Middle Eastern merchant, actually. The first rule of negotiations in the Middle East is always try to convince the other side that you don’t need what he’s offering.
I must say, Israel has been superb at that. 
Well, we are way off track (surprise!) but it has raised some excellent points about Israeli (and American) culture. I tell you the idea anyone thought Pollard would ever see the sun again really remarkable. Shocking might be a better word.
I agree that I was being hyperbolic. But the point is what you say. By and large, Israelis don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. If there is no peace deal, they can protect themselves indefinitely. At least that’s what they believe.
The idea of “Strong Jewish arms” protecting the Jewish state is Zionist nonsense. No nation stands without allies. Proposing that Israel can is madness. Find me an historic example of the path you propose.
Further of course the Israelis do not defend themselves. While I understand the power of a good slogan, it strikes me a simply rude to ignore all the help we have given you.
Why was all the aid given to you? Because without it you would have been destroyed a couple of times over. Do you think the US gave (or Israel accepted) money, arms, intelligence and training for giggles? The stuff was needed and so it was given.
You are claiming that although Israel needed acres of help in the past, it will not need such help in the future. “You bet your life,” as they say.
“Indefinitely” is a very long time do you really think Israel can keep doing what is doing for another 20, 50 or 100 years? Again, I ask for you to provide an historic model for your proposed ghetto state.
Huh? This is historically untrue.
You are aware that Israel fought a series of wars with the Arab world before the US became an ally and offered truly substantial military aid, right? And that it was relatively weaker then, and the Arab world relatively stronger and more united?
In fact, major US aid to Israel was originally a Cold War measure, intended as a response to major military aid provided to the Arab nations (particularly Egypt) by the Soviets. Somehow, I doubt that will be an issue in the future.
Major aid begain after the '67 war, and in particular, with “Operation Nickel Grass” in the '73 war; and it was increased (along with simultaneous aid to Egypt) as part of the Egypt-Israel peace initiative.
However, the '73 war was not really an existential threat to Israel (as the '48 and '67 wars were, and as the '56 war was not); Sadat’s war aims were limited.
Thus, historically, in the two wars Israel has faced that had existential threat - '48 and '67 - the US was not a military ally and did not provide substantial military aid. Israel was indeed protected by “strong Jewish arms” and did indeed “defend themselves”.
As I noted in my first post, he’s a marker and one of our allies wants him. Perhaps some day Israel will have something we really want, or they will be able to do something that we want done, but for some reason can’t or won’t do it ourselves, and a deal will be struck.
Now that Lockerbie bomber guy, HE’S the last person I would ever expect to get out of prison, but he seems to be enjoying himself back home.
It doesn’t matter. The law says he has to be granted parole in 2015.
You have a cite for this? I’ve never heard of an instance when parole is mandatory. It is earned, and can be (and often is) not granted by TPTB.
From Haaretz:
Federal law doesn’t allow parole now, but I’m pretty sure that, before the 1987 law getting rid of it, anyone sentenced to life in prison got mandatory parole after 30 years.
Color me educated. According to Wiki the parole is mandatory, assuming a clean prison record, which Pollard apparently has.
Interestingly, the Wiki page says he was eligible to apply for parole after 8 years, but he has never applied.
Perhaps he considers his personal safety on the outside a possible issue?
Possible. If it were me, I would probably apply just to make the CIA and Justice Department jump through hoops to keep me in, even if I knew there was almost no chance of it being granted.
Be a darn shame to release him.
(Thank you for reminding me of the name Nickel Grass, as the World’s Leading Authority on code words, I had been trying to remember that name.)
Israel was established by foreigners (obviously, what nation wasn’t?) funded by huge amounts of money coming from the West. This money could have been cut off or reduced with the stroke of a presidential pen. It is incorrect and ungrateful of you to gloss over this aid.
