If Obama is serious about persuading Israel to pull its settlements out of the bulk of the West Bank in order to allow the Palestinians to have their own state there instead of having to live like prison inmates under the thumb of the Israeli Army guarding the settlements, then here's a suggestion for a simple proposal that would strike a lot of people as a square deal:
In other words, if Israel pulls out of all but the fringes of the West Bank, then the U.S. would double its annual aid to Israel. If it doesn't, then Israel gets nothing from the U.S.
Double or Nothing
In other words, if Israel pulls out of all but the fringes of the West Bank, then the U.S. would double its annual aid to Israel. If it doesn't, then Israel gets nothing from the U.S.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
76 comments:
"Oh my ducats! Oh my daughter!"
I predict a rapid-response-time-comment from Testing99 telling us all how childish this suggestion is, replete with a history lesson with some vital elements left out by ommission and some innuendos that aren't particularily true all used to back it up.
Forrest Gump
Why should Israel get anything from the US? I thought they were the new high-tech Mecca, a moral standard, and a shining light unto the stinking heathens? So why would Israel take money from unclean and otherwise contemptible goy? Surely being a moral example includes giving money to others, as still done by degenerated Western nations who have otherwise forgotten their original Christian missions.
The US demanded that Rhodesian and South African whites give up their governments and armies in return for nothing. So why reward Israel with money for returning occupied territory? But maybe there exist two measures.
Can someone please tell me why we give these people aid again in the first place?!
I thought they were supposed to be the most intelligent/great/creative/super people in the universe/multiverse/history/all time!!
And Steve, are you sure it's ok to criticize them like this? Especially on the Sabbath...
I thought we were never ever supposed to criticize them, because they made all these contributions to Western Civ.....you know "Athens & Jerusalem, Athens & Jerusalem, Athens & Jerusalem,...." Come on, keep repeating it to yourself until you never question or criticize them again.
Why should Israel withdraw from the West Bank? They won the area fair and square through war.
Furthermore, from a Paleocon viewpoint, how is the welfare of Palestinian civilians any of our concern? I thought paleocons were tough, cold hearted isolationists who don't give a damn if the black Muslims in Sudan exterminate their non-Muslim black population, or care about any other international conflict.
But for some reason, the paleos get all misty eyed for their beloved Palestinians, the same group of people who were dancing in the streets on 911. They celebrated American deaths despite the fact Bill Clinton - continuing the US driven peace process that began with George HW Bush after the fall of the Soviet Union - tried as hard as he could to give the Palestinians their own state a year earlier at the 2000 Camp David Summit.
The correct isolationist position would be for the US to drop the never ending "peace process" and let the Israelis turn the Palestinians into a grease stain.
I strongly prefer:
"Israel gets nothing from the U.S. (gov't)," with the same applied to every other country, as well as all non-U.S. organizations. It really doesn't matter what 'they' do, so why try to bribe them?
(I added "gov't" because NGOs and individuals are, or should be, free to waste their own money as they see fit.)
Thanks, no.
Israel/Palestine's problems are not worth one red cent of my tax dollars. A possible benefit would be that if the news was no longer full of their problems there might be less political push for continuing the government cheese. Squeaky wheels get the grease, which is why government initiatives never solve the problems they were set up to solve and just continue in perpetuity. Foreign aid is a typically absurd example of that general trend.
Nah. I have a better plan:
Nothing or Nothing
What the hell to we care about whether Israel pulls out of the West Bank or not? It's not our part of the world.
Sure, you could argue that it's our business because the Arabs hate us for being Israel's ally and therefore try to blow us up. But there's a simple solution to that. Don't be Israel's ally anymore.
There's tons of ways to achieve peace, none of them will ever seriously be considered as long as "the lobby" is running the show.
Better idea, Let Israel do what it wants and stop sending any aid.
"instead of having to live like prison inmates under the thumb of the Israeli Army guarding the settlements"
Oh yes, those civilized, productive, peace loving Palestenians. Like blacks, if only they were left alone by those mean police, I'm sure they'd quit acting like animals. My heart, liek yours, Steve, bleeds for these oppresed and gentle people.
Obama may have a mild animosity against the Jews derived from his black-nationalist beliefs, but his belief in Obama is a lot stronger, he has no visceral attachment to the Palestinians, and I can't see him, or Hillary, doing this. Which is fine by me.
You dont understand. Obama - any President - has no power in the US. The Israeli Lobby controls Congress, who in turn control the money. Nothing will happen, no meaningful pressure will ever be brought on Israel.
Israel should be given NOTHING by the USA. Period.
Well, why can't Jews live in the West Bank if Palestinians can live in Israel? I think if Israel has to pull out its ~500,000 citizens living in the west bank, Palestinians should do the same. The number of 'settlers' is enormous.
And the only reason Israel ended up in the west bank to begin with is that no country would make peace with it following the 1967 war. In fact, the Palestinians have refused to compromise at all since they were offered a state in ~1947.
Moreover, all Israeli concessions have simply met with rockets. Why should the give up and more land.
----
Fortunately, the Palestinians and Israeli's could coexist peacefully.
Palestinians are taught from young ages that Jews drink there blood, that killing a Jew honors god, etc. There can be no peace with that mentality. Of course, the Nazi's and the Japanese were similarly indoctrinated. But we were able to reeducate them.
What needs to happen is the Palestinians need to be thoroughly and utterly defeated. None of this surgical strike nonsense. When you prick someone, you make them angry. When you hit them, you make them fanatical. When you destroy them, when you make them beg for mercy, they become maleable. This is exactly what we did to the Germans and the Japanese. What the Romans did to their enemies. Etc. It has worked throughout history.
Then, we can teach the Palestinians enlightened values, and the truth (Jews don't drink blood, they are not monsters, etc). We can also rebuild, just like we did to the Japan and Germany.
Palestinians and Israelis would ultimately be better off.
Double foreign aid to Israel (or anyone else)?!
At this point foreign aid is ridiculous. The USA is broke and on the verge of financial collapse. We borrow the money that we send out as foreign "aid".
All foreign aid $$$ should probably be redirected to domestic economic blast zones like Michigan and California. I say "probably" because it might be better just to stop the USA balance sheet hemorraging at this point then to dole out more funds we don't have.
This nation's actual financial accounts are much worse than the government claims. All of the economic data coming out of the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Commerce is politicized and adulterated. We are now approximating Soviet standards of transparency in government.
The GDP numbers are complete bull****.
The unemployment numbers are bull****.
Etc.
Below is a popular web link for educating oneself on the disgraceful gap between financial reality and government fiction. Chris Martenson shows the bi-partisan, multi-decade process of statistical adulteration due to political pressure that has taken place in America. And because accurate financial data is required in order to regulate effectively, the end result of this process has been essentially REGULATORY CAPTURE throughout the government on all issues financial.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
Take Martenson's Crash Course and you'll no longer wonder if/why the American economy is a house of cards.
To make the offer more complete, Obama should also add "and if Palestinian terrorism originates from the newly acquired lands the US will support ethnic-cleansing and re-conquering of said land by the IDF. If those new lands become peaceful and prosperous the US will end all support for Israel and build mansions with time-machines and warehouses full of US $100 bills for each Palestinian family."
Steve, didn't you mean to say this?
In other words, if Israel pushes all but the fringes of the Muslims out of the West Bank, then the U.S. would double its annual aid to Israel. If it doesn't, then Israel gets nothing from the U.S.
The impeachment proceedings would probably get in the way.
Two issues:
1. Diminishing returns. Does Israel already have all the aid it needs to do an effective job?
They'd just say 'no thanks'.
A greater incentive than double or nothing would be "halved or nothing".
Then they will know you are serious.
(If you had said you'd remove their aid if they did not comply they might find a way to call your bluff).
2. Israel may soon not need US aid, having found huge amounts of natural gas in the Med.
Drills, which continue, have so far discovered an estimated 3 trillion cubic feet. That's already just six times less than the UK's current level of reserves (18.8 tcf) and the we have 10* the population.
Sure, Israel can't go it alone but even the "halved or nothing" financial blackmail might not work.
If it's money you want to save, it might be cheaper to just hold up your hands and recognise Israel have won this one.
Americans could spend that $3bn relocating 3 million Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza. Obama and his pals would welcome them to America.
Since the Arab states hate the Palestinians even more than Israel, it's problem solved. Likely to happen: no.
Isn't most American aid to Israel of the military variety? What would be the use of a better equipped military if the borders of Lesser Israel were secured and the Arab world placated?
I believe that the Israeli establishment don't believe that a two-state solution is feasible in the long-run and so have no intention of agreeng to one.
I believe that the Israeli establishment don't believe that a two-state solution is feasible in the long-run and so have no intention of agreeng to one.
And the Israeli establishment is probably right.
In foreign policy matters Mr. Steve is indistinguishable from any garden variety Lefty liberal. ... Sorry about that Steve, but it seems to be the case.
Israeli:
Thanks, no.
American:
Nothing or Nothing
Ahahahaha! Now we're talking!
Israel should make a counter-offer: keep your money and stop trying to arm twist us into making concessions to our enemies. Israel doesn't need the economic aid anyway -- its economy is in better shape than ours now. And the military aid is really pork for U.S. defense contractors. How many more F-15s does Israel need? If Israel needs more weapons, it can build them itself or buy them from the U.S., France, Switzerland, etc.
