[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
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.
[/QUOTE]
So the Israeli lobby has *nothing * to do with increasing US monetary support to Israel? AIPAC would be disappointed to know all their efforts are fruitless. What do you think they are trying to accomplish on Capitol Hill–get Congress to support a Dreidel Appreciation Bill?
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
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more real than the threat to Israel allegedly posed by neighboring Arab states with their pathetic armies and decades out-of-date equipment.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.]
[/QUOTE]
And I’d agree - the US ought to aid Lebanon’s fledgling democracy. And so it does: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-05/2007-05-25-voa53.cfm?CFID=192705919&CFTOKEN=99378725
The problem with Lebanon, of course, is that its democracy is so very fragile. Truly massive military aid could easily destabilize the country, which only recently emerged from decades of civil war and vassalage to Syria. Indeed, it is questionable whether its government even rules at all, given that Hezbollah inhabits enclaves within it that are virtually autonimous. It makes more sense to provide truly massive military aid to countries with a functioning government - otherwise the “aid” could easily look like “control” or “domination”.
To my mind, it never does to underestimate the enemy. The notion that the Arab states are toothless and despicable in military terms is a fashionable one, but one that ought to be resisted. Certainly, the Arabs have gradually developed methods of warfare that make a virtue of their weaknesses - including, unfortunately, terrorism; methods that are extremely difficult and expensive to counter, as the US is discovering in Iraq.
The difference between the US and Israel is of course that the US can simply leave Iraq. Israel cannot simply leave its neighbours, and so must remain vigilant continually.
I do believe Israel will face truly existential threats in the future, particularly if (rather, when) Iran gains nuclear weapons capability. Hezbollah armed with nukes would make for one heck of a realistic existential threat.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
I’m afraid we have come full circle on this. I have nothing new to add to the arguments listed above.
[/QUOTE]
Nor I.
Nice job, Malthus. It’s a pity there’s such a dearth of effort to respond to your points on a reasoned and factual basis.
Still waiting to hear why we should subsidize a country with the same per capita GDP as France.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
The US did exactly that during the Cold War - not mere “aid money” but actual US military units located in Germany.
[/QUOTE]
The U.S. had a vested interest in keeping Germany free from Soviet domination. If the Soviets had taken over Germany we would have lost one of our key trade partners and markets. I guess the point is if Israel disappeared tomorrow it wouldn’t strategically affect the US. We don’t trade that much with Israel. Israel doesn’t control any strategic land, waterways, or any bases for us.
[QUOTE=Enfant Terrible]
Who would be the first POTUS/Senate majority with the courage to cut off this aid?
[/QUOTE]
Christiane Amanpour of CNN is currently doing a series on God’s Warriors. Last night the episode on “Jewish Warriors” aired, and it included a segment on the influence of AIPAC and the Jewish lobby on American foreign policy.
An example of how it works was given in former Illinois Senator Paul Percy. Percy had worked on an arms deal to Saudi Arabia, to the displeasure of pro-Israel lobbyists. And so they poured money into the campaign coffers of his Democratic challenger Paul Simon, and Percy was defeated. Now, anyone in Congress who challenges AIPAC’s position on a given issue is apparently threatened with being “Percy-ized,” and every Congressman knows what that word means.
Amanpour also discussed another method for shutting down debate used by Israel’s supporters: anyone who dares to criticize the influence of Israel over American foreign policy is tarred as an anti-Semite, a bigot, or a conspiracy theorist. (Just the tactic Jackmannii has used in this thread and others.)
Amanpour interviewed Jimmy Carter, whose recent book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was critical of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. She showed clips of how, while Carter was doing talk shows promoting the book he was met with waves of protestors and angry phone-in listeners calling him an anti-Semite and a bigot.
She also covered how Bush the elder challenged AIPAC by trying to make loan guarantees to Israel conditional on Israel’s behavior. AIPAC reacted with fury, flooded Congress with lobbyists, and Bush’s proposal was withdrawn.
And so it goes.
All I can say is, if you’re unhappy with the influence of Israel over our foreign policy in general, or this lavish gift of $30 billion to Israel in particular, write your Senator and your Representative. It can’t hurt. Include a donation and it might even help a little.
[QUOTE=treis]
The U.S. had a vested interest in keeping Germany free from Soviet domination. If the Soviets had taken over Germany we would have lost one of our key trade partners and markets. I guess the point is if Israel disappeared tomorrow it wouldn’t strategically affect the US. We don’t trade that much with Israel. Israel doesn’t control any strategic land, waterways, or any bases for us.