From the mighty Wikipedia:
*U.S. policy changed markedly after the Six-Day War of 1967, in response to a perception that many Arab states (notably Egypt) had permanently drifted toward the Soviet Union. In 1968, with strong support from Congress, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson approved the sale of F-4 Phantom II fighters to Israel, establishing the precedent for U.S. support for Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors. The U.S., however, would continue to supply arms to Israel’s neighbors, particularly Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, in order to counter Soviet arms sales and influence in the region
*
So by 1973, the US was a major ally. Worthy of note is before about '67 France was Israel’s major friend. Remarkable how friends can change their minds.
As I asked before, kindly show me an historic model of your proposed ghetto-state. North Korea?
Wait, so you think the cite showing that Israel didn’t get large amounts of foreign aid until 1968, after it survived two wars against enemies who wanted to destroy it without having any foreign aid is evidence supporting your claim that Israel would be destroyed without foreign aid? It’s good to see that you don’t let things like logic get in the way of your arguments. It can be awfully constraining.
You’ve just agreed with what Malthus was saying was historically untrue. France and Britain were Israel’s primary source of military hardware until after the '67 war. It wasn’t aid however, it was hardware bought at full price. When the political winds changed, France placed an arms embargo on Israel in 1968 including a number of missile boats ordered and already paid for which Israel ultimately acquired in a deception operation through a front company (The Cherbourg Project).
The US subsidizing of Israel with billions of dollars in military credits didn’t happen until the Camp David accords in 1979; Sadat had cut Egypt off from the USSR in the 1973 war and its wake (Soviet advisors were expelled in 1972) leaving it with a Soviet equipped military with no future source of spare parts or additional hardware. Part of the accords was for the US to provide billions of dollars of credits to both Egypt and Israel with which to purchase military hardware from the US with Uncle Sam and the US taxpayer picking up the tab.
I’m not so familiar with the case, but what I read here reminds me a bit Chiang Kai-shek’s attitude toward his American allies in WWII: sure, we’ll fight the Japanese . . . as long as you build this airfield for us. As long as you give us this money and equipment . . . just so long as you Cash My-check, says Chiang Kai-shek.
China struggled for years with the Japanese before the Americans ever came on the scene, and struggled with imperialism on the part of other powers for a full century before that. So wow, it’s great we’ve finally got this big buddy on our side, but now that he’s tied at the hip with us, that doesn’t mean we can’t demand just a little bit of payback. What’s he gonna do, let us fall to the samurai sword? Just Cash My-check . . .
Well, since this is the SDMB, and ignoring this is the Pit, let me speak the truth.
Doing the research for my last post did sort of convince me of the previous poster’s point. I tried to boaster my case, but the cites at hand did not do it very well, as you both pointed out.
Of course the cite did only discuss official welfare to Israel, not huge amounts of private donations.
It did however allow me to see how wise the American policy was. We minimized the flow of arms into the region and pushed for peace. We can see how that worked out.
In any case, the balance of power is shifting. In our lifetimes, US handouts to Israel will end. The Arab populations are increasing. The Arab population in Israel will make the nation choose between being ‘Jewish’ or being ‘democratic.’
I accept things have never been better for the average Israeli. Blue skies and the high life are certain signs of the ‘top of the market,’ to mix metaphors. Now is the time to make peace. The other choice is to beg for peace with the sword at your throat. Better to cut a deal now while you have the sword.
But of course you will do as you wish.
Can you swim?
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you that peace, and now, would be a really good idea and the right thing to do.
What I at least am arguing about, is that us, thinking about the causes and prospects of peace, have to base our reasoning on reality as it is, and not merely on how we think it to be.
For example, any theory which starts with the understanding that the Israelis are incapable of defending themselves, and would collapse before Arab might, is built on unsafe assumptions. I know this sort of reasoning is very popular in the Arab world, which has never gotten over the trauma of being defeated by such a small nation - if that nation is backed with US force, the defeat becomes easier to tolerate (during the 6 day war, Nassar conspired with the King of Jordan to release the story that the US was really responsible for their defeat - over an unsecure telephone line which was intercepted).
It is also, I think, popular among those who hope that Israel can be coerced and peace achieved by threat of withdrawal of military aid … again, I think an argument based on quicksand.