Incumbents always play to the majority in any field.
Dem or Rep, the US Jews are a usable asset when it comes to election time.
You just have to keep funding Israel.
I dunno, Jews are something like 2% of the total US voting population, and seem to vote heavily Dem regardless of Bush’s recent fiscal support of Israel, which makes me think that for the majority of them, support of Israel is such a major issue. They’re also concentrated in districts that tend to go Dem regardless (NYC, Miami,LA), so I seriously doubt that going after their votes is worth 30 billion, which after all could be used to suck up to other constituencies.
Yeah, sorry about that, it’s really getting out of hand! No wonder we’ve got this obesity epidemic thingy.
Stop! Stop before I smiley again! 
Oops. Back to the re-education camp.
As John Mace noted, though, it’s not so much about US Jewish votes in general as it is about a specific US pro-Israel lobby—which is by no means restricted to Jewish constituents, either. Advocates of hawkish right-wing pro-Israel policies, both Jewish and self-described “Christian Zionist”, may not make up much of the voting population, but like many other competent and well-organized lobbying groups, they have an amount of political influence disproportionate to their numbers. And their influence tends to lean in the direction of increasing aid and support to Israel.
Who would be the first POTUS/Senate majority with the courage to cut off this aid? It’s not just the Jewish voting constituency. Imagine how ending aid to the “Holy Land” would play in the Bible Belt! Not well, I suspect.
Well, he didn’t cut off the aid, but Bush the first was a great deal less friendly to Israel than many previous presidents, according to Shlomo Ben-Ami’s “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace.” Apparently Papa Bush and his advisors were not personally acquainted of many Jews and therefore did not have any huge impetus to treat Israel deferentially.
It may be worth keeping in mind that a substantial chunk of that $30 billion may well be ear-marked for military spending. In which case, as has been done in the past, the Israelis would be purchasing equipment from US companies as part of the deal.
So the cash is coming back full circle to the States to the benefit of US industry, just not going back to the state coffers where it came from.
I guess I must have been imagining those Arab-Israeli Members of the Knesset. 
Wow. You’re right. Israel welcomed its Arab neighbors into the fold with open arms.
from Wikipedia:
In the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, former British-Mandate Palestine was de facto divided into three parts: the State of Israel, Jordanian-held West Bank, and Egyptian-held Gaza Strip. Of the estimated 950,000 Arabs that lived in the territory that became Israel before the war,[20] some 156,000 remained.[21] Arab citizens of Israel are largely composed of these people and their descendants. Others include some from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank who procured Israeli citizenship under family-unification provisions that were recently made significantly more stringent.[22]
The phrase “territory that became Israel before the war,” excludes the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians were largely a) displaced by war, b) chased out by mobs, or c) physically removed by elements of the Israeli Defense Force or its militia proxies.
The Israeli government is wary of a demographic shift if more Arab/Palestinians gain citizenship, and they do their utmost at every turn to keep the Arab poplulation in check.
Wow. You’re right. Israel welcomed its Arab neighbors into the fold with open arms.
from Wikipedia:
In the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, former British-Mandate Palestine was de facto divided into three parts: the State of Israel, Jordanian-held West Bank, and Egyptian-held Gaza Strip. Of the estimated 950,000 Arabs that lived in the territory that became Israel before the war,[20] some 156,000 remained.[21] Arab citizens of Israel are largely composed of these people and their descendants. Others include some from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank who procured Israeli citizenship under family-unification provisions that were recently made significantly more stringent.[22]
The phrase “territory that became Israel before the war,” excludes the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians were largely a) displaced by war, b) chased out by mobs, or c) physically removed by elements of the Israeli Defense Force or its militia proxies.
The Israeli government is wary of a demographic shift if more Arab/Palestinians gain citizenship, and they do their utmost at every turn to keep the Arab poplulation in check.
I suggest you do a little more reading on what exactly happened. The Palestinians largely left those regions because they believed that their Arab brothers were going to wipe out the Israelis and they’d be able to go back and take everything back. There was a voluntary exodus. In the case where the IDF removed Palestinians, it was mostly to get them out of the way of the war.
And let’s not forget the big point here, which is that it was the Arabs who launched a war against Israel. Not just in 1948, but in 1967 and 1973. Territory that Israel has claimed during those wars was territory required to maintain a stable defense.