The Arab-Israeli conflict would benefit from some benign neglect by the U.S. anyway. We have more pressing problems.
Steve -- Again this is why you are out of your depth in commenting on anything to do with foreign affairs.
Obama is already in effect cutting aid to Israel, and Bush and Clinton have done this as well, by direct subsidies to the PLO. Israel has tried for about 16 years during the Oslo Process to find any agreement with the Palestinians, and has been unable to find ANY takers.
This is because any Palestinian leader who agrees to ANY recognition with Israal for ANY deal at ALL will be dead. No Palestinian leader or group will agree with it.
1. Rejection of Israel's existence and "wiping out Israel" is the fundamental organizing principle of Palestinian society, which depends on funds flowing from foreign governments and the enemy of Israel to keep internal strife among factionalized militias to a low boil. As it is more Palestinians are killed by Hamas-PLO fights than by Israelis.
2. Whenever Israel has withdrawn unilaterally, they have only gotten intense attacks by rockets, infiltrators, and such. Being tiny and terribly vulnerable to conventional attacks (Egypt in 1973 nearly conquered them, running out of supplies at the last minute) and surrounded by enemies wishing to exterminate them (literally) they have little territory to give.
3. The main threat to Israel's existence as a nation and a people is Iran which is intent on wiping them out with nukes. Thus the West Bank is irrelevant compared with the already US sell-out of Israel (an agreement widely perceived to exist in Israel at least by Obama and Iran to "OK" a nuclear strike on Israel). Israelis already know Obama has betrayed them (he's OK'd Iran's nukes which are aimed principally at exterminating them) so the West Bank is irrelevant.
Israel is a nation of about 5 million Jews, a few million Palestinians. Occupation on the West Bank i expensive and produces casualties which are unpopular. Being rocketed constantly (from Hamas controlled Gaza in the south) is also deeply unpopular. Within Israel there is a deep desire to simply withdraw from most though not all of the West Bank due to Demography and casualties. There is no deal to be had because among Palestinians there is no ability to be "Michael Collins" and make a deal. Not even Arafat would do it, rejecting about 98% of the West Bank. Under considerable pressure from Clinton, who was fairly anti-Israeli (Hillary hugged Suha Arafat after the latter gave the usual anti-Semitic speech about "Jews using poison gas on Palestinians."]
Israelis under Sharon withdrew from Gaza and got constant Rocket and guerilla attacks in return. West Bank is a sideshow -- Israeli leaders believe (if you read the JPost anyway) that Obama has already sold them out, and are preparing to (IMHO) nuke Iran before it nukes them. Given the fairly explicit withdrawal of the US security umbrella.
Which means Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Australia, and other nations that depended on the US security umbrella are likely to follow suit and nuke up. Already Australia has under Labor changed it's mind and ordered a fleet of new fighters, Navy Destroyers, and whacking great Defense spending bill (nukes are probably hidden in it) scared by American abandonment and China and Indonesia being big nations, close by, and potential threats.
[Nearly all the commentators stupidity here is amazing and appalling. Israel has tried for years for a two-state solution, Netanyahu the most conservative Israeli leader endorsed it, not because he's nice-kumbaya but because Israel's tiny Jewish population wants separation from the Palestinian demographic tidal wave, and hates casualties. However the reason there's no Michael Collins is that Palestinians are not Irish, there's too many, too well supported by foreign patrons (mostly Iran) factional groups for Palestinian society to ever make an agreement, much less one that sticks. Steve and most of the commenters here have no conception of hard men who kill for a living and make their living off "national gangsterism" for lack of a better word.]
You dont understand. Obama - any President - has no power in the US. The Israeli Lobby controls Congress, who in turn control the money. Nothing will happen, no meaningful pressure will ever be brought on Israel.
As Mencius Moldbug has pointed out, the only reason Israel hasn't expelled the Palestinians already is because US devotion to the peace process prevents Israel from finishing the job they should have done in 1967.
US engagement in the region is in fact pro-Palestinian. An isolationist policy, ironically, is the pro-Israel position.
I will, however, agree with the von Brunn contingent that we should not be giving foreign aid to any country; but the aid we give Israel is not nearly enough that pulling the aid would bring Israel to its knees.
I was thinking about the I-P thing a few days ago and it hit my how truly absurd the Evangelical position is from an atheist/agnostic viewpoint:
"The Bible proves that God gave that land to the Jews."
This isn't just absurd because it demands that millions of people who don't believe in the book are taxed to support Israel based on the beliefs of those who do. It's also absurd because the book in question states that the Jews stole the GD land in the first place!.
As far as Israel's aid from the US, it's a relic of the Cold War when the Soviets turned Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and for a while Jordan into Soviet Client states, and the US (which had deep-sixed the 1956 UK-France-Israeli Suez invasion) sought influence. This was mostly Democratic, Truman over-rode State Dept. officials and on his own recognized Israel (many State Dept. officials later known to be Soviet Spies protested). Ike was famously pro-Arab, JFK and LBJ pro-Israeli, Nixon pro-Arab though domestic politics forced re-supply of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. [It's believed that as Israel faced disaster from the Egyptian surprise armored assault, they threatened Egypt with nukes.]
Regardless, US aid one way or the other probably won't make a difference. Israel if anything is likely to be increasing it's nuke forces, as the conventional threat of an armored assault like Egypt's declines, and the missile threat, particularly of short-range, from Gaza or Lebanon or Syria, nuclear or Chemical or biological tipped missiles are the biggest threat. [Chemical and bioweapons are hard to put on missles. Saddam tried and could not get them to work.]
The larger issue is, what does the withdrawal of the US defense umbrella mean? Mostly, small nations use the "equalizer" which is nuking up. Practically guaranteeing ugly wars with nukes. It becomes more like WWI (he who mobilizes first wins) without the great power involvement. Israel's current threat from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon are low from conventional forces. Nuke tipped missiles launched in a surprise attack from Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon, or perhaps just from Lebanon-Hezbollah-land, could kill most of Israel's 5 million Jewish citizens (and the 2 million or so Arabs) within minutes. Since Israel is highly urbanized and there is no effective defense against short-range low-trajectory missiles.
Poland faces similar threats from Russia, as does Ukraine, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuiania. Singapore faces threats from Malaysia, Vietnam from China, and so on. The "equalizer" wrt bigger, more powerful neighbors has always been nukes. Before Nukes, India pushed Pakistan around, afterwards it has to suffer low-level terrorist attacks on a constant and appalling basis (shooting up Parliament, Bombay attacks last year) without doing anything because Pakistan has nukes.
If you are Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan, and watching the US abandon security guarantees to Israel, your response is likely to nuke up and rely on your own deterrence from powerful and dangerously erratic neighbors.
Here is Moldbug's take on the Isreal-Palestinian situation:
Mencius Moldbug Writes:,
The irony of the Israeli situation is that anyone who thinks the U.S. is pro-Israel is on crack.
What would happen if the U.S. adopted a Buchananite isolationist position relative to the Arab-Israeli conflict? If it told both the Israelis and the Arabs that it was done with the Middle East, that whatever happens, that it has no dog in the fight? Um, who has the strongest military in the region? Forget the West Bank and Gaza--the IDF would be occupying the Islamic world from Tehran to Timbuktu. And if Nigeria and Indonesia wanted some of that, they could probably get it, too. Their kids would grow up speaking Hebrew. It'd be Alexander the Great, 2.0.
The reason that a few fools with homemade rocket launchers can fight the IDF is that they have the State Department on their side. Remove U.S. diplomacy, and Israel turns the Palestinians into a big grease spot. If Israel's position with the U.S. in the game is weaker than Israel's position with the U.S. outside the game, the net effect of U.S. policy is anti-Israel. Case closed.
I really can't understand why this isn't obvious. I would not be so hasty as to accuse Buchanan of anti-Semitism. My guess is that the problem is some kind of liberalism, probably akin to what Arthur Pendleton diagnoses in the paleolibertarians. But whatever it is, it reeks.
How much does Israel really care about US Aid?
To make the offer more complete, Obama should also add "and if Palestinian terrorism originates from the newly acquired lands the US will support ethnic-cleansing and re-conquering of said land by the IDF.
How 'bout a more consistent position? Like, "hey, we still have to take crap for 'genociding' the Indians, when we acquired most of the land fair and square and they died from DISEASE for God's sake, so no, we're not signing on to Manifest Destiny part II until our intellectuals (Jewish intellectuals, I'm looking at you) sort out the spin on part I."
"At this point foreign aid is ridiculous. The USA is broke and on the verge of financial collapse. We borrow the money that we send out as foreign "aid"."
Hear, hear!!
testing99 said...
Steve -- Again this is why you are out of your depth
t99 as predictable as always:
Steve, you are out of your depth...
Steve, u don't know what you are talking about...
Steve, you are too old...
Talk about being a wiseass!
Anonymous the First,
For what it's worth, if Testing99 were to have "some vital elements left out," you're right--he'd probably do it "by ommission." (Very canny of you to recognize that!)
Now, as for "innuendos that aren't particularly true," how true is what I heard--that you love it--"innuendo?"
I have a social theory - its OT, but you might be interested, Steve.
I will have to overstate it probably to make a point, but everyone does that. Here goes:
Destroying/undermining social rules and standards, so there are fewer explicitly agreed on principles for organizing society - this is what we've seen for the last 5+ decades with the Culture of Critique i.e. leftism.
