That’s 100 billion over 60 years, keep in mind. And what 10 billion dollar bill is Congress bickering over?
That’s chump change, frankly. The only substantial money there is the loan guarantees.
Not necessarily, only possibly. And even if that is the case, as I already cited there’s population pressure on Jerusalem because the West Bank is not a viable location for expansion. The ultra-Orthodox have an expansion rate roughly equal or greater to the Palestinians, and new families need to live somewhere. There is nothing stopping a land swap complete with citizens, or Israel evacuating citizens as it did in Gaza.
But again, that’s the false analogy we’ve been dealing with all thread. Any peace treaty reached while there is still ongoing violence is not anything more than mere words, because if the violence is ongoing a declaration of peace is the same as a declaration of virginity in the middle of a porno. Only if the violence stops and is not ongoing can there be an actual peace. A peace treaty reached that settles land disputes, however, can indeed be real peace.
And while there may be any number of provocations or pissing each other off, those don’t make negotiation less likely let alone impossible. Especially if the provocation as issue is building on land that isn’t Palestinian in the first place.
Funny how these mistakes keep popping up. I just cleared up Luci’s mistake, and you go and make the same exact honest mistake. What luck! You can go look up the post that corrects your error, or you can try to reason out why if violence is ongoing that any peace treaty isn’t worth the paper it’s written on because there will still be war. Either/or, I guess.
Oh, and since you don’t grok: an ad hom is only not a fallacy if you’re talking about the trustworthiness of someone relating information that isn’t independently verified. It is nothing but a fallacy (and a foolish personal attack in a forum like GD) when it boils down to deliberately avoiding all factual claims and logic in favor of saying that someone is a meanie-head and so they’re wrong. It’s the difference between “cite” or “you’re wrong because of thus and such” and “your momma wears combat boots, so I dun have to refute what you’re saying!!!”
This should be obvious, one would hope.
When you’re reduced to complaining that logical fallacies are often given latin terms, it’s not a good sign. When you pretend that a logical argument based on facts is one of “opinion”, you’ve pretty much given up the ghost.
It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, at all. If you want off topic answers to questions that have already been used by some to try to hijack a GD thread into Pit territory, PM me and we can discuss it. That’s really all I have to say on that.
Haha, well, I’m absolutely horrid when attempting any type mathematical calculation. You’re right, 100 billion isn’t no where near the cost of the health care bill.
I still feel, however, that U.S taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for museums when we have own problems in the States. I also don’t think a 4 million dollar museum is chump change, but we can agree to disagree on that one. Here’s what I don’t understand. Did Israel send a letter to the U.S asking for the museum or did we just offer to build one there. How does that go exactly?
My view is that the U.S shouldn’t subsidize any country unless it is dirt poor and, even then, that support should be in the form building wells, roads, electricity. You know, useful shit. I am uneasy about the U.S providing cash benefits. I also don’t think it’s fair that Obama is increasing aid to Israel while reducing federal aid to States for the 2010 budget. Bros before hoes; We need to be increasing federal aid to States and decreasing all of this unilateral international welfare. If Israel or any other country has money problems, there are (I don’t know them, but know they exist) mechanisms in the U.N to help them cope.
Off topic: If Israel switched to the dollar, wouldn’t that be better for our economy?
- Honesty
What an artful term! So, they are being “evacuated”, which is entirely different from being “displaced”. Hurricane bearing down, is it?
The ultra-Orthodox need to get jobs, serve in the army, and stop being coddled by a government who figures it’s easy to get cheap coalition partners like Shas and United Torah Judaism. Let them move to the Negev and annoy the Bedouin. And look at what happened with the Gaza evacuation; major protests, resignation of ministers, and settler violence against the army. It’s easy for people to move into a place, but hard to get them out once they’re in.
Then you’re not ever going to have peace, because if the negotiations can be broken off by any violence, you’re giving any one nut who can get his hands on a gun or a bomb veto power. And whenever there’s a movement toward peace, the radical elements, be they Hamas or the extremists among the settlers, will derail it with an act of violence, because both of those groups benefit from the conflict continuing. Both sides need to crack down on their own extremists and not let the other side’s extremists push them into violent reaction, and Israel’s done a crappy job of this, but at least they try, and the Palestinians do a worse job because they don’t even try.
The land is Palestinian in the same sense that the West Bank is Palestinian: they both became part of Israel after the '67 war, and their final status will have to be determined as a result of a bilateral treaty. The fact that Israel unilaterally annexed it doesn’t make a difference, nor does the fact that I know that both you and I hope that East Jerusalem will be part of Israel after the whole thing is settled.
It’s a lot easier said than done to exclude the ultra-Orthodox. They swing their votes as a block and in the parliamentary system they’re very powerful for that fact despite their limited numbers. As for it being difficult to remove people once they’re there, yep, but such is life.
No, note that I’ve said ‘ongoing’ violence, not ‘sporadic’ or what have you. If I sign a peace treaty with you and your nation’s radicals (or members of government, whatever) continue to bomb me, then it was a peace deal in name only. And unless there is a credible reason to believe that violence will stop, there’s no reason to come to a peace deal if all it means is that you give certain concessions while you go on being bombed.
I grok that. But there’s also a difference as EJ is part of Israel (recognition or not) and the West Bank is not. But I think that the essential issue is the one you touched on, namely that they’re not truly “Palestinian” possessions as much as they’re part of what the PA wants as its final settlement and whose actual geographic boundaries will be determined via negotiation.
No doubt the military aid has utility, but the point is, Israel is in a very dangerous part of the world and must spend huge sums on defence of which the US subsidises part.
