Why are we supporting Israel?

[airbumba]

Actually, i"m sick of both of them. The Arabs and the jews. Their never-ending *****ing and whinin with each other, is dragging the whole world down with them.

I wish they'd both grow up for a change.

[culero]

Originally posted by slimm50
snip
Anyway, that's how the whole "occupation" thing got started in (modern times). I don't think the Israelis should have had to give it back, the other side started it, and lost. We ain't about to give back Texas, New Mexico, California, et. al. to Mexico, are we?

Now, you history buffs, feel free to correct me where I've erred.

Well, for one thing, Texas won its freedom in much the same way the US did, but the US *started* the war with Mexico that resulted in it forcing Mexico at gunpoint to cede New Mexico, Arizona, and California to the US. It was an example of the aggressor winning and getting what it wanted.

culero

[bozon]

Originally posted by AKIron
Such a gross exaggeration negates your point. Let's stick with facts. What do you think it costs the US Government to buy an F-16? What does Israel pay for one?

Paying with your merchendise is the best payment a company can have. In the market-value of the product you include the research & development of the product and other secondary-costs, asaid from how much it actually costs the company to produce 1 product. That what I was trying to illustrate in the winXP example.

Now, the millitary market (this is not just weapons, but also a lot of electronics and material engineering) is VERY competative and companies are finding it hard to survive. USA is paying it's own local companies in order to keep them profitable (and in big the market) and by making larger production batches it lowers the cost per-unit for the US millitary. So this money leaks back to the security badget.

USA does that because it want it's industries to controll the market. A Simmilar thing is done in some branches of agriculture as well.
This looks like a non-economical policy, but it isn't.

The added value is the control of the US over the supported countries. Israeli industries have to get an american approval to sel their products to other countries (otherwise the US will cut back on the aid). The US want's to put pressure on a country? they'll threat it with a cut back on the aid.
It got to a point where the US goverment made the Israeli goverment make ELAL (the airline company) choose Boing over Airbus for their next planes (ELAL choose Airbus initially).
Not to mention billion dollars deals to sell radars to India and China (a RADAR! how many americans can you kill with a radar?? and don't tell me USA is at war with china)

I can't tell you exacly how much each F16 bought though this aid costs the american tax payer. I dont know and even an estimation is difficult, plus the US IS buying something with it.

Bozon

[bozon]

I forgot to answer to how much it costs Israel.

It kills the economy. Companies go bankropt because the millitary stopped buying from them - even if they have a superior and CHEAPER product, it's even cheaper to use the american coupons.
Another business competitor gone.

I mentioned before the radar deal with india that the US delayed. This caused serious losses to the companies invulved, just because US didn't want India to have an exellent radar (better then any american radar btw) against Pakistan.

Israel developed it's own fighter about 15 years ago. It was supposed to be a serious competitor to the F16. The project was closed after there was a flying proto-type and the US happily "soled" F16s, in coupons,  to Israel instead. Competition no more.

same with night vision, avionics, sensors, unmanned aircrafts and the list goes on.

The subject of this thread should have been "why is israel accepting the aid?"

Bozon

[Staga]

Thanks for your opinions Bozon; it's refreshing to read calm and analytic thoughts about situation in the middle east.

[Pei]

One point to note is that just because a state may not have historically existed doesn't reduce the right of the people to self determination (and the formation of thier own state). There are many historical examples of states forming where there was no state before:

The USA
Israel
Iraq
Jordan
Pakistan
among many others

The US supports Israel because of fellow feeling in the US electorate. Support for Israel has no economic or strategic advantages (in fact it hurts US self interests in the Middle East and elsewhere) so is in that sense altruistic.

The problem with Israel is that it occupies (by force) land and resources that belonged to other people and that Israel is constitutionally bound to maintain itself as a state for one racial/religous group: "the Jewish State" (something that is anathema to modern western civilization).

The Palestinians on the other suffer from the same problems that effect much of the Middle-East: incompetent and corrupt leadership, little or no appreciation of civil law and the growing primacy of violent religous fanaticism. Their inability to maintain a civilized opposition is mirrored by Israel's inability to justify itself by anything other than violence.

So in short I'm tempted to think the two deserve each other, but in the long term either there must be a Palestinian state or there must be an inclusive secular state that embraces people of all races and religions. I doubt either will happen in my lifetime, though the wall building and the latest events over Gaza show that the Israeli establishment are expecting a Palestinian state to happen.

[bozon]

The problem with Israel is that it occupies (by force) land and resources that belonged to other people and that Israel is constitutionally bound to maintain itself as a state for one racial/religous group: "the Jewish State" (something that is anathema to modern western civilization).

thses are two true statements always understood and used wrong.

What is occupied by force? just the Gaza and West-bank or the entire country?
Until the peace agreement with Egypt in 1980 israel had no international borders, only cease-fire lines. The 1949 borders were cease-fire lines. So where does the occupied territory start and where does it end?
I'm actually happy that most people in the world accept 1949 lines as the Israeli borders. The Palestinian could claim (and many do) more then just the 1967 occupied parts - does it matter if it was occupied in this war or that one?
The 1949 borders are also not what the UN voted on. They are a result of the war that broke out after the Palestinians and neighboring countries refused it.

