Oh, I support them. I just don’t think they need my money. Show me why they do, and what we get out of it, other than a warm feeling.
Hey, I recognize that! The domino theory! Boy I haven’t seen that one for a while. Mighty long distance between your dominos, though. And I’m still not seeing why Israel shouldn’t pay for its own defense. Israel can afford it.
(I can’t help but notice the number of Canadians in this thread urging me to send my tax money to Israel. Odd.)
I’ll just pick one.
Hate is bad. No question.
But not what you’d call a lethal weapon.
And their cheap-ass rockets might kill an Israeli now and then, which is even worse than mere hate, but that doesn’t represent an existential threat to Israel.
Hezbollah can play great defense, but playing offense is a whole 'nother game, and they’re light-years away from being able to do more than a hit-and-run inside of Israel’s borders.
Not this oft-debunked bit.
Of course, I guess some people would consider a call for a U.S.-Mexico union to be a call for America’s destruction. But people are crazy.
No question; they’ve admitted to it. They are building a nuclear capability.
There’s a nuclear capability right down the road from me; produces a lot of electricity. I’m cool with that.
That was before Egypt and Jordan recognized Israel. Any sign that either of them is going to attack Israel any time soon?
And they will destroy Israel how, by throwing heavy bound copies of their ideology across the border?
What if small appliances learn the art of teleportation?
I see - all of your previous prolific posts on the alleged perfidies of Israel should be forgotten - all you’re concerned about its proper spending of tax dollars. :rolleyes:
To get a good feel for your dishonesty, let’s for example recall that in this conspiracy theory thread, you allowed as how the goofball in the OP was over the top (about Israel’s supposed plans to “atomize” the Arab world in order to help create a new World Order…but then went on to share your “insights” about the Project for a New American Century, theories about Israeli agents infiltrating the U.S. government etc.
Classic soft core conspiro-blather. "Well, it certainly could be. I’m not saying it is, but let’s throw it out there and see who salutes (nudge nudge wink wink).
To answer your question, Kimstu, that’s why I singled out spoke-, as he’s well known for this stuff. If he doesn’t want to get called on it, he should consider sticking to questions of policy.
I doubt that you, for instance, appreciate it when right-wingers try to stir up resentment against ideas and policies you believe in, by linking them to Ted Kennedy or off-the-deep-end posters on DailyKos. Even if one is naive enough to think that none of the venom directed against the “Israel Lobby” is based in bigotry, it’s still a sleazy red herring.
There is nothing stopping any of the many anti-Israel organizations, commentators and lobby groups from working to persuade the public and Congress that their views are correct. And of course, they do - with the aid of considerable financial resources. If they are not as effective as AIPAC, maybe one should consider whether their message and/or mode of delivering it are substantially flawed. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a good example of a group with wretched and sometimes reprehensible p.r. tactics, but it would be sleazy to try to knock down a position they happen to espouse by dragging CAIR into the argument at every opportunity.
No one is challenging your right to express anti-Israel views, spoke-. What’s problematic is your blatant dishonesty in cloaking them as mere concern over U.S. spending priorities, and getting all huffy when someone calls you on a sleazy debate tactic.
I don’t have any anti-Israel views, Jackmannii. I wish Israel and Israelis nothing but happiness and success. I just don’t want Israel or its lobbyists in the US bending US foreign policy to the point that it winds up serving Israel’s interests more than our own.
Jackmannii, it is obvious that you have strong emotional ties to Israel. I understand that, and I am trying not to lose my cool. But this is a thinly-veiled and unfounded accusation of bigotry. As I have said repeatedly, I am not an anti-Semite, and I bear no ill will toward Israel. I would like an apology.
As for the thread you linked, I believe it is one of only two or three where I have discussed Israeli-US relations at any length, so I’m not sure how that constitutes being “well known for this stuff” (whatever “this stuff” may be). I invite the readers of this thread to read that one so that they can understand my comments in context. I don’t believe any reasonable person who reads the thread would consider me a nutty conspiracy theorist.
Sure there is. Anytime someone questions Israel’s favored position in US foreign policy, they are labeled an anti-Semite, just as you are trying (in a thinly-veiled way) to do to me in this thread. That is a cheap tactic, but quite effective at quelling debate. No one wants to be considered a bigot, so they remain silent.
