No. Our goodwill entails us giving them aid. We’ll maintain diplomatic relations, even without direct aid. Why we should keep giving aid to a country that assists a potential enemy (China) and attempts to influence our internal political process is beyond me; Maybe you could explain it?
No. It was a short statement, but let me expand on it for you: You are making some loopy assertions. They may or may not be true. Until you provide a cite, I’ll assume you are just making small-talk.
Okay… we’ve been their ally since their inception (or at the very least we gave them international legitimacy in short order), we’ve given them aid since close to their inception, thus, the nature of our diplomatic relationship is one of aid and alliance.
You are technically correct in that all diplomacy is not equivalent to aid, but in this case, you are suggesting a radical departure of five decades of diplomatic posture and a radical restructuring of our relationship with Israel.
Which assertions are ‘loopy?’
Please question me on specific ones and I will answer.
Upon reflection I think I am being too narrow in my interpretation of our diplomatic relationship with Israel.
It would not be a suspension of diplomacy.
It would be a suspension of our long standing diplomatic policy.
So I retract my earlier statement as factually incorrect.
You’ll probably want to bone up a bit on that history; You’ll note that Israels’ weapons were French and British up until the early Seventies, not American. That aid didn’t begin until well after Israel was established. Military ‘grants’ didn’t begin until after '73, IIRC.
Sure thing, and a history of spying on us should have us radically rethink that policy of no-questions-asked military aid.
Well, you already answered:
Awwwww.
I’ll want to bone up on history, yessiree…
Maybe, just maybe, you are the one who should bone up on history.
October 21 : The U. S. gives Israel a 65 million dollar grant in aid, with 50 million to be used in immigrant absorption and the remainder for economic development.
That was in 1951.
You will also notice that in my text that you quoted I said “we’ve given them aid since close to their inception”. So your refrences to their military is irrelevant with respect to what I’ve said.
Sure thing about what?
Doesn’t everybody spy on everybody else?
I thought it was a policy of “our interests are advanced by aiding you, so we’ll do it.”
But maybe we’re in Israel’s pocket and we just do whatever they say, no-questions-asked. :smack:
Fair enough, once you’ve read my newer text, what do you think is ‘loopy’?
No, everybody doesn’t spy on everybody else. Especially not ‘spying’ with the intent of influencing the internal political process of another nation. Especially not when that nation is probably your ‘best friend’ (as far as nations go) in the world.
Kick me out a cite about French and British and Italian spies that we caught over here. Or are they so clever that we just havn’t caught them yet?
Think we have spies in Israel?
I’d be surprised if we didn’t. I’d call it incompetent.
Fair enough. I was wrong on that one; I assumed we didn’t give aid to Israel until later. (Which is true for the military aid). Still, it doesn’t matter that they were getting aid from day one, economic or military. That is no excuse for espionage.
I don’t have a cite because it was something I saw on MSNBC…
MSNBC’s “counterterrorism expert” (the quotes aren’t sarcastic, that’s what they billed him as) Larry Johnson was interviewed on the Keith Olbermanjahhn show Countdown, and Johnson indicated that the spy might have been responsible for the forged documents that led Joe Wilson to be sent to Niger. I’m sure more will come out, yay or nay, in the next few days.
Everyone’s been talking about the president’s “16 words” which led Wilson to write his “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” essay, which led to someone in the White House outing Wilson’s CIA operative wife out of spite. Very few have talked about where those forged documents came from in the first place. This may be it.
Or not.
To be fair, a large amount of Israel’s aid takes the form of loan guarantees, which aren’t actually cash. As I understand it, it’s like being a cosigner for Israel.
Sometimes in the course of human events, humans adapt to events.
Israel’s not a helpless pup stranded on a distant shore. Even if their economy’s dependent on US aid, that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have an economy that’d be dependent on something else.
If their economy’s dependent upon our aid, that’s all the more reason to find a way to get them off of our payroll. Teach a man to fish and all that.
Something you may not have picked up from the posts here because it’s only been implied rather than explicitly stated- no one’s surprised. No one assumes that our allies don’t and won’t spy on us. No one here at all. Lets move on from this point that you have made, iterated and reiterated, mmmkay? Because just as I pointed out before, and as we all know, even as it’s naive to assume that our allies don’t and won’t spy on us, it’s just as naive to think that we have no reason to be concerned or no reason to react to such shit.
To be fair, you actually did respond to an argument that no one had made. It’s very naive to think that iwthholding aid is the same as ending diplomatic relations. aid does not equal relations. I’ts quite possible to maintain diplomatic relations w/o giving foreign aid. Just look at Israel’s relationship with the US. Israle has diplomatic relation, yet the give us no foreign aid packages.
You might as well admit that you used a straw man when you decried ending diplomatic relations w/ Israel, 'cause if you don’t, you’ll do a better job of making yourself look silly than any Pit thread could do.
Hogwash and horsefeathers. Sec State James Baker cut off Israel’s loan guarantees within my lifetime. And that was just to get Israel to come to the negotiating table w/ Arafat.
No one called for a radical restructuring of our relationship with Israel. The dialogue would prgoress more smoothly if you were to address the arguments made rather than those you invent yourself.