It comes down to whether you think it is worthwhile helping to fortify this useful ally in this strategic (but difficult) location.
From a pragmatic point of view, if it got attacked in another Arab-Israeli war, all it would take is a couple of news reports of scared American students before the US would enter that conflict (I’m not implying it would be wrong to get involved in such a conflict). And how much would it cost then?
Agreed.
All I was trying to do, was counter the mental image of ships heading out to Israel loaded with dollar bills.
I’ve worked in procurement within the military (to those that know me on this forum: yes, I’ve had quite a diverse career :)). The unit costs for items is a fraction of any intended retail value to third parties, and the main cost of producing them is often labour costs.
In other words, all I’m saying is that it is misleading to imply that if we didn’t give Israel $2 billion in military aid, say, then we’d have an extra $2 billion off the deficit: it doesn’t work like that.
Agree about the behaviour. Israel seems more strident than ever under Netanyahu, at a time when the US seems increasingly weak in its condemnation.
e.g. Biden describing settlement-building as “undermining trust”. Wow, the gloves are really off :rolleyes:
Why, **Luci **- I’d never have pegged *you *as a Likudnik. What an interesting development.
Rak ha’Luci yachol! I don’t know if I want to know where you’d put me on the Israeli political spectrum.
In answer to the OP.
-
The Israeli lobby in this country is both well-funded and focused. Wealth with one focus will always out over wealth with many focuses. (See 4)
-
It’s a geographically strategic listening post and the Israelis (in general) share the fruits of Mossad’s intelligence-gathering with us.
-
It’s VERY good for business and employment in this country. The US has sold Israel $? billion worth of arms in the last 50 years at the same time arming many of their neighbors.
-
And most important, the controversy Israel sparks thruout the Middle East has them fighting among themselves in widespread culture wars rather than focusing all their wealth against US.
Thank you, I understand now. It usually is about the money in some way.
Q. How do you separate Jews and Money?
A. With a crowbar.
What do Israelis give anti-semites?
A bullet to the head.
It’s funny because it’s true.
We fund their defense industry with hundreds of millions of dollars despite the fact that they’ve spied on us to steal military tech for decades.
So there can be no negotiations with a people who use terrorism as part of their strategy for attaining their own state?
This is the second time I’ve asked you this.
The USA has given Egypt $60 billion+ since 1975. And it sure as hell hasn’t turned it into a high tech paradise. And the people of Egypt consistently vote the USA as the second most hated country, after Israel – except for that one glorious year where Denmark took the prestigious title as Egypt’s second most hated country and bumped the USA to third position. For all the money you post in it, it sure hasn’t bought you any love. At least the Israelis don’t repay your generosity with hate.
Its hard to be sure which is the more unlikely, that I might join them or that they would have me.
I messed up on the reference, making my comment, well, stupid. Mea fuckup.
I’m probably one of the most leftist Israelis I know. I think we should completely evacuate all the Jews in the West Bank just like we did with Gaza. I think Israeli military operations injure and kill far too many civilians and that the bulldozing of houses is despicable. I think Israel oversteps it’s bounds a lot in the territories and has too happy of a trigger-finger around Palestinians.
Nonetheless, has anyone here been to the site of the proposed “settlement”? It’s pretty much staunchly in Jerusalem, just like the Gilo “settlement” BS a few weeks ago. It’s in a residential area with buildings that have been there for 40+ years. It’s just a regular construction project. They’re not building in West Bank proper, they’re not taking anyone’s private land, and its in an area that is definitely Jerusalem.
There is NO way Israel will ever give back East Jerusalem. When Jerusalem belonged to Jordan, Jews were not allowed into our holiest city. Now, under the control of Israel, Muslims are allowed into the city to pray, as are Jews and Christians. If a Jew even steps foot near the Temple Mount, the Palestinians freak out and it becomes a big fiasco. Despite the fact that it’s also holy to Jews, but hey, Mohammed went to heaven there, so now no Jews are allowed. East Jerusalem is a part of a municipal city, with a full infrastructure, bus routes, schools and hospitals. Seriously, building new apartments is NOT that big a deal, unless you’re from the point of view that a solution will ever involve giving up Jerusalem, which will NEVER happen. West Bank and Gaza, sure, but Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Personally I’d be fine with palestinians coming to Jerusalem to pray, but Jerusalem cannot be under Palestinian control. It would be a huge clusterfuck.
I think the previous poister proves a point that made to be made: while many foreigners see no difference between the different types of West Bank settlements, to Israelis these distinctions are crucial. Isolated hilltop trailers are not the same as “deep” settlements like Tapuach, which are not the same as “established” settlements like Ariel, which are not the same as Jordan Valley settlements like Maskiyot, which are not the same as Green Line settlements like Betar Elite, which are not the same as East Jerusalem. Each Israeli - and each Israeli political party - has his own line as far as the differnt types are concerned.
I don’t expect the White House to distinguish between these various catergories, although they should. What troubles me is that they don’t seem aware of the fact that these distinctions are important to Israelis, both in the political system and among the general public. By treating the settlements around which there is the most consensus (like E. J-lem) in exactly the same manner as they would two trailers and a goat in the Samarian mountains, the only thing they’ve managed to do is rally the Israeli public against them - and without the support of the Israeli public, there will be no peace process. Israeli politicians are far more afraid of their voters than they are of the U.S.
It’s the same kind of willful ignorance Washington has always displayed towards the Middle East. Remeber how the previous administration couldn’t tell the difference between Sunnis and Shi’ites? This is pretty much the same thing.
Both of these “jokes” are completely unacceptable in this forum. ivan astikov and Alessan, this is a formal warning to both of you. Do not do this again.