Michelle Goldberg described the tactic in this Salon article:
But I am confident enough in my reputation on these boards that I believe it will survive your attempts to sully it.
Enough of this, Jackmannii; let’s rise above the ad hominem attacks and poisoning-the-well fallacies for just a moment to address the topic of this thread:
What does the US get from Israel that justifies this $30 billion giveaway? What is the quid pro quo?
I’ve asked this question several times, and you have yet to answer it.
Nope. I have no “emotional” or any other “ties” to Israel. I have generally been supportive of Israeli policy while criticizing aspects of it on numerous occasions on these boards.
Neither I nor anyone else in this thread (or anywhere at all here, to my knowledge) have accused you of this. I’ve responded to your “substantive” points in this thread and pointed out the sleaziness of trying to polarize debate by attempting to stir up ill will toward lobbying organizations (using examples including AARP and the NRA). You’ve ducked responding to this, and are trying to find insult in a comment that was not directed at you.
Along with nudge nudge wink wink conspiro-blather, trying to wrap yourself in a false aura of being unjustly declared a bigot are part of your M.O., and I bear no ill will toward you over it 
but you don’t deserve an apology either. If any apology is needed, it should come from you based on the dishonesty of your posts.
I’ve responded, but you seem more interested in defending your honor against imaginary slurs. To remind you of what I said in a previous post:
Numerous other rationales for aid have been raised by others, I’ve just focused on deterrence. I also mentioned it being a bad move on our part to promise expanded military aid to Israel without tying strings to it regarding peace initiatives, but you seem to have skipped over that as well.
And again to express wonderment at your lack of consistency - where’s your insistence that all foreign aid provided by the U.S. have a “quid pro quo”? If there had to be an unequivocal, quantifiable benefit to the U.S. from any tax dollars spent in this regard, our foreign aid budget would sink to near zero.
All right. Everyone consider sticking to facts regarding the issue of the OP and let’s just drop the whole “honesty” and “honor” stuff regarding other posters. No good can come of it and I really doubt that such comments are actually having an impact on the rest of the readers of this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
In your own mind, certainly you are innocent. However, have you not openly ventilated the issue of the US-Israeli relationship? Prompted discussion: Participated in an evidence-based forum: Queried the benefits of US middle east policy: Promoted critical inquiry?
Each such charge is profoundly anti-Israel and renders you an implacable antagonist.
Sorry, Jackmannii, it was hard to find your actual arguments buried in all the personal attacks. But let’s take a look:
Well, that’s arguably a benefit to Israel. How does that help the US? (Which, you realize, is a separate entity?)
“Emboldening Israel’s enemies?” Borrowing a page from the Bush playbook now, are we?
Israel doesn’t need our largesse to defend herself. Whether we give her $30 billion or not, Israel is in no danger from her enemies. Israel has by far the best, most professional military in the region. And (psssst) don’t tell anybody, but Israel has nukes. Who’s seriously planning to invade Israel, do you suppose?
Even assuming that Israel’s security somehow helps the US (a claim for which I see no evidence), Israel doesn’t need to reach into my pocket to defend herself.
I absolutely insist on a quid pro quo if we are giving money to a country with a per capitial GDP approximately the same as that of France.
And the first time I see an article saying we are sending $30 billion to, say, Greece, you can bet that I will squawk about it. But Israel is the only wealthy nation that gets this sort of inexplicable bounty from us.
How come?
In the absence of any plausible policy reasons, we are left to conclude that Israel gets money not because it helps the US, but because she and her friends in the US have effectively lobbied our government for the handout.
Oh, but I forgot: it’s “sleazy” to mention the impact of lobbying.
That indeed is what you have challenged us to do, and what I’m attempting to do. However, without much in the way of effect, as I see my arguments have been rather cavalierly dismissed without discussion.
I tried.
I believe the essence of the “domino theory” was that, in SE Asia, if one allowed Vietnam to fall to Communism, the other nations would fall to Communism as well.