[/QUOTE]
US doesn’t trade much with Israel? Nonsense.
Now obviously Israel isn’t on par with Germany (the US’s second largest trading partner), but is isn’t nothing, either. Its loss in pure economic terms would be huge - the massive $30 Billion in military spending, complained of in this thread, is approximately a single year’s trade volume.
Moreover, much of the trade between the two is of the same sort of high-level trade as the US enjoys with Germany - stuff like pharmaceuticals and telecom from Israel; electronics, aviation and computers from the US.
The US has a vested interest in keeping Israel a first-world Western nation, just as it had doing the same for Germany. Admittedly, Germany is a much larger country and so the need was more pressing. This is a difference in degree not in kind, though.
But the assertion that Israel doesn’t matter in this sense, that the main reason for supporting her is some sort of lobbiest’s conspiracy as presented in this thread, is just disheartening.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Still waiting to hear why we should subsidize a country with the same per capita GDP as France.
[/QUOTE]
You should argue with tries.
To my mind, the fact that Israel has a high GDP is a reason for supporting it - in that, as a first-world nation, it is a valuable part of our world, one which the US would do well, out of self-interest as well as principle, to encourage, support and defend - much as it did for Germany in a previous generation.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
the massive $30 Billion in military spending, complained of in this thread, is approximately a single year’s trade volume.
[/QUOTE]
Misleading. “Trade volume” does not equal “profit to the US.”
In just the same way, a retail store’s profit may be a tiny fraction of its sales volume. For that matter, a store can theoretically have a large sales volume and still lose money (if there is a low markup and the store has high overhead expenses).
[QUOTE=Malthus]
To my mind, the fact that Israel has a high GDP is a reason for supporting it - in that, as a first-world nation, it is a valuable part of our world, one which the US would do well, out of self-interest as well as principle, to encourage, support and defend - much as it did for Germany in a previous generation.
[/QUOTE]
How is it in the “self-interest” of the US to subsidize Israel? What do we get out of the deal?
Because I don’t see Israel giving us any return on our money at all.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Misleading. “Trade volume” does not equal “profit to the US.”
In just the same way, a retail store’s profit may be a tiny fraction of its sales volume. For that matter, a store can theoretically have a large sales volume and still lose money (if there is a low markup and the store has high overhead expenses).
[/quote]
This is a non-sequitur, since no such claim was made. Ideed, given that trade is made up of hundreds of thousands of transactions, the total “profit to the US” would be impossible to measure.
“Trade volume” is simply a measure of the importance of economic activity. The claim was that the economic activity between Israel and the US wasn’t significant - unlike that between the US and Germany - and that this distinction was a logical reason to protect the one and not the other. This claim is rebutted with facts - namely, the volume of trade.
Now, if you wish to posit the claim that the trade with Israel is actually run at a net loss to the US (and thus presumably to the US companies engaging in it), I’d of course be delighted to hear it - again, with some facts attached, as this would be a most extraordinary claim.
This is exactly the point I’ve been explaining. At this point, I get the feeling you aren’t really listening, since you keep repeating the question rather than engaging with the ideas. But I shall continue to try.
In crude economic terms, leaving aside for the moment any notions of justice, ideology or morality, it is in the best interests of the US to exist in a world composed of first-world nations. Such nations contribute directly to the well-being of the US, and to its wealth. Isolationism and autarky are extremely impoverishing.
Thus (and once again in purely self-interested terms), it is more in the interests of the US to preserve and protect existing first-world democracies than to preserve and protect third-world dictatorships. The loss of a first-world democracy would, in effect, impoverish the world to the extent of that country’s contributions to that world, and to the trade and other relationships - personal, scientific, educational - with the US.
This was true of Germany facing the Soviet menace; it remains true (albeit on a considerably smaller scale) of Israel facing the Islamicist menace. The Soviet-ization of Germany would have been “bad”, not only for the Germans, but for everyone else in the world, who would lose the benefit of German trade, industry, and science - at least, lose the difference between what free Germany is capable of and what Soviet Germany would be capable of. Since the US is the largest trading partner, it would lose most. Hence, it makes hard financial sense to spend some money to prevent this from happening.
The same of course would be true (again, albeit on a smaller scale) with the case of Israel.
