic Jihad for supposedly passing on information concerning the whereabouts of wanted terrorists to the Israelis. 111 other Palestinians have been summarily executed by their fellow Palestinians for suspected collaboration. I don't suppose that Rachel Corrie and her "friends" at ISM have any time for them.

Sorry, but the ISM is a bunch of terrorist-loving useful idiots. Or as the ISM's Adam Shapiro himself said:

"While we do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we do believe that learning from their experience... can be quite valuable and of great utility. The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics -- both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement... in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign."

And back to goggling yourself silly, plug in Shapiro and Commondreams and Shapiro and DemoncracyNow. He's their "hero."

carlitoswhey

So, staging a peacefull protest on behalf of civilians, is 'complicity with terror', if those civilians belong to an ethnic group that also has uses terrorism...

...what does that say about the settlers and the IDF that has defended them for so many years?


Okay, but that doesn't answer my question... unless you ARE saying that all Palestinians are terrorists. IF you are saying that, then fair enough, thats your opinion and its valid as such...

...but I do not see any difference between the Jews and the Arabs in the middle east beyond that the Jews have managed to secure their position through an intelligent and aggressive course of action that has combine US good will to Israeli foreign policy where as the Arabs have made the mistake of turning the USA against them.

Its no accident that Ariel Sharon recently launched his bid for re-election in New York. The Israeli's long ago undestood the lesson of using the USA for their own means. This is what the Arabs have failed to do. At best they've allowed the US to exploit them in exchange for oil dollars, but thats about as far as it goes.

There is no other difference. For all the talk of murder and terrorism, the Arabs have never managed to equal the killing ration of Israel and for each dead Jew there are three dead Arabs. Using military weapons and hardware, whether it be a Hellfire missile or a G8 Bulldozer against civilian targets is just as much terrorism as using a suicide bomb in a pizza joint. Both sides are the same in this respect. They are murdering each other and pointing the finger and I see nothing to seperate the two in that regard.

Any one can call Rachel Corrie all the names they wish to, but the truth is, she never killed any one. No court of law would ever accept your definition of guilt by association.


Pally-wood? Goebbels?

If I used an argument like this there'd instantly be references to tin foil hats and black helicopters.

There is no such place as 'Pally-wood'. If you have an argument, then make it, but spare me the hysterical theatrics and the anti media paranoia. Remember, it could just be, that if you don't like or agree with what the media is saying, it doesn't automatically follow that the media is biased, corrputed or controlled by the ghost of a nazi...

It could just mean YOU are wrong.


A lot of people have stood in front of tanks, bull dozers and trucks in order to protest. In most countries this results in confrontations with the police and very few get run over. Sometimes it happens and sometimes its a genuine mistake.

Rachel Corrie's stupidty was to assume that the IDF, after having seen her all day wouldn't simply just get angry and drive over her.

I personally would not stand in silent protest as Corrie did. If my people were threatened by the IDF I would fight back and you would call me a terrorist.

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

Yes, I think they should. I am no great fan of Israel's current policies, but they are one of the two democracies in the region (Turkey being the other, without large foreign subsidy or much fanfare, which maybe explains why Americans so often describe Israel as "the only democracy in the region").

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

I do not think that US military or other aid to Isreal should materially change one way or the other - it should stay broadly about the same.

What I do think the USA should change is the unconditionality of the aid. I think that instead of getting it pretty much regardless of what they do, Israel should be rewarded for positive behaviour and punished for negative.

Some specifics might include withdrawal of all remaining civilian settlements outside the 1967 borders (there might still be a case for military control, but there's no reason, except for Biblical ideas of what the borders SHOULD be, why Jewish civilians should be moving there). And the immediate removal of the "peace barrier" wall thingy from anywhere outside the 1967 borders. And cessation of the policy of assassination of enemies.

And so on. In essence, I think America should be using the existing military, financial and political support that it gives to Israel (and to Egypt too) to nudge them in the direction of a peaceful and just settlement of the Middle Eastern crisis.

That way, the ultimately national interest of the USA would be better served, because one of the biggest motivators of Muslim, and especially Arab, hostility to the West in general and the US in particular is the perceived unquestioning support of Israel no matter what they do.

The fundy terrorist factions of Islam probably wouldn't be immediately pacified, but I think some kind of equitable settlement would significantly remove most of the popular support for it among ordinary Muslims.

(I think any Israeli/Palestinian settlement would, almost inevitably, turn on getting both sides to accept things they don't want, rather than both getting many things they do. This is why I think the Israeli aid would be useful leverage.)

Not just any home gets bulldozed. I think we forget about that. Usually, it's the houses of suicide bombers and their families that get demolished - with a plenty of warning, I might add. How is that different from bombing Afganistan in retaliation for 9/11, or bombing Tripoli for bombs in Berlin? Those are legitimate retaliatory military measures, ALL nations do that when attacked.

We have managed to move all over the map here. We can debate UNSC 242 and what is says, and every other subject that has been brought up, but they have literally nothing to do with the subject at had.

Military aid to Israel has been reduced by 39% over the past 5 years. It is being phased out over the next 10. Yes that is what I said it is already been set that aid to Israel is to end in 2015. It was done when Netanyahu was Prime Minister. So this is basically a tempest in a teapot. Aid has been reduced and is scheduled to end.

Your point here?

There's a real irony here. According to you aid to Israel has actually been substantially reduced over the years.

This brings a stark relief to the fact that despite that they remain the number one recipient of US foreign aid outside of Iraq.

So our policy is still awful, but it's getting a little less shameful.

Foreign aid to Israel should not have to wait for Israeli refusal to be withdrawn. The US can withdraw all non-legally binding aid contracts a lot sooner than ten years and they ought to do so.

Give aid to nations that need it.

Just a couple of points. First off it was 29% not 39%, my typo, sorry.

Second the figures come from USAID, not mine at all.

Third Egypt and Israel are getting the same amount of military aid.

Four I am not just what your point about 'Israeli refusal to be withdrawn' means exactly. But the US makes the determination of aid, not the receiving country. Israel has asked the US to reduce the amount of aid and the US agreed and they worked out a schedule to eliminate over the next ten years. Isn't that what you are requesting?

As for the US ending aid, it isn't a contract at all, the US has offered the aid, Israel has been grateful for the assistance and has supplied the US with military equipment and technology as two friendly nations do frequently. Yes the US can end it at anytime, in doing so though Israel may not be able to supply the US with the equipment our military needs, they also may be forced to export to countries that we do not care to see get better weapons. If Israel ends aid to the US the entire US Air Force is in serious trouble since Israel supplies the avionics for all American military aircraft. The reduction was created to draw down assistance and give Israel the time to move their economy to a position that this would not be a requirement for them to make ends meet. I think that the US and Israel both do not want this to happen, and it would cost both nations a lot more than the current aid package.