Israel is a "jewish state", it says so in the decleration of independence. Only problem is it doesn't say what "jewish state" means.
So now you have interpretations of it in infinit number of ways: From an orthodox religious state, through racist "jew only" state, through "Safehouse for the world jews", to "a democratic state in the spirit of jewish culture".

Israel does make a difference between jews and none-jews. Part of it is due to the state of war it's in since it's independence (like Israeli arabs not allowed to serve in the army and certain goverment offices). Part of it due to it being open to jewish immigration (under the "safehouse" interpretation) but not so to other immigrants.

Only when safly sitting inside it's borders this issues can be worked out.

Bozon

[-dead-]

Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm trying to figure this one out.

So far, what I've read this morning, I disagree with Bush's statement. Although I am very uneducated on this situation, I don't feel Israel should have anyone in the West Bank or Gaza.

But my question is this:

We put ourselves on the line for supporting Israel.

Why do we do it?  What's in it for the United States?

So we have an ally in the Middle East. So what? They seem to need us alot more than we need them.

But like I said, I know little about this. So what do we get from this relationship? (Aside from the Jewish vote)

One possible reason for the current administration's Israel position - according to adbusters - is the neo-cons having quite a say in the policy of the Bush administration. They came up with this list of neo-cons as the 50 most influential at the moment, pointing out that just over half are Jewish, which is interesting. Although I have neither the time nor the inclination to check whether the list is skewed or not - perhaps someone here can check.



So it may be more than just the "Jewish vote" at work - after all the neo-cons do seem to exert influence on government policy. I'm not going to subscribe to a "huge zionist conspiracy" nonsense, but there does seem to be influence at play - albeit more in the vein of the NRA than the silly sinister Elders of Zion nonsense.

In fact perhaps the most interesting part of the list is that - if it's genuine - one has to wonder how many Jewish Americans are on the far right-wing - in order for over half the top 50 neo cons to be Jewish, and why?

[Hortlund]

Heh, this is sweet...a list of names where all jews are picked out.

Yeah, definitively rings a bell... If only they could wear some sort of sign on their chest too so it would be easier to pick them out in a crowd.

[Staga]

When I was young and wild we used to spent some time at cruise ships between Helsinki and Stockholm and usually got a fight or two with swedes.
I can't help thinking if Hortlund was one of not so lucky swedes; that would explain his bitternes

Well Hortlund; you attacked against a messenger once again because you couldn't say anything else. Life sucks eh ??



Ease up sonny; go nuke some camel-spiders or take care of Syria and Iran

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Heh, this is sweet...a list of names where all jews are picked out.

Yeah, definitively rings a bell... If only they could wear some sort of sign on their chest too so it would be easier to pick them out in a crowd.

Well the list does work on the assumption that Jewishness may predispose people to supporting the Jewish State of Israel: how true that assumption is, is impossible to say. Another problem of course is that it may be their neo-con beliefs rather than their religious beliefs that shape their support of Israel.

[storch]

Most of my Jewish friends are liberal and very much fun to debate,  while some are extreme rightists way more than half are total liberals.

[OIO]

ravells.... if britain had needed help against argentina,  then the british had bigger problems than having to face argentina dont you think?

oth, did britain ASK for help in the falklands? I think not. See above paragraph.


Why is the US supporting Israel?

Forget all the religious and social and economical reasons you can dream up.

Just look at a map of the middle east. If the answer doesnt pop out and slap you then perhaps you should take a hardcover atlas and hit yourself in the head with it until it sinks in.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by -dead-
One possible reason for the current administration's Israel position - according to adbusters - is the neo-cons having quite a say in the policy of the Bush administration. They came up with this list of neo-cons as the 50 most influential at the moment, pointing out that just over half are Jewish, which is interesting. Although I have neither the time nor the inclination to check whether the list is skewed or not - perhaps someone here can check.



So it may be more than just the "Jewish vote" at work - after all the neo-cons do seem to exert influence on government policy. I'm not going to subscribe to a "huge zionist conspiracy" nonsense, but there does seem to be influence at play - albeit more in the vein of the NRA than the silly sinister Elders of Zion nonsense.

In fact perhaps the most interesting part of the list is that - if it's genuine - one has to wonder how many Jewish Americans are on the far right-wing - in order for over half the top 50 neo cons to be Jewish, and why?

There are fewer than 6 million jews in the US, and as Storch mentioned, a good deal of them are liberal.

I guess the remaining 3-3.5 million must be pulling some serious strings to bend a nation of over a quarter billion to their evil conservative will.

[Grizzly]

Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm trying to figure this one out.

So far, what I've read this morning, I disagree with Bush's statement. Although I am very uneducated on this situation, I don't feel Israel should have anyone in the West Bank or Gaza.

The US support of Israel was established long before Bush came along. That being said, wouldn't we look real peachy if we dumped Israel and violated a long standing commitment? There are many others who the US supports that would quake at this, and few who would take seriously any commitment from the US in the future.

You are concerned with the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Had you listened to what the president said, you would have heard that this is an openning proposal by Israel, not the final agreement. Bush did not say he supports keeping any settlements in the West Bank, but sees Irael's offer as a possitive basis for resuming negotiations.

Contrast what the US is doing in Israel with that of any other country. Though there is constant criticism of what we are doing there, no other country is raising a finger to help resolve the situation. More to the contrary, anti-semitism is running ramped in Europe. The proof is in the pudding. Who is doing what and what are the respective goals?

grizzly