Israel has done the best it can under extremely difficult circumstances. Given the U.S.'s history when attacked, I’d say the Israelis have conducted themselves with far more restraint than America would under the same circumstances. Britain, France, Russia, and other major countries have also been known to react swiftly and violently against direct threats to their sovereignity. Israel is being held to a standard we wouldn’t hold for most any other country.
Somehow, if this aid were being given to any number of other countries I imagine there wouldn’t be anywhere near the uproar. The example of Egypt has already been brought up. For all the handwringing I hear about aid to Israel, there seems to be a general silence regarding aid given to Egypt, or the Palestinians for that matter. The same people who hate giving aid to Israel don’t seem to have a problem with demanding increased aid to North Korea, either.
Start your own thread if y’all want to get into this shit. Here we’re talking about why, or whether, Israel should be getting $$$ from US taxpayers.
I’ll be back later with a longer post to address some of the points raised in the thread.
Whether they “welcomed” them or not isn’t the issue. The issue is: did they emancipate them - that is, give them the vote? Do they have political freedom within Israel itself?
The inspiring fact is that the answer is “yes” to both questions. In spite of the legacy of war and terrorism, Israel did something no other country in the immediate vicinity has been able to do - create a vibrant, meaningful democracy, one in which the Arab minority is not excluded from voting or being elected.
All the raking over of ethinic and communal tensions aside (and one may point out that Israelis were not one-sidedly to blame for them and did not one-sidedly suffer for them), the fact is that Israel is a democracy, and the only one in the area.
I’m not an American, but if I was, I’d say that fact alone indicates why Israel is worthy of financial support. Democracy is both a method of government and an ideology - we in the West do I think reap benefits from supporting those who have demonstrated that they can successfully engage it it. It’s a better use of money, IMO, than attempting to create it among those who have not.
I’m pretty sure we don’t give military aid to the Palestinians.
As for Egypt, well, I addressed this argument up thread: there is at least some reason to believe that we get something in return for our aid to Egypt (and indeed, part of what we get is there not starting shit with Israel, so in some ways our aid to Egypt is meant to assist Israel). If you don’t think what we get in return is worth it and we should cut/stop aid to that country, please feel free to make your arguments here, as it was one of the questions posed by the OP, and I’m certainly open to being convinced on the issue.
But regardless of whether or aid to Egypt is a good or bad thing, I’m not really seeing how that invalidates spokes arguments about our aid to Israel.
Are you debating the people in this thread or hypothetical people who think hypothetical things about N. Korea?
Egypt also controls the Suez Canal, a vital waterway. The United States has a great strategic interest in keeping it open for Western shipping.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846953.html
In my opinion, for what it is worth, the lion’s share of military aid ought to go to embattled or threatened democracies. In the long run, support of such countries is worthwhile in aiding the US’s own position.
One purely practical reason for this is that the gratitude of non-democracies for military aid is pretty well unbankable. To take the specific example of Egypt, military aid to Egypt got the Soviets little, because the dictator of the day simply changed his mind and booted them out. And again, US spending of aid on the dictatorships de jour did them no favours - for example, the lavish support of the Shah just earned them hatred in Iran.
Cutting off aid to Israel to appeal to Islamic fundies is I think a worthless strategy. They hate the US anyway, as much for cultural reasons as anything else. The Islamicist ideal of a worldwide Caliphate is simply incompatible with the world’s dominant power being a liberal democracy, the two are simply bound to clash.
Well, Egypt also has a lot of interest in keeping the canal open, its provides a sizable chunk of their revenues, so I’m not sure we need to bribe them with defense aid to let us use it.
I agree, I’m just not convinced Israel is embattled or threatened. The last major offensive against them was 30+ years ago, and their primary antagonists in the area seem to have accepted their existence. The few remaining attackers are guerrilla groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, all of whom are widely outgunned by the Israeli army with or without American aid.
Israel’s status as a democracy and her record of emancipation were given as reasons for our continued support. There may be good practical reasons to support Israel, but these ideological reasons do not fly with me.
I have been reading up as best I can, and I have read about the exodus undertaken at the urging of Arab leaders. I’ve also read about Arabs’ being terrorized into leaving both before and after the war(s).
I disagree regarding the amount of restraint, noting that some 40,000 Palesetinians and Lebanese were killed in the war in Lebanon that began in 1982 and that Israel’s common response to a single Qassam missile, which frequently hits nothing, is a reprisal costing several lives and the demolishing of one or more houses.
For the past few decades, we’ve apparently been giving the lion’s share of our foreign aid to Israel and Egypt as part of the Camp David peace deal between the two countries.
