Iran's Support of Palestinians

Great Debates
1

Taken from the following document : http://www.fpc.gov/CRS_REPS/ifa0114.pdf

Updated January 14, 2002, United States State Department,
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, Clyde R. Mark

This is a summary presented to Congress entitled: Israel: Foreign Aide Summary

In summary, it states that Israel could not subsist on its own without aide from the US. Since WWII, Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign assistance, and since 1985, Israel has received $3 billion per year in grants from the US, in additon to $2 billion it receives from philanthopists and revenue from Israel Bonds.

US aid to Israel has some unique aspects, such as loans with repayment waived. It goes on further to describe the special treatment Israel gets with regards to loan forgiveness and aid in military research and provision of arms.

In addition to the aide money, the US has give Israel $625 million to develop and deply the Arrow anti-missile missile, $1.3 million to develop the Lavi aircraft (which was later cancelled), another $130 million to develop a high-energy laser anti-missile system.

The US has also paid $1.2 billion to help fund the Wye Agreement.

So, the point I’m attempting to make with the above statement is this: Clearly, the United States is supporting Israel, financially and militarily. That cannot be denied. The US is protecting its interests in the region to serve its own foreign policy agenda

How is that any different than Iran (or Syria, or any other country or private entity) giving money and/or military support to Palestinians?

Taken from: NYTimes article
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/24/international/middleeast/24IRAN.html
"EL AVIV — American and Israeli intelligence officials have concluded that Yasir Arafat has forged a new alliance with Iran that involves Iranian shipments of heavy weapons and millions of dollars to Palestinian groups that are waging guerrilla war against Israel.

Questions about Iran’s relationship with the Palestinians came into public view early this year when Israel seized a ship carrying 50 tons of Iranian-supplied arms, including antitank weapons that could neutralize one of Israel’s main military advantages over the Palestinians and rockets that could reach most cities in Israel.

Both the Palestinians and Iranians deny they are working together, but American and Israeli officials say they now see the shipment as part of a broader relationship. They say that began with several smaller attempts by Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon to supply arms and was cemented in the Moscow meeting. Officials of Israel and the United States say they believe that Mr. Arafat personally approved the dealings with Iran."
If this is a war, then the US and Iran are backing opposite sides. Shouldn’t the allies of Palestine be allowed to contribute to the cause of the side to which they are allied?

Of course, this is a massive oversimplification of the situtation taking place in the Middle East now.

I’d like to limit this discussion to one simple question:

How can the US or Israel object to other nations supporting the Palestinian cause (in a much smaller scale than the US supports the Israeli cause)?

2

Because the Israelis are all noble warriors for the cause of Truth and Right. And the Arabs are all subhuman vermin who are better off exterminated.

3

There is no smilie there, so I’ll ask naiively, what is your point?

4

Well, if they can stop deliveries by objecting that’s an easy victory, no? So why not give it a try.
Being as a-moral as the opponent shouldn’t be too much of a holdback.

5

When you boil down the arguments to their essence, that’s what they’re saying, I think.

Oh, and one more thing:
:smiley:

6

Anahita, don’t damage a good point with bad information.

  1. The summary is simply wrong. Israel has an economy of $110.2 billion in the year 2000. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html While the $3 billion in aid (and the $1 billion in philanthropy) is certainly significant, alleging that Israel would not be economically self-sufficient without an infusion equal to less than 4% of its GDP is ludicrous - to give a comparison, Israel’s GDP per person without the $4 billion in aid and philanthropy would be approximately $18,200 per person - still higher than Spain’s. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

  2. The aid to Israel is a mandated part of the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt. In return for agreeing to peace with each other, both Israel and Egypt were guaranteed U.S. aid. Absolutely a U.S. foreign policy objective, but one I think we kinda like.

  3. The Wye Agreement supplemental aid was intended to fund Israel’s removal of military bases and the like from Palestinian territory. Would you rather they still be there?

I certainly have no real objection to funding the Palestinians. And I wonder just what the hell went wrong at the Congressional Research Service that it screwed the pooch so badly.

Sua

7

SuaSponte

"1. The summary is simply wrong. Israel has an economy of $110.2 billion in the year 2000. "

The quote in question:
“Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy.”
I’m using the first sentence from the cite I provided. The Israeli financial situation as reported to Congress is current, according to the State Dep’t as of January 14, 2002. If it was misreported or exaggerated to suit the goal of getting Congress to give up the dosh for the Israelis, then that is even more interesting, or should be, to the US taxpayers.
I agree, that if these numbers and statements are wrong, that there was a major foul up! Off with their heads!

Your third point: Of course, I’d rather they not be there. And if the money is supposed to be used to move settlers, then why are their numbers increasing rather than decreasing?

8

Probably, they relied on info from the Dept of State. The bureaucrats at the Dept of State are notoriously anti-Israel and pro-Arab in their leanings… although the U.S. government (elected officials) are, of course, reverse.

The Israeli economy relies heavily on the U.S. economy, of course, but that’s not different from the British economy, the French economy, the Mexican economy, or any one of several dozen others.

9

Whatchoo talking about, Willis? Where did “settlers” come from? I said “military bases and the like.” The quote from your cite says “troops and military installations.”
So no, the Wye money wasn’t supposed to be used to move settlers.

Sua

10

SuaSponte: Because it’s a PDF format document, I cannot c and p from the original document, so please read the section on: Conditions of Aid, the first paragraph.