I have already posted on the volume of trade. In addition, there are other contributions - science being a major one, the arts another - in which Israel has contributed to the world (and of which the US reaps some of the benefits).
Again, this is purely in answer to “what do [we] get out of the deal?”. However, it isn’t a complete answer, since the cost of not supporting Israel - assuming of course that this non-support makes Israel’s fall more likely - goes far beyond merely losing Israel. Such a loss, as previously explained, would very likely have serious effects in other places - it would encourage those forces which directly threaten to replace liberal democracies with Islamicist dictatorships.
While the victory of these forces is unlikely, it is unlikely only because many people make a concerted effort to ensure that it remains unlikely - for example, by the support of Israel which you deplore.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Now, if you wish to posit the claim that the trade with Israel is actually run at a net loss to the US (and thus presumably to the US companies engaging in it), I’d of course be delighted to hear it - again, with some facts attached, as this would be a most extraordinary claim.
[/quote]
The idea of a trade deficit is hardly extraordinary. Your own link says the US was operating at a trade deficit with Israel as of 2005. Trade can have a high volume without necessarily having a net benefit to both parties.
I have a high volume of trade with Macy’s, but I find that I’m mostly buying from them. Selling, not so much. Who profits more from the relationship?
But here’s where we’re at loggerheads: You think giving Israel $30 billion somehow “preserves and protects” her. I say Israel is going to be there whether or not we throw $30 billion of our taxpayers’ money at her. So our $30 billion doesn’t buy us anyting that we don’t already have.
It’s like me asking you to pay me $30 billion to keep the sun shining. What? You don’t see the value of sunshine?!
[QUOTE=Malthus]
…
Again, this is purely in answer to “what do [we] get out of the deal?”. However, it isn’t a complete answer, since the cost of not supporting Israel - assuming of course that this non-support makes Israel’s fall more likely - goes far beyond merely losing Israel. Such a loss, as previously explained, would very likely have serious effects in other places - it would encourage those forces which directly threaten to replace liberal democracies with Islamicist dictatorships.
While the victory of these forces is unlikely, it is unlikely only because many people make a concerted effort to ensure that it remains unlikely - for example, by the support of Israel which you deplore.
[/QUOTE]
This is nonsense and also explains the currency of the ‘only democracy in the middle east’ lie that comes up so often. It’s a mystery solved: the lie is used to bolster financial aid in the manner deployed by Malthus.
In fact Israel’s near neighbour, Turkey, is the leading democracy in the middle east. Turkey is a proper model for the transition from an Islamic state to a secular democracy. It is in some trouble on that path at the moment and aid could go a long way.
Plainly it’s the best and obvious candidate for the purported object of US aid. Yet it’s only digression to say so. There’s no integrity in the arguments made; the purpose purely rhetorical.
As to Israel itself. Well, it’s a strategic liability to the US, which has a sole practical benefit from the region, being the regular and predictable supply of petroleum products. And what does the US do? Antagonize its trading partners. In answer to the question what happens at Israels’ fall? The US would benefit. In any event, an outcome so profound is not needed. All the US needs to do is leverage Israel into negotiation and compromise.
Moreover at present, for all its aid; the President of the US is prohibited from making the single telephone call that would resolve the Israeli conflict: “Out of the West Bank by Tuesday, Bibi.” The US spends 30 Billion, that we know about to succeed in making itself worse off.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
The idea of a trade deficit is hardly extraordinary. Your own link says the US was operating at a trade deficit with Israel as of 2005. Trade can have a high volume without necessarily having a net benefit to both parties.
[/quote]
Do you think a trade deficit means that one side is losing out? Whether there’s a trade deficit or not is completely irrelevant to whether both sides are benefiting.
Well, let’s see - Macy’s made products and sold them for more than they were worth to them. So they definitely benefited. You got products that you value more than the money you spent to get them. So it looks like you benefited as well. What does the fact that you don’t make products for them have to do with it?
You need to understand that if Americans buy products overseas, they do so with American dollars. The holders of those dollars can two one of several things - they can use them to buy American goods and services, or they can lend them to other people who will in turn use them to buy American goods and services. Or they can lend the money back to Americans.
Now, if foreigners hold a large amount of American debt, because they lent the American dollars back to Americans, they can have a lot of leverage you’d rather they didn’t have. But it also exposes them to lots of risk. Look at the latest mortgage problem - if that mortgage debt were held by China, then China is going to take a bath when the mortgages default.
