user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I guess if you look at it from an accounting perspective you could probably make that argument. However what all the anti-Israeli types always forget is that between Jordan and Egypt we give much more than we do to Israel. Egypt alone receives almost as much as Israel alone.
But from a non-accounting perspective we would be much worse off.
I think that this idea is spawned from the claims by jerks like Osama that they are fighting for their Arab/Muslim brothers, but that is a bunch of crap. They are fighting to create a theocratic caliphate with them in charge nothing more.
And of course, Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
America would be better off because:
1. It would no longer have waste billions of dollars a year on Israel, a welfare state, and a country that is one of America's greatest enemies. They spy on us, sell our secrets and technologies. That's not the qualities of a true ally.
2. America and Americans around the world would no longer be as much of a target as they are now. Europeans and some Arabs wouldn't think so badly of America if it dropped Israel and stopped supporting Israel's imperial policies against Palestine.
3. Why should America support them at all? They're just another country. There is no good reason to why America should support them.
1. Egypt and Jordan are welfare states too (even more so than Israel).
2. Ah yes, America's problems in the arab would lessen significantly. Yep. Sure.
3. Why should America support them at all? They are a reliable ally and a stable country with a functioning democracy (though far from perfect), US gains lots of valuable intelligence on what is going on in the dictatorships in the region. The aid the US promised to Egypt and Israel was part of the Camp David accords. A bribe to both if you will, but it certainly helped grease the skids to allow the two countries to reach a peace agreement. Which has worked well - they haven't been to war since (in fact there hasn't been a major war between the Arabs and Israel since 1973). Funny how everyone forgets about all the aid to Jordan and Egypt (although I would support them too as stability in those countries is important to US interests as well). But if you want to get rid of aid for Israel, why not do it for those two countries as well? I'm sure Egypt needs all that top flight military equipment they get from the US.
Did the Mid-east pose any real threat to the US before allying with Israel?Did we even have any enemies there pre-Israel for that matter?
I think we should ease them off US support (just like everyone else living off our money) but we shouldn't abandon them entirely. They are pretty much the only decent country in that part of the world, a reasonably free democracy that likes the US, that's something we should encourage. So while they should learn to stand on their own two feet more than they are now, I'd recomend we gradually reduce their allowance, rather than cutting them off entirely.
And I doubt it would have any impact on terrorism either way. The Palestine/Israel conflict is simply a conveinent excuse for the terrorists to use, not a cause of terrorism. If israel were to disappear they'd come up with a different reason for attacking us.
"1. Egypt and Jordan are welfare states too (even more so than Israel)."
The subject is Israel. I never said Jordan and Egypt deserve $$$ either. Don't try to change the subject.
"They are pretty much the only decent country in that part of the world, a reasonably free democracy that likes the US, that's something we should encourage."
So them being a Democracy makes them decent? Explain. India is a democracy too, they're located in that area. Why isn't America sucking up to India just as much? Tell me, does a decent country/ally stab you in the back like Israel has done. They had a spy in the pentagon, what does that tell you. If they're so willing to spy for the US for money, then how are you sure that they aren't willing to spy ON the US for others, for money. Remember, there is not "friend" in politics, especially when there's money involved. There's only you and yours. They're the only ones you trust. Everyone else should be treated like an asset in politics. So far America is treating Israel as if it were more than just an asset. That's why Israel used it as an advantage.
"Better off," in what sense? Would the world be more peaceful? I think that the people who hate us will always find a reason, and it is possible that even if we capitulated to all the pan-arabist demands, it would arguably create more conflict, not less.
Actually, our support of Israel is what gives us the weight to keep them from fully unleashing their military. Does anyone truly imagine that Israel would not make short work of the "Palestinians" and their supporters? Can't imagine.
Herzog makes a good point which I would agree with. However, as griffon007 says, the aid does give us some influence.
The US does suck up to India as well. Bush is prepared to export nuclear technology (for building power plants) to India even though India does not fully support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This action would require a change in US law. If that isn't sucking up, the I don't know what is.
Israel spying. Well, of course they do. Allies have spied on each other for a long time. The Israel incidents make the news but US and UK have long spied on their own allies (NATO, etc). Listed below are parts of two articles (which are from legitimate well respected news sources):
Report to EU says US and UK spied on allies
International Herald Tribune
Paris, Thursday, February 24, 2000
Report to EU Says U.S. and U.K. Spied on Allies
By Barry James International Herald Tribune
BRUSSELS - A report to the European Parliament asserted Wednesday that the United States and Britain used a surveillance network to spy on the communications of their allies to obtain military, industrial and economic secrets - an accusation immediately rejected by the British prime minister.
"No is the short answer," Tony Blair said when asked if the accusation was true. "These things are governed by extremely strict rules, and those rules always will be applied."
But the report drew heated protests from European politicians. Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister and now a member of the EU Parliament, said that "all means are acceptable" for the United States, but "what is more shocking for us is the attitude of the British because Britain is an integral part of the European Union."
"A good part of this surveillance network is based in Britain, and Britain benefits from priority information," Mr. Pasqua said. The report was prepared last year for a parliamentary subcommittee that assesses science and technology. Much of it was written by a British journalist, Duncan Campbell, who has long specialised in espionage and security issues and who presented the findings to a parliamentary hearing Wednesday. Some of the information surfaced recently in the United States under the Freedom of Information act.
The president of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, condemned the spying practices as an outrageous attempt on the privacy of individual citizens and on the legitimate activities of private companies. "For the European Union, the interests involved are essential," Mrs. Fontaine said. "It seems well established that there has been a violation of the fundamental rights of its citizens, and economic espionage may have had disastrous consequences on employment, for example."
even countries like the UK
Here is another:
Britain spied on UN allies over war vote
Security Council members "illegally targeted" by GCHQ after plea from US security agency
Martin Bright and Peter Beaumont
Sunday February 8, 2004
The Observer
Britain helped America to conduct a secret and potentially illegal spying operation at the United Nations in the run-up to the Iraq war, The Observer can reveal.
I only posted the items where the US spied on it's allies. There are several on the reverse. These allies are ones which the US has ACTUAL REAL mutual defense agreements with.
Spying on your allies is an unfortunately normal thing. But, leaders of countries want to make sure they know what their allies are thinking and more importantly doing. So... should the US not be allies with France or Italy anymore? Or with other allies? I think the answer would that the US should remain allies with those countries. Those countries would also agree despite the mutual spying.
So there goes your spying argument.
Israel was traditionally a welfare state, but in the recent years there has been a change in that line. Its reasons are both internal and both a US demand about better budget management and reducing deficits as a condition for the special aid package (mainly consisting loans and guarentees). So the influence that the US gains is also in strictly internal issues of Israel, as well as the foreign policy, which I'm sure that everybody who commented had heard of, in previous ballots. Another recent example, is the demand of the US that Israeli officials won't talk to the media about the recent US moves against Syria.
Robotthinker, I'm not sure what you define as "before allying with Israel?", I personally think it's the 1960's, so the Soviet influenced and backed Arab national uprisings and revolutions in the 1950's, do count as a threat to the US, before it allied with Israel. The Eisenhower's doctrine and fear from the growth of Nasser's United Arab Communities caused the US to send the marines to Lebanon in 1958. If the same action, that wasn't connected to Israel at all, happenned today - I'm sure that it would serve as another excuse for the muslim terror against the US.
by Yosi on Sun Oct 16, 05 2:18pm
[+]
So you believe it's ok for Israel to spy on the US and sell American secrets to potential enemies because they are America's ally? I don't know about you but that's treason to me, and ally or not, only countries with bad intentions do that. Just because the media defines 'spying on allies' a 'normal thing' doesn't excuse them, AT ALL.
"The US does suck up to India as well."
That's sucking up? Tell me, if you were a world leader, would you rather have 3 trillion dollars (the total amount that the US has given to Israel since 1974), or nuclear oil?
LD, America is selling arms to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, potential enemies for Israel as well. But mainly because of the American aid, the deals with China are canceled in contrast to the Saudi / Egyptian deals. And where did you get the 3 trillion dollars figure from? It's currently 3 billion dollars annually, and special aid once in a decade, on average, of few billions.
by Yosi on Mon Oct 17, 05 3:48am
[+]
And remember Christians, if there wasn't an Israel, there'd be no Armageddon, and *gasp* no Second Coming tm. So keep that money coming.
"LD, America is selling arms to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, potential enemies for Israel as well."
Another reason why America and Israel aren't allies.
"And where did you get the 3 trillion dollars figure from?
That's total since 1974, including aid packages. The 3 trillion dollars figure is questionable since many other sources have 1.6 trillion as their original figure. Not sure, either way it's a lot.
" That's total since 1974, including aid packages. The 3 trillion dollars figure is questionable since many other sources have 1.6 trillion as their original figure. Not sure, either way it's a lot. "
Yeah, I remember the specification that couchgnome gave in his ballot to the 1.688 trillion : "Total cost of US support of Israel includes, in addition to direct aid ($247 billion), the collateral cost of aid to Jordan and Egypt ($164 bilion), the costs of "rescuing" Israel in 1973 ($750-$1050 billion), ad hoc costs such as loan guarantees, etc. ($106 billion), cost of attempts to protect the US from a repeat of the 1973 Oil Embargo (at least $381 billion), and the cost of using US military to defend autocratic regimes in the Persian Gulf ($40 billion). "
Which means 250 billion dollars (and I think it's lower, at least by half), and the rest is either unconnected or manipulated facts.
" Another reason why America and Israel aren't allies. "
Or a will to profit on both sides, dictated by the terms of the unequal alliance between two nations.
by Yosi on Tue Oct 18, 05 4:13am
[+]
Or a will to profit on both sides, dictated by the terms of the unequal alliance between two nations.
So you can say that it's a business relationship rather than an alliance. A business treaty and an alliance differ.
Business treaty? I don't see it that way. There is some sort of alliance between Israel and the US, and the US, mainly motivated by the financial benefits sells weapons to Israel's potential enemies, and so does Israel. But the alliance or whatever you want to call it, stops Israel from selling weapons etc. to America's potential enemies.
by Yosi on Wed Oct 19, 05 5:00am
[+]
|
|