The rules that break down are replaced by finer, more idiosyncratic, much much more ambiguous rules. The only way to ascertain these rules is constantly monitoring social feedback - i.e. looking to the other person. People become "social feedback junkies" i.e. always looking to other people to try and find out whats right or wrong based on their reactions. This is a habit of mind that is cultivated in kids and takes over their personalities.
People who base their actions in this type of thinking are superficial, inconsistent, always changing at a moment's notice, also spineless and afraid to offend. Thats how the breakdown of rules results in western cretinism.
But whatever it is, it reeks.
To you, that is.
"Why should Israel get anything from the US? I thought they were the new high-tech Mecca, a moral standard, and a shining light unto the stinking heathens?"
The penalty for the success of the US is underwriting every non-self sustaining ally. Wait, make that every ally.
"I was thinking about the I-P thing a few days ago and it hit my how truly absurd the Evangelical position is from an atheist/agnostic viewpoint:
"The Bible proves that God gave that land to the Jews."
Svigor,
Doesn't the Bible also say that God took it away and wasn't giving it back?
...the paleos get all misty eyed for their beloved Palestinians,
That's very clever -- to make it sound like it's about love of the Palestinians. It's never been about that. The question is why should American taxpayers' dollars be given over, year after year, to a totally undeserving, ungrateful people to use against another people, with whom we have no beef? If the beef is between the Israelis and the Palestinians, then let the damned Israelis cough up the money to eliminate their foe. In fact, they should give back all the money that has gone from this government's coffers to that little toad of a country.
As far as the Sudan is concerned, the U.S. isn't sending billions of dollars every year to a particular faction to help them wipe out the other faction. Smart-ass Zionists have worked hard to make their enemies our enemies and, thanks to those demented evangelicals among us, have succeeded to a great degree.
Some Palestinians, knowing the role played by U.S. money in their degradation, may very well have danced in the streets, but they have not been known to deliberately bomb and kill U.S. sailors for kicks.
If the beef is between the Israelis and the Palestinians, then let the damned Israelis cough up the money to eliminate their foe.
I agree we should be neutral - so the Israelis can wipe out the Palestinians as Moldbug, a Jew, suggested would happen. And calling Israel a toad of a country isn't very "isolationist" of you, Victoria. Sounds like you are taking sides.
Why are you so hateful against Jews, btw? Don't you know antisemitism gives you wrinkles, and I'll bet you have enough of those already? ;)
But seriously, the problem is the paleos are not isolationist, they are anti-Israel by promoting a peace process that ties the IDF's hands.
If they were actually neutral, they would promote Moldbug's plan (You do like Mencius, don't you?)
Some Palestinians, knowing the role played by U.S. money in their degradation, may very well have danced in the streets.
We offered your beloved Palestinians their own state in 2000, what more did they want Clinton to do?
I've been to the west bank. The so-called camps are towns and villages that look much the same as anywhere else in the 3rd world. How come none of the Saudi $$ goes to fixing up the region?
We should stop interfering in the Israel/Palestine dispute, withdrawal all our foreign aid from both sides and let them settle their problems themselves.
This will never happen because the Israel lobby and the liberals who love the Arabs will keep pressuring the US govt.
Getting rid of probably most of the West Bank is in Israel's interest anyway: link here. Even Netanyahu, the most settlement friendly Prime Minister (Sharon dismantled the Gaza Settlements by force with the Israeli Army) can see the demographic handwriting on the wall.
BUT ... no deal is possible. Palestinian society is not like Egyptian society. Egypt's deal with Israel has held for decades, enforced by Israel's last ditch nukes and Egypt getting nearly all of what it wanted (the Sinai). Palestinian society is like Pakistani society, neither can afford any compromise without destroying the tribal/gunmen nature of it's power-holders. Palestinians cannot afford the existence of Israel, because their foreign backers (mostly Iran) would not allow it, and because there's too much opportunity by rejectionists who have guns and men to seize more power. Moreover if all Jews in Israel disappeared tomorrow, it would be a catastrophe for Palestinians because the gunmen cannot abide a peacetime society/economy. Pretty much most of Palestinian manpower is absorbed into organizations which are a mixture of Tony Soprano, Abdel Nassar, and Khomeni (though they are mostly Sunni). Religious national-gangsterism. Just like Pakistan cannot afford to compromise with India on Kashmir, because then what would it do with it's myriad Jihadi orgs that suck up much of Pakistani manpower? And represent "deep non-state" actors within the state.
Netanyahu's offer is meaningless and everyone knows it. Hamas will never recognize Israel, and neither will the PLO. No one will sign a deal that has any scrap of land held by Jews. They'd be dead within minutes. Unilateral withdrawal ala Gaza invites only more attacks. My guess is that Israel probably withdraws from most of the West Bank, declares a Palestinian State, and stages periodic retaliation attacks to suppress the rocketing sure to follow.
But they'll do that only if they can be sure Hamas can be kept out. One of the unspoken things is that the PLO NEEDS the Israelis to keep Hamas out. PLO was too weak to fight them in Gaza and is hard pressed against them in the West Bank. If Israel withdrew from the West Bank tomorrow, Hamas would obliterate the PLO, they've built a far more efficient militia, along IRGC lines.
Meanwhile if the Iran regime toppled tomorrow, and Hamas no longer got men, money, and supplies, it would still continue, just weakened. There is no real solution to the West Bank problem -- and never will be given Palestinian's national religious gangsterism. Any more than there is a solution to Somalia, or the Congo, or Nigeria, or Kashmir, and so on. Best that can managed is ... managed chaos. It's merely an elaborate but meaningless kabuki dance.
T99 - you forgot to mention Israel's utility to the US as a vast middle-eastern aircraft carrier. The manifest benefits of which have been listed here more than once.
Anonymous testing99 said...
Getting rid of probably most of the West Bank is in Israel's
Bla bla bla...
Who? Whom?
Why should Israel withdraw from the West Bank? They won the area fair and square through war.
Furthermore, from a Paleocon viewpoint, how is the welfare of Palestinian civilians any of our concern?
The correct isolationist position would be for the US to drop the never ending "peace process" and let the Israelis turn the Palestinians into a grease stain.
Exactly.
Victoria - you're a stupid ugly bitch. You DO realize that we aid tons of countries, including the PLO, correct?? Yes, thats right...we don't JUST aid Israel! yea, I know you hate Israel and Jews, bla bla, truth is Jews aren't especially powerful in this country. We have a Muslim president who is anti-Israel. I want us to stop putting handcuffs on Israel so they can bomb the towelheads into smithereens once and for all.
Why should the American taxpayer give Israel 3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in "foreign Aid"? Why? What for? End it immediately. Curse the Jewish lobby!
Israel's GDP is ~ $200B, estimates of US aid are in the $5-10B range. Certainly 5% is a sizable number but I can't see why Israelis would put the very existence of their state at risk for such a sum.
The settlements are populated by zealots. They serve as a buffer zone. If the pull does not result in any security improvments (which is likely as it stands now - see Gaza), the cost to the Israel far exceeds $10B.
I think Israel should give back the West Bank and Gaza with the caviat that if there is ever an invasion though either place that the land will be forfieted forever and the inhabitants expelled into the countries that are invading.
After WW2 the Soviet Union chopped off Prussia from Germany. One big reason was that Prussia had been the launching point everytime Germany marched ost. Now they don't have to worry about that anymore.
I love how Testing99 says nothing about the settlements, the actual point of Steve's post. That says it all.
"Like, "hey, we still have to take crap for 'genociding' the Indians, when we acquired most of the land fair and square and they died from DISEASE for God's sake, so no, we're not signing on to Manifest Destiny part II until our intellectuals (Jewish intellectuals, I'm looking at you) sort out the spin on part I."
I'm not for giving the Indians back the land either, but it's a little disingenuous of you to leave out that the Indians died of disease after we deliberately gave them infected blankets. It was biological warfare.
How about: Nothing or nothing.
No more aid to Israel. No more security guarantees to Israel.
Let them pay for their own wars and protection.
If Israel wants to fight the every Muslim country in the Middle-East, then let them go on that suicide run...but NO more help from the USA.
anon:
"But for some reason, the paleos get all misty eyed for their beloved Palestinians, the same group of people who were dancing in the streets on 911..."
Yeah, that bugs me too. Sentimental historical/ethnic attachment to small countries/peoples (eg Russians for Serbs, Irish-Americans for Ireland) is understandable, where there are historical ties of ethicity & friendship. This is obviously not the case with paleocon support for Palestine, it looks purely anti-Israel, sometimes anti-Jewish.
Pat Buchanan's view is that the US should be pro-Pal, anti-Israel (and other small countries that fall foul of the Umma, eg Denmark), because Islam is big and powerful while Israel or Denmark are small and weak. I guess that makes some sense. Paleocon concern for Pal 'human rights' does not, though.
I don't see any reason for the US to be sending Israel money, mind you. Mind you the EU sends lots of money to the Palestinians, which makes even less sense.
This is blasphemous. And on the anniversary of (FILL IN THE BLANK)!
I like how old world honest terms like "slavery" and "tribute" have been repackaged as "aid".
but it's a little disingenuous of you to leave out that the Indians died of disease after we deliberately gave them infected blankets. It was biological warfare.
There was one incident where the British gave blankets that had been previously used by smallpox patients, but otherwise the Indians contracted their diseases from contact with us. So except for that one case, the Indians were not deliberately infected.