In the context of 1978, that was a bargain at the price: it had only been five years since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, which followed on the heels of similar wars in 1967, 1956, and 1948.
But now Egypt’s recognition of Israel is a long-established reality, and Jordan followed suit in 1994. Hell, Syria’s expressed serious interest in a peace deal as well. Camp David has succeeded, and isn’t going to come unraveled at this late date. Israel is safe from conventional military attacks by its neighbors, and is far safer in general than it was 30 years ago.
If this new aid package is coming about because the Camp David aid agreement is finally expiring, then what’s in it for us is a damned good question. If we’re upping the ante over the Camp David bribe, then shouldn’t we expect Camp David-style returns on our investment? Yet we don’t seem to be asking anything of the Israelis in return for the money.
I’m still not seeing anything tangible the US gets from Israel. Where is the quid pro quo?
Let’s review some of the arguments made in favor of this humongous aid package:
Israel is our ally and is “under threat.”
There are no serious threats to Israel’s existence at this point. Israel is under threat of terrorist attack, I suppose, but then so are we. (Should Israel be sending aid to us? We are an ally, under threat…)
Besides which, Israel can afford its own defense. Why should America pay Israel’s tab or any part of it?
And in what sense, exactly, is Israel our ally? What do they do for us? As far as I can see, Israel looks out for Israel.
Israel is a stable democracy in a troubled neighborhood.
So we should give them $30 billion for that? Without any showing of need?
India is a stable democracy sandwiched between Pakistan and China. Should we send India $30 billion? “Well done, India! Here, have some of our taxpayers’ money!”
Israel “draws fire” away from the US.
9/11 disproves that notion. Besides which, our aid to Israel is a good part of the reason the US gets targeted in the first place.
They will be spending the money on US arms, so the money will come back to us.
First of all, they are only required to spend c. 74% of the money on US arms. Meaning roughly $7.8 billion is leaving our shores forever. What are we getting for that?
And the money that is being spent on US arms isn’t coming back to “us” as in “us the US taxpayer.” It’s coming back to the arms industry and its employees, a narrow sector of US.
“But that stimulates the economy!” I can hear you say. Well, if we want to spend a huge wad of money on an industry to stimulate the economy, I vote we spend it repairing bridges or mass transit. Spend that same money in those areas, and you have something to show for your money: an improved infrastructure. Spend it on weapons shipped overseas, and we have nothing to show.
Any way you spin it, Israel is getting a $30 billion subsidy to support her defense industry. That’s $30 billion Israelis don’t have to spend themselves. (Which frees them up to pay for things like universal health care, I guess.)
[whine] But Saudi Arabia and Egypt are getting money, too…
Well, Saudi Arabia and Egypt combined are getting only 2/3 what Israel is getting.
I don’t much like that aid package either, but at least I can see policy reasons for that expenditure. Egypt controls the Suez Canal, the easiest point of access to Middle Eastern oil. Egypt has served as a proxy jailer for us with captured terrorists. And, as pointed out earlier, a good part of the reason Egypt receives aid is that it made peace with Israel. So part of the aid to Egypt is indirectly a form of aid to Israel - a way of buying her some security.
Saudi Arabia sits on the world’s largest oil reserves. Not hard to understand why we’d want to stay on their good side. Saudi Arabia played host to our troops for over ten years. The Saudis have increased production when oil prices spiked to help keep the US economy from going into an oil shock.
What resources does Israel control? What is she doing to advance US interests?
Aid gives us access to the Mossad, and Israeli intelligence.
Israeli intelligence serves the interests of Israel. It is beyond naïve to think otherwise.
How much did access to Israeli intelligence help us in the run-up to the Iraq war? In fact, it was in Israel’s interest to see Saddam taken out, which means Israeli intelligence might have had an incentive to mislead us to achieve that end.
I also worry about relying on Israeli intelligence when it comes to Iran. Israel wants the US to confront Iran. (Don’t believe me? Just go to AIPAC’s website and look at all the anti-Iran propaganda. Would Israel cook intelligence to achieve a US-Iran confrontation? Who knows? But I do worry about a certain “Let’s you and him fight” aspect of Israel’s foreign policy.
At best, Israel’s intelligence is of dubious value to us given their possibly conflicting motivations.
Aid gives the US leverage over Israel.
Why do we need leverage over Israel? Let Israel do what she wants, and accept the consequences for her own actions.
Israel needs the money for its defense. They spend a large part of their GDP on the military.