Good on you. It is a sign of a character more mature than my own. kudos.
Was there a fire sale on straw there @ Howthe?
I think that concerns are more precisely expressed thusly: Do Israel’s Interests Have Undue Influence on US Foreign Policy? (esp re NeoCons)
Undue influence is a sufficient cause for concern (by definition) yet it something different from “we just do whatever they say, no-questions-asked”.
ME too. We should be prepared to pay to play the spy game just like everyone else.
quote=Equipoise]Everyone’s been talking about the president’s “16 words” which led Wilson to write his “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” essay, which led to someone in the White House outing Wilson’s CIA operative wife out of spite. Very few have talked about where those forged documents came from in the first place. This may be it.
[/quote]
I remember these sorts of reports coming out a while back.
There are different gradients of spies. If the new mole turns out to be a mid-level Pollard type that would be bad enough, but if it turns out that this person was near the top of the food chain in handling intelligence delivered to the President I think we’re stepping into very dangerous territory.
There has been a continuous undercurrent of suspicion in the intelligence community that Bush’s hawkish “Vulcans” (Pearl-Wolfowitz-Luti etc. and their acolytes) promoted and supported rationales for attacking Iraq as part of a larger strategic plan guided primarly about concerns for Israel’s security, and that questionable intelligence was manipulated, created or promoted to effect this end. Whether this is true or not, if it turns out that the mole is near the top of the intelligence handling pyramid which spoon feeds the President, it’s going to look as if Israel manipulated or bluffed us into attacking Iraq.
If that’s the case (and it many not be) Israel will be seen as partly responsible for almost 1,000 dead American soliders, and hundreds of billions in dollars down the rathole, and a host of associated unpleasantness. If this mole is high up and has influence on intelligence interpretation, I don’t think the normal diplomatic tap dances are going to work this time.
John Trigilio any one?
The allegations are that the fellow passed along info that allowed Israel an insight into what were supposed to be secret internal discussions on what our policies should be.
No one’s saying that the fella himself was capable of influencing policy. the Pentagon has come out and specifically denied that the guy was in a position to influence policy himself.
He just passed along inside info that could’ve gioven Israel the ability to influence our internal policy negotiations.
Don’t manipulation at the same time by an Iranian operative and an Israeli one cancel each other out? 
It appears that the suspect in this case is Harold Rhode:
Larouchepub (and others)
So what has Rhode been up to since joining Feith’s staff?
And, of course, the Rhodes connection to Chalabi:
It’s a good thing that Rhodes was kept at (as the pentagon spokesman says) “the desk officer level” , and “was not in a position to have significant influence over U.S. policy.” Otherwise he could have gotten up to some real mischief. :dubious:
Squink, your mysterious and wonderful intersection.
Exclusive: DIA targets DOD unit
August 02, 2004
UPI
The Defense Intelligence Agency is accelerating its investigation of a two-man Pentagon intelligence team – the Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group – which was tasked to establish links between then Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden, according to current and former senior Pentagon officials.
The investigation is trying to determine if the two-man unit leaked sensitive CIA and Pentagon intercepts to the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress, which passed them on to the government of Iran, Pentagon and U.S. intelligence officials said.
Another prominent official of the NESA office was Harold Rhode who often dealt directly with Iraqi exile and former Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi. U.S. intelligence officials have alleged Chalabi passed “extremely critical U.S. intelligence” to the government of Iran.
Squink, your mysterious and wonderful intersection.
Not only do we get Abrams, Perle et al, but look who else
Pentagon hard-liners may be undercutting diplomacy with Iran
Fri, Aug. 08, 2003
BY KNUT ROYCE AND TIMOTHY M. PHELPS
…Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in U.S. arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s.
Rhode is a protege of Michael Ledeen…[Ledeen] introduced [Manucher] Ghorbanifar to Oliver North.
…Ledeen who reopened the Ghorbanifar channel with Feith’s staff.
Ledeen once described [Ghorbanifar] as “one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known.”
[CIA says Ghorbanifar] … “should be regarded as an intelligence fabricator and nuisance.”
senior administration official said he was puzzled by the resurfacing of Ghorbanifar after all these years. “It would be amazing if anybody in government hadn’t learned the lessons of last time around,” he said. “These guys [including Ledeen] should have learned it, 'cause they lived it.”
Those who something something history something something something.
Harold Rhode seems to be a very good suspect. The guy was a nutter about Saddam even in circles full of nutters about Saddam.
Signed a Project for the New American Century letter to Clinton on 26 Jan '98 calling for war. Seems to have been knee-deep in the OSP. Speaks English, Hebrew, Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish. refuses to speak to the press. Very anti-Arab. Prefers vodka martinis shaken, not stirred.
Well, we will see.
This same fellow raised funds for the international terrorist group that Hussein actually did provide substantial support for. He did this in January of this year.
I’m heartily amused that despite posting this rant in several threads no one has ever asked me for a citation or even a name.
Too mant fnords in my posts I suppose.
I haven’t seen Rhode tied to the DIA yet.
That’s why I was leaning toward John Trigilio