I'm not for giving the Indians back the land either, but it's a little disingenuous of you to leave out that the Indians died of disease after we deliberately gave them infected blankets. It was biological warfare.
This lie originated with the now-discredited phony Indian Ward Churchill, and was based on a solitary letter of communication between a general and his staff in the West. In the end, the decided not to go through with actually carrying out the distribution of diseased blankets because they were worried about the effect that it would have on their own troops.
Churchill has been shown to be a fraud. Why continue to propagate his lies?
"After WW2 the Soviet Union chopped off Prussia from Germany."
Get some education. Prussia central is Brandenburg with Berlin. Last time I checked that still belongs to Germany. The eastern extent was mostly agriculture, except for Königsberg, which was a fort given to crusaders by a Latvian king in exchange for helping him overcome his atheist enemies. The greatest loss east is Königsberg, not the agricultural lands, since Germany is already overproducing food on its much reduced landmass. Of course cities like Breslau, Stettin, Danzig etc. were beautiful cities but the loss is eventually to the people living there since Poland and Russia can never maintain the level of culture which existed under the old Germany Reich.
only a nazi would make such suggestions.
off topic, but one thing I noticed in the iranian blogosphere. They are completely sure that Hollywood always depicts persians as blacks or mulattos because of jewish influence.
This one is a conspiracy we can believe in. Given how iranians (and afghans, indians, pakistanis) are completely crazy about their whiteness and how European standards of beauty are the rule in those countries, much before they came into contact with Europe, it is quite believable that the jewish cabal in Hollywood would use such subterfuges to provoke the iranians
call the US State Dpt pro-palestinian is beyond delusion.
the IDF is stronger than any army in the Region, but without US support, Israel would suffer an international boycott just like South Africa
Europe is pretty anti-semitic. The jews like to point that all european countries expelled them sometime or another. I like to highlight that if a people is expelled from 50 different countries, it may be that there are some problems with that people.
if the OIC says to China, or India "either you boycott Israel or we boycott you" the chinese and indians would weight the billion muslims and the 10 million jews, and Israel would be boycotted
the only force preventing Israel from the boycott it fully deserves, if not by humanitarian reasons (which are hypocritical, and jews are quick to notice it), then because you can't piss of 300 million arabs and a billion muslims, is the US
it's a little disingenuous of you to leave out that the Indians died of disease after we deliberately gave them infected blankets. It was biological warfare.
My motives were honest, I assure you. How widespread was the practice? One incident? Two? I've heard mention obviously, but never looked into it.
"off topic, but one thing I noticed in the iranian blogosphere. They are completely sure that Hollywood always depicts persians as blacks or mulattos because of jewish influence."
That's really fascinating. I presume these blogs that you read are in English? So English speaking Iranians think this?
Can you provide a link?
Gee, Stephen,
Don't you think it's a weeeee bit hypocritical of you to berate Victoria for "hate for Israel and the Jews," as you accuse her of, when you express the sentiment that you'd like to see "them bomb the towelheads into smithereens" and call her a "stupid ugly bitch"????
T99 - you forgot to mention Israel's utility to the US as a vast middle-eastern aircraft carrier. The manifest benefits of which have been listed here more than once.
Plenty airfields available in Eye-rack and other parts M.E. now.
T99, why don't you go home to Israel? They might fix you up with a woman if you moved there. You'd like to marry a nice Jewish girl, wouldn't you?
US foreign policy vis `a vis Israel? Cut off the money from Uncle Sugar, so that the latter-day Israelites are free to do what they wilt to the descendants of Philistines and Samaritans.
J. C. Himself thought a good Samaritan to be an exceptional specimen of same.
You bigots don't get it.
Did you read and comprehend the thread? Your comment seems to exist in a vacuum.
But you don't get it. It has nothing to do with bigotry, at least not for me. It has to do with love, of my people. Something a Jew should understand, no?
If Jews would get their heads on straight and recognize the RIGHT OF EUROPEAN PEOPLES to have for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel, Euro ethnic nationalists would be your new best friends. BFF type friends.
It's the behavior, stupid. No quicker way to make a man an enemy than to have your cake and then eat his.
Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters (U.S. Army, Retired) has written dispassionate analyses detailing why it is not in the U.S.A.'s interests to cut Israel loose as a free agent.
It has been alleged that the U.S.A.'s strategic edge has blunted by Israel's repeated transfers of technology, ELINT, and HUMINT to the rivals, adversaries, and enemies of the U.S.A.
Colonel Peters suggests that it would be rash to disown Israel because an isolated Israel might seek alliances with other powers (China? Russia? India? Japan? South Korea? Brazil?). What WMD or intelligence treasures would Israel be compelled to share in exchange for such alliances?