But the fact that there’s a net inflow or outflow of goods is really irrelevant. Trade is a good thing. You always benefit from free trade. It’s one of the most settled issues in economics. It’s very hard to find a legitimate economist who will tell you that free trade is a bad thing, even if it’s not perfectly balanced. Most of the opposition to free trade is mounted by special interests like labor unions, or industries that can’t compete in a global world. Not by economists.
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
… the President of the US is prohibited from making the single telephone call that would resolve the Israeli conflict: “Out of the West Bank by Tuesday, Bibi.”
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
Y’know, the consummate knowledge of ME politics shown in this one snippet proves beyond doubt that you are, in face, qualified to pontificate on the subject. Not. If you can’t get this simple fact straight, what else about the situation are you missing?
(Bibi Netanyahu has not been P.M. of Israel … oh, in this millenium, anyway.)
(ETA: FWIW, I agree that Turkey should be getting financial and other support from the West, preferably by the train-load.)
Sam, would you rather be the store owner or the customer?
Hint: One of Thomas Jefferson’s ideas for removing the eastern Indian tribes from their land was to engage them in trade.*
So no, unbalanced trade does not benefit both sides in the long run.
*By trading with them, he hoped to drive them into debt, and then use the debt to leverage them into giving up their land.
[QUOTE=Noone Special]
…
Y’know, the consummate knowledge of ME politics shown in this one snippet proves beyond doubt that you are, in face, qualified to pontificate on the subject. Not. If you can’t get this simple fact straight, what else about the situation are you missing?
(Bibi Netanyahu has not been P.M. of Israel … oh, in this millenium, anyway.) …
[/QUOTE]
Just checking that you’re paying attention.
With added verisimilitude.
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
This is nonsense and also explains the currency of the ‘only democracy in the middle east’ lie that comes up so often. It’s a mystery solved: the lie is used to bolster financial aid in the manner deployed by Malthus.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I really don’t appreciate being called a liar. Please pit me for it, if you think I’m lying.
But before you do … maybe you should read this thread. Hint: I’ve not said that Turkey isn’t a democracy or that Israel is the only democracy in the ME. Please note my comments on Lebanon.
Moreover, the logic of my position is non-exclusive: it applies whether or not Israel is “the only democracy” (a position I’ve never held) or whether it is one of many.
While it is pretty obvious from what you post that you are unlikely to be persuaded to my point of view, I hope at least that you can be persuaded not to insult me to my face by mischaracterizing my position in this very thread, and calling me names in the bargain.
Thank you for your attention.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
The idea of a trade deficit is hardly extraordinary. Your own link says the US was operating at a trade deficit with Israel as of 2005. Trade can have a high volume without necessarily having a net benefit to both parties.
I have a high volume of trade with Macy’s, but I find that I’m mostly buying from them. Selling, not so much. Who profits more from the relationship?
[/quote]
I do not think we are going to agree, since to my mind “running a trade defict” with a country is pretty obviously not the same thing as “not benefitting from trade” with a country.
Indeed, when you buy stuff from a store both parties benefit - isn’t that generally the case?
I am starting to see why some people are isolationist.
Risk management is another area, along with economics, on which we don’t agree.
Considering your sunshine analogy, you probably would not purchace crop insurance if you were a farmer. Why bother, when the sun will shine anyway?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Sam, would you rather be the store owner or the customer?
[/quote]
That comparison makes no sense. I’d rather be someone who has a store to purchase things from than someone who doesn’t. If I owned a store, I’d prefer to have customers. Why do you insist on seeing this as some sort of adversarial relationship or a zero-sum game where one person must benefit at the expense of others?
What does that have to do with anything? Jefferson felt that trading with the Indians would give them wealth and prosperity and they would join the modern world. He may have been wrong, but that says nothing about trade per se.
Your examples don’t prove the assertion you make. And once again, let me point out that you can NOT indefinitely maintain unbalanced trade. At some point, the people you gave dollars to have to use them for something.
If there were true unbalanced trade, where the dollars were never used, that would be a huge boon for the United States. Essentially, it would be getting foreign goods for free.
I think you simply don’t understand trade economics, and you’re parroting arguments that have been fed to you by vested interests.
If that’s the case, then the problem isn’t trade, it’s buying things you can’t afford. A completely different issue.