Not significantly more than the US, as I showed earlier. The average Israeli spends 50% more than the average American on defense. Not bad considering their neigborhood. Why should it be our responsibility to subsidize them?
Why are you so focused on Israel? Hmmmm?
This is not an argument at all, but a thinly-veiled attempt to insinuate the OP is motivated by anti-Semitism. Talk about threadbare tactics. This is just a sad attempt to poison the well, and an elliptical ad hominem attack. (I’m looking at you, Jackmannii.)
I assure you I am not an anti-Semite, nor do I bear any ill will toward Israel. Israel is getting by in a tough area, and doing quite well. More power to her. I just don’t see why I should be taxed to subsidize her.
I started the thread because there was an article in the paper about the aid package, and I thought the payout seemed unjustified.
You mentioned AIPAC! You are a nutty conspiracy theorist!
Not an argument, but a comination of a poison-the-well fallacy and an ad hominem attack. A pathetic attempt to distract readers from the meat of the discussion. (Again, I’m looking at you, Jackmannii.)
It doesn’t take much of a conspiracy theorist to note that AIPAC is enormously effective at lobbying the US government on behalf of Israel. AIPAC makes no secret of it. It is the organization’s reason for existence.
Given AIPAC’s successful lobbying, and the dearth of evidence that the US receives any tangible benefit for all the money sent to Israel, it is entirely reasonable to wonder whether the aid to Israel is motivated by legitimate policy concerns, or is just the result of an effective lobbying campaign by AIPAC.
I’ll address some of this, leaving it to others to address the other points.
This just plain isn’t true. Israel is under quite serious threat - Islamicists universally hate Israel, Iran-funded Hezbollah outposts right on their border - and Iran, among others, has called for Israel’s destruction (and is busy building a nuclear capability). Israel has fought numerous wars with its neighbours, in at least three cases within the last 60 years ('48, '67 and '73) as a direct result of quite serious attempts to destroy it.
The governments of some of of Israel’s neighbours are themselves under Islamicist threat; Hezbollah is making concerted efforts to take over in Lebanon, Hamas has taken over the Gaza strip. Their ideology is unequivocal on the topic of wiping Israel out. What if they should take over Saudi Arabia and/or Egypt?
One may say “well, why then do we not aid the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia?” - and the US is in fact aiding both; but, as the example of the Shah demonstrates, military aid of that sort can bite the US in the ass.
Why should the US wish to support stable democracies against the forces out to destroy them?
I think that not only is this the right thing to do, but living in a world composed of more stable democracies is good in a lot of very tangible ways - democracies tend to help each other, tend to have higher standards of living, more trade, etc. etc.
Israel is on the front line of what is shaping up to be somewhat of a clash between two fundamentally different ways of life - basically pluralistic liberal democracies, and Islamicism. So far, “we” are far more powerful than “they”. But this does not mean that losing out in one major falshpoint would not deal “us” a big blow, and be a big victory for “them”. It is certainly a victory “they” ardently desire.
The need is there, for those taking the long historical view discussed above.
The US currently provides aid to Pakistan and not to India, I suppose both to bribe the Pakistanis to control the Taliban and for historical reasons - because of Cold War affiliations.
Personally, I think it is a mistake, and that the US should be supporting India and not Pakistan.
I disagree.
-
9/11 is a single, spectacular incident. It does not mean that things could not be worse for the US itself.
-
The notion that the Islamicists would “not hate the US if only they didn’t support Israel” is I believe fundamentally wrong.
Islamicists have a much more apocalyptic view of the world, according to their own writings - they blame the West in general for the Crusades, let alone Israel. Support for Israel is not going to make any difference to them. They are fundamentally un-appeasable.
I think that military support for those controlling Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a mistake.
For one, unlike the aid to Israel, the military supplies purchased by these countries are available should, as happened in Iran, their governments fall to Islamicists.
For another, dictators are notoriously fickle and the support given to them may not buy their friendship. One has to look no further than Egypt herself to see this - the Soviets were unceremoniously ejected, in spite of billions in aid.
A way to look at the question is this. Should Israel fall to her Islamicist enemies, would this fall affect the US? In my opinion, the answer would clearly be “yes”. Such a victory would give the Islamicists a major triumph, and I doubt that they would stop there - attacking US allies and interests would, I would think, immediately increase; after all, the Islamicist goal is not merely the destruction of Israel, but the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate. Why would they stop after such a resounding success?