I think Israel would be wise to wean itself off of U.S. aid, or better yet, quit cold turkey.
Most of the direct aid is effectively a subsidy of the U.S. defense industry, and before the U.S.A.'s recent ill-considered expeditionary military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel was useful to the U.S.A. and NATO because Israel was doing live-fire combat testing of materiel, weapon systems, and ammunition in climate and ground conditions of particular interest to the U.S.A. and NATO. Now that the U.S.A. is borrowing trillions of dollars from its dear, dear friend the PRC to finance destructive testing of materiel, weapon systems, and ammunition on a much vaster scale, Israel's usefulness in this role is surplus to requirements.
Those persons calling for an end to all foreign aid to all countries are not to be taken seriously. As it is, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, inter alia, are already buying or renting controlling interests in governments and natural resources around the world. The U.S. could stand aside and let less scrupulous governments conquer the globe with wire-transfers and bag men but the consequences for the U.S.A.'s economy would be catastrophic. Self-sufficiency sounds virtuous, but take a look at North Korea. Developed economies require imports. Access to markets is bought or exacted as tribute in exchange for protection.
Those persons suggesting that western countries should offer immigration and citizenship to Palestinian refugees would do well to remember that Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien expressed a willingness to welcome many thousands of Palestinians. Chrétien's tentative overture was rebuffed with furious anger by the Palestinian leadership, and Palestinians were warned that to accept such an offer would be treasonous with all the threat that implies. Think about that. In whose interest is it that Palestinians should rot in stateless limbo in multi-storey concrete "refugee camps" for more than 60 years? If one doesn't give a damn about the Palestinians, but does wish to see the modern state of Israel and its citizens removed from the Levant, then an ever increasing number of aggrieved, radicalized Palestinians may prove useful.
State actors with something to lose and something to gain (Egypt, Jordan) have grudgingly made bitterly cold peace with Israel. Other reasonably rational state actors (e.g. Syria) have maintained uneasy unofficial cease-fires with Israel while technically remaining at war. If there's a state actor to negotiate with Israel has proven itself willing to trade land for peace. Because of Israel's conventional and strategic military overmatch of her state actor enemies, those enemies have turned to sponsoring trans-national or extra-national non-state actors which allow them to prosecute a low-intensity, asymmetrical war against Israel while claiming plausible deniability. Radicalized Palestinian and Hezbollah youth contrive to get themselves killed at the rate of 50 of themselves to one Israeli and when their civilian kinswomen and children are killed into the bargain Israel receives yet more opprobrium.
----- continues next post -----
----- continued from previous post -----
If I had my druthers, one wouldn't hear of Israel much from one day to the next. It'd be nice if they were heard of as much as developed countries of comparable population, say Switzerland or Hong Kong. Perhaps a littler more often than less populous but lovely Denmark, and a little less often than more populous but majestic Sweden. That'd be nice. It'd also be nice if Israel was just another foreign country populated by foreigners. One might laud or condemn Israel's actions, policies, or the conduct of individual Israeli citizens just like any other country of no particular interest.
Here's hoping.
Stephan said
"Victoria - you're a stupid ugly bitch."
Somebody doesn't like losing arguments.
fred said
"it's a little disingenuous of you to leave out that the Indians died of disease after we deliberately gave them infected blankets. It was biological warfare."
Disappointed in you, Fred. That's a canard.
paleocon jew said
"There's no reason you can't accept and respect Israel. Almost everyone else on the right now does."
Trotskyites to the right of me, Foxmans to the left. Whatz a goy to do?
Colonel Peters suggests that it would be rash to disown Israel because an isolated Israel might seek alliances with other powers (China? Russia? India? Japan? South Korea? Brazil?). What WMD or intelligence treasures would Israel be compelled to share in exchange for such alliances?
So Uncle Sugar should keeping paying off the Izzies, or else they'll betray America?
Hmmm... I'll asume you're a Muslim attempting to besmirch Israel's reputation.
"Don't you know antisemitism gives you wrinkles, and I'll bet you have enough of those already?"
-
And 'antigentilism' gives you flatulence, which you have a really bad case of, Slick!
--
"...hypocritical of you to berate Victoria for "hate for Israel and the Jews," as you accuse her of, when you express the sentiment that you'd like to see "them bomb the towelheads into smithereens"
Really, psychotic is more the word here!
You vicious 'anti-Gentite'!!!
"In other words, if Israel pulls out of all but the fringes of the West Bank, then the U.S. would double its annual aid to Israel. If it doesn't, then Israel gets nothing from the U.S."
What sort of fucking bandit blackmailer are you?
"Conservatives are pro-israel."
No they are not. NEO-CONS are pro-Israel. And neo-cons are the same thing as Jews.
Conservatism is anti-Israel as it always was.
Post a Comment