As it turns out, that theory proved mostly wrong, as communism wasn’t so much a matter of externally-directed invasion, as the organizing principle of indigenous nationalist groups - thus, communist Vietnam making war on communist Cambodia and China.
The situation with Islamicists is very different. While they too are riven by faction (Sunni and Sh’ite have no love for each other), their ideology is indeed one of more world-wide application and reach - to give an example, as far as I know the Vietnamese Communists never attempted to topple any “dominos” within the US itself.
The World Trade Centre was a mighty big pair of “dominos”.
There is an old military maxim: “never reinforce failure”. Your point appears to be that Israel is wealthy and thus does not need reinforcement - thus, “never reinforce success”.
To my mind, supporting existing democracies is a more worthwhile endeavour than attempting to inculcate democracy from the top-down in countries which have no tradition or history of democracy.
Now, it is a characteristic of democracies that they tend to be wealthier than dictatorships - and at least partly this is cause and effect. In my opinion, we must hang together.
I can’t help but notice that this is exactly the sort of ad-hom insinuation you dislike when it is directed against yourself.
Again, I don’t view the foreign policy projects of the great democracies as entirely seperate. My tax dollars are at work, together with soldiers from my country, in Afganistan, in response in large part to 9-11. I think this is right and proper, for the reasons I have outlined; that we must all work together.
You seem to disagree, to the extent of apparently insinuating that making arguments attempting to persuade you of the correctness of your own government’s position on the matter has some sort of unnamed sinister motive.
Say, why doesn’t Israel send us $30 billion? After all, we set a pretty good example of democracy, too (that little imbroglio in Florida a few years back notwithstanding…).
Does need have no bearing on the question?
There are many poorer democracies in the world, including democracies in the Muslim world, and we aren’t sending them the kind of money Israel gets. Hell, even Iran has some semblance of democracy. Should we send them money?
Besides, one would assume that when a nation attains a certain level of wealth it no longer needs aid. You’re saying we should keep sending wealthy democracies money on principle? Should we send $30 billion to Germany while we’re at it? I mean, sure, they’ve been democratic for a while, but maybe some $$$ will help reinforce the principle.
Well, I called you Canadian. I didn’t mean it as an insult, though. Heck I’ve liked every Canadian I’ve ever met.
What “unnamed sinister motive?” I think the motives are quite clear, and not at all sinister (just self-interested). Israel and her friends in the US (and apparently Canada) are lobbying the US government to give Israel money. Where’s the “unnamed?” Where’s the “sinister?”
I understand that Jewish people (whether Canadian or US-ian) often have an emotional attachment to Israel. That is entirely understandable, and not at all sinister.
Neither is it sinister for me,as a taxpayer, to challenge whether Israel should be getting aid at levels far above any of our other friends and allies. (Or whether Israel should be getting any aid at all, given her wealth as a nation.)
You’re saying AIPAC doesn’t exist, and/or it’s never had much success in influencing American policy in the Mideast? You consider that crackpot conspiracy thinking?
Indeed it does. I believe that Israel’s location and the fact it is a focus for Islamicist hatred, not to mention numerous wars, explains the need.
Again, it isn’t poverty that should be the driver, but necessity. If there was a liberal democracy in the Muslim world under comparable threat to Israel, obviously they should get the same support.
The US did exactly that during the Cold War - not mere “aid money” but actual US military units located in Germany.
Naturally, being Canadian isn’t insulting. The notion that I have “ulterior motives” quite aside from those I’ve actually expressed on the topic (and thus that the arguments are suspect) of course is.
The “sinister” is within the context of the argument - meaning, by implication, that those who argue against you are not doing so from the reasons they themselves state, but because they love Israel, right or wrong.
If that is your opinion, there is nothing left to debate on the actual issues (the only real issue of substance left being whether you “love” or “hate” Israel), and I can only conclude that your initial request for “debate” was a mere rhetorical device.
I however never questioned your motives for starting the thread, but merely responded to your questions with arguments. I simply request you do the same.
Can you not see that discounting the opinions of others because they “love Israel” (because they are Jews?) is the mirror-image of discounting your own opinion on the basis that you “hate Israel”?
Well, this post embodies two reasons why we give so much money to Israel. First, they have a powerful and effective lobby. Second, the issue has become so poisoned by advocates of Israel that any Congressman who attempted to seriously reign in US foreign aid to Israel would be branded an anti-Semite and find it more difficult to be re-elected.
There are other fledgling democracies in the world which deserve our aid as much as Israel does, but Israel remains the single largest recipient of US foreign aid. I’m pretty sure it is not because Israel is more virtuous or less secure than these other democracies.
You have a point there. So to the extent I may have done that, I apologize.
But regardless of the motives of the debaters in this thread, I still see no good objective reason to be handing out this kind of money to a relatively wealthy nation such as Israel. As far as I can see, the payout seems to be more the result of effective lobbying than genuine policy considerations.
Israel’s in a tough neighborhood? Well, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. More power to the Israelis, but I don’t feel any need to underwrite them. They have proven that they are quite capable of defending themselves.
I do not agree. I believe that the policy has its own merits, and that to rack it all up to lobbying (and fear of smear tactics) seriously overestimates the power of lobbying & the like.
Naturally, supporters of Israel have a lobby. So do many other special interest groups, including those who oppose support of Israel - for example, the lobbying power of Arab Oil money is legendary. Why do the US lawmakers listen to the one and not to the other? In my opinion, basically because the merit lies on one side and not the other.
To argue otherwise is I believe to indulge in a sort of fallacy - it is to assume that the opposite point of view has no merits of its own, that those who support it are motivated purely by pressure and threats, to act directly against self-interest. To my mind that is simply not credible.
Perhaps some specific examples would be in order. Which liberal democracy equally emperilled would you prefer to support?
Not a problem.
I’m afraid we have come full circle on this. I have nothing new to add to the arguments listed above.
Actually, it was “hard” for you to spot my responses because you were too busy searching for some nugget you could use to get on your soapbox again about nonexistent ad hominems. But let’s look at your response.
Are you seriously posing this as a question? Relative stability through deterrence of aggression, in a region so vital to the flow of oil is of no interest to the U.S.? You could argue that stability would be better served by U.S. support of a total arms embargo to the region on behalf of peace (which would help the budget’s bottom line), but this would require relatively even-handed treatment of all nations in the region. Plus I suspect the arms vacuum would rapidly be filled by other players.
You know, for someone so keenly sensitive to perceived “thinly veiled” slurs, you’ve repeatedly hinted around one yourself - the old canard about Jewish support for Israel representing an unpatriotic allegiance to a foreign nation. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you dump comments like this and the repeated statements about posters’ “emotional ties” to Israel, and stick to facts.
To Lonesome Polecat and Sophistry and Illusion, I refer you to post #83, which takes into account past posting history in regards to AIPAC and related themes.
Nice try Jackmannii, but no, we are not going to derail this thread. If you want to attack me personally, take it to the pit.
Back to Israel:
Our $30 billion does nothing to protect Israel. All it does is subsidize the Israeli citizenry. Whether or not we give $30 billion to Israel, Israel is going to take the necessary steps to defend itself-- even if that means (horrors!) paying for its own damn weapons.
So our $30 billion is not a deterrent. It is a sop to Israel, and a product of lobbying.
The US gains nothing, since Israel will ably defend itself whether or not we shower the place with cash taken from US taxpayers.
And meanwhile, our infrastructure crumbles.
I didn’t claim that these were the only reasons the subsidies exist. I merely said they were among the reasons.
But it is undeniable that claims of “supporting a threatened democracy” or some other reason like that cannot possibly serve to justify the amount of foreign aid the US gives to Israel. For example, Lebanon is a fragile democracy in the Middle East. Its democracy and sovereignty are in fact threatened, both by Syria and by Hezbollah’s state-within-a-state. And yet the US doesn’t exert itself nearly as hard on the behalf of Lebanon, and gives far less money per capita to the Lebanese than to the Israelis. Yet the threat to Lebanese sovereignty and democracy is real, much more real than the threat to Israel allegedly posed by neighboring Arab states with their pathetic armies and decades out-of-date equipment.
[Ironically, Israel’s only real existential threat is demographic, and comes from the population expansion of Palestinians within the occupied territories. But the US doesn’t seem interested in helping Israel fend off that real threat to its existence.]