You were correct, the Wye Agreement monies were given to Israel to pull out militarily, however, they’ve not done so, and have still received the money. Further, they are there, protecting the proliferation of more settlements and settlers. My mistake in confusing the two issues. Concede.
C K Dexter Haven: What makes you think the State Department is anti-Israel and pro-Arab? Isn’t it the State Dep’t document itself that is misrepresenting Israeli’s financial insecurity to get MORE funds for Israel? How is that showing any biased for Palestine? Did you read the linked document? Either way, the document presented to Congress was accepted.

When you look at the economic situation described on this site http://i-cias.com/e.o/palestine_2.htm, you’ll see that the Palestinian economic situation is dreadful and much worse than the Israeli one. So, if your point is that the State Department is biased to Arabs, why do they not provide the same financial aid to Palestine?

11

I’m going to back up C K on this one. At least traditionally, State Department professionals have considered Israel an unwanted nuisance. And, purely from the viewpoint of conducting normal relations between countries, they do indeed have a point - consider the amount of time, money, attention and effort the existence of Israel has caused the U.S. and the State Department to expend - particularly in comparison to its population and strategic importance. The Israeli issue also has distorted the U.S.’ relations with the Arab and Muslim world, as well as relations with Europe and (back in the day) the U.S.S.R.

As for why the State Department’s traditional bias hasn’t resulted in more financial aid to Palestine, the answer is very simple - the State Department doesn’t authorize foreign aid. Congress does.

Sua

12

I do not think anyone would have much problem with anyone else giving monetary aid to the Palestinians if it was used for peaceful purposes like rebuilding their economy and such. What I have a problem with is things like Saddam Hussein giving rewards to the families of suicide bombers. That is supporting terrorism, plain and simple.

I will not also that the EU gives a lot of aid to the Palestinians. The general perception in Europe seems to be that the Palestinians are the victims in all this.

13

Well, there is a lot of sense to the European idea that the Palestinians are the victims in all this. Many European nations had a hand in the Zionist agenda to move into Israel and oftentimes ignored the indigeonous (I know I spelled that wrong) population to further there own agendas. This all began prior to WWI and continued on through WWI to where the Palestinians were marginalized to a great extent by the European powers.

The jews were looked at as a European victim, however the perception that I see, and I could be wrong is that once they provided a land for the jews their debt to the holocaust was paid. which I think explains it a little bit.

As to the original post Anahita said that this is war. The US is on one particular side in that war, the side of Israel. One of the most basic fundaments of warfare is to cut off the enemies supplies. Therefore preventing Iran from providing the Palestinians with weaponry makes quite a bit of sense, if you view it as a war, which until today I don’t think it necessarily was.

Erek

14

Having had many contacts on a professional basis with State people in the ME in the past decade, I would say this is a mischaracterization. State strikes me on average as moderately pro-Israeli but with a large impatience where Israeli objectives and national interests (legitly of course) diverge from US interests. Also State ME people usually have some clue about the Arab world --as opposed to many other folks-- and look to how to balance interests.

This ain’t easy. Notoriously anti-Israeli? Bah. I regard this as unfactual smear on my State friends.

[/quote]

The Israeli economy relies heavily on the U.S. economy, of course, but that’s not different from the British economy, the French economy, the Mexican economy, or any one of several dozen others.
[/QUOTE]

For those more versed in economics, cite to Mexico, LA. European economic exposure is not heavily reliant on USA. Exposed to, as we are vice versa (esp in re Capital Flows) but ** not ** dependent on, by any stretch of the imagination.

Israeli of cours faces a distorted economic environment which explains in part its real dependence on the USA – but also in part explain by close ethnic ties. Nothing sinister there.

Of course, US aid does essentially subsidize its security situation, appropiately to an extent, although one might ask if more leverage might be used in re key areas, but then this becomes domestic political as discussions here clearly indicate.

15

Collounsbury

In agreement with you here. My very close family member is an FSO in the State Dep’t in the Middle East. He’s never expressed that he felt there was a biased one way or another. In fact, being of Middle East extraction and Iranian-birth (I think he’s the only one, ever), he would have a thing or two to say about this characterization. He is subject to INTENSE scrutiny and far more critically reviewed than any of his peers because of his background.

SuaSponte

I know that the State Department does not set the economical priorities of the Congress, but a report like the one I cited is what the members of Congress use as their source for information when making decisions about which budgetary choices to make with regards to providing foreign aid. Obviously, the State Department’s opinions are relevant, as I doubt every member of Congress goes and does his/her own research about the Foreign Aide given to Israel, or any other country.

MsWas

I wasn’t necessarily calling it a war myself, only to say that stopping the Palestinians from receiving financial or military aide could only be justified as a war-time act of prevention. So, would this mean that it was ok for the Palestinians to interfere with the military research that is taking place to build the Arrow anti-missile missile? Doubtful. That would be seen as a threat to national security at best, and at the extreme, a terrorist act.

16

The difference is that the importing of weapons by the Palestinian Authority is prohibited by the Oslo Accords. There has not been objection to the PA receiving money. In fact the United States gives money to the PA, as well as several European countries.

17

There’s also the fact that Iran allegedly funds Hamas - a military force that holds no formal territory (aka a terrorist organization).

More importantly, Hamas plays a decidedly nonconstructive role in the region. They oppose a 2-state solution. It is difficult to imagine that a peaceful single state solution could be built on a foundation of terrorist attacks and (inevitable) military counter-attacks. I’m not even sure that it would be accurate to say that Hamas has something resembling a negotiating position.

Surely it is reasonable to condemn any government that supports these characters.