the
Middle East that resembles Western Civilization.
----
so, you're saying that they are an important ally because they
resemble Western Civ?
Surely there is a reason other than appearance.
Second, right there neck-in-neck with the aid that we give to Israel,
is
Egypt.
----
I would stop funding to Egypt on the same grounds ... because we can't
afford it and because it is unnecessary.
America first ... always and forever
On Apr 15, 5:24 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I only got past the first paragraph of this missive, before I realized that
> this is but one more of PlainOl's "Patriot/Militia/TaxProtest/The
> Highwaymen/TheIlluminatiAreComingAfterUsAlongWithTheTriLateralistsBilderber gs"
> kind of post.
>
> First, Israel is an important ally, they are the only bastion in the
> Middle East that resembles Western Civilization. Whether we like it, or we
> don't like it, oil is an important commodity to the world, and the region
> is unstable, with, or without Israel.
>
> Second, right there neck-in-neck with the aid that we give to Israel, is
> Egypt. Allies in and of themself. At least this week. The last time I
> looked, Egypt wasn't all that Jewish.
>
> So, the point being? Maybe it has to do with logistics and locale, and not
> so much Judaism. I think just as important, it has been our Nation's
> policy since 1947, that Israel is going to be a Nation-State, and will
> exist. I don't necessarily have a problem with this decision, but I do have
> a problem in that we didn't enfoce UN Resolution 242 (and others) that
> mandated there would be a separate, equal Palestine. Today, Israel totally
> rejects this notion, and until such time as Israel starts skipping our rope,
> then all foreign aid should be cut off.
>
> I do agree with the writer in one aspect. I am sick and tired of anyone who
> questions Israel's foreign policy, or our foreign policy toward Israel, as
> being somehow Anti-Semitic. There are a number of questions regarding why
> we have supported Israel's foreign policy, when it was blatantly in
> violation of UN Resolutions, that should be asked.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:29 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > foreign-policy makers have become Washington's leading con men. Even
> > though Whiz Kids and Dream Teams have dragged America into one debacle
> > after another
> > ----
> > American foreign policy since the end of the cold war has been focused
> > primarily on the Middle East and to an alarming extent on the defense
> > and promotion of Israel. Why has Israel become so central to our
> > foreign policy and what advantages does the United States gain from
> > the relationship?
> > Israel is not an important trading partner for the United States, in
> > 20th place, behind Venezuela and Thailand. Israel has no significant
> > natural resources, nor is Israel an important defense ally. None of
> > its neighbors pose any significant threat to the United States or
> > American interests. There is not an important Israeli American
> > population. If we equate American Jews as somehow "Israeli" because
> > of the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, than we are still only
> > talking about a population of 6,444,000 approx. (2007) 1.7% – 2.2% of
> > the US population. This is less than the number of Polish Americans,
> > approximately 10,000,000 people and well below the number of Irish
> > Americans, over 30,000,000.
> > Yet Ireland never received anywhere near the attention that Israel has
> > in the media, in political debates, in foreign aid or in foreign
> > policy efforts, even when a full blown civil war was occurring in
> > Ulster.
> > The attention Israel receives in the United States is completely
> > disproportionate to its strategic, commercial, or political
> > importance. For example, in reference to the 2008 presidential
> > elections, Shmuel Rosner at Slate wrote,
> > "in the vice-presidential debate, Israel's name was mentioned 17
> > times. China was mentioned twice, Europe just once. Russia didn't come
> > up at all. Nor Britain, France, or Germany. The only two countries to
> > get more attention were Iraq and Afghanistan—the countries in which
> > U.S. forces are fighting wars…. A week earlier, in the first McCain-
> > Obama debate, Israel was mentioned seven times, fewer than Russia but
> > still more than China or Japan or any country in Europe, Latin
> > America, or Africa."
> > In regards to American foreign aid, the amounts are striking.
> > According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt,
> > "Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a
> > level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been
> > the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military
> > assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since
> > World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004
> > dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each
> > year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about
> > $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking
> > since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita
> > income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain."
> > It's fascinating to compare American foreign policy in Mexico, a
> > country of over 100,000 million people (Israel's population is around
> > 7.5 million) and a very important trading partner with the US. Issues
> > like immigration and drug trafficking with Mexico have palpable daily
> > effects on the lives of Americans, yet Mexico receives less the 2% of
> > the foreign aid that Israel gets, less than 40 million dollars
> > compared to Israel's almost 3 billion. And the over 28 million
> > Americans who are of Mexican ancestry? They are apparently, for
> > politicians, much less important than the less than 7 million Jewish
> > Americans.
> > In the sphere of politics the tone and attitude of US politicians
> > sounds as if their careers depend on how they speak of Israel. Joe
> > Biden during the Vice Presidential debate,
> > "Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to
> > Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket
> > were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion."
> > And Sarah Palin,
> > "But I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think
> > that is a good thing to get to agree on, Sen. Biden. I respect your
> > position on that."
> > And President Obama this summer said, according to the New York Times,
> > "that he is committed to Israel's security but does not believe it is
> > essential for him to avoid all disagreement with the Jewish state."
> > This type of language can only be considered pandering. Why are they
> > pandering to Israel? During the 2008 presidential election, John
> > McCain said he would not sit down with the Spanish government because
> > of the way they pulled their troops out of Iraq. It caused a minor
> > stir, but never became an issue of any importance. Do you think
> > either Obama or McCain could have been elected if either had said that
> > they would not sit down with Israeli leaders due to continued new
> > settlements in the West Bank?
> > Israel is considered to be a nuclear power. Few if any deny that
> > Israel has nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass
> > destruction. Why does Israel receive no pressure at all from the
> > United States to become a non-nuclear power? Would this not be an
> > excellent bargaining chip with Iran? Iran is a country of over 70,000
> > million people with a tremendous history and culture, yet they are not
> > allowed to have nuclear weapons, but Israel is? It is easy to
> > understand the Iranian objection to this double standard. It's very
> > unfortunate that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to
> > spew ridiculous, anti-Semitic diatribes that completely distract the
> > attention of the world from the real issues of the Middle East and
> > reduce his country's credibility. Again, Mearshimeimer and Walt
> > write,
> > "Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support.
> > Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical
> > of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other
> > Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put
> > Israel's nuclear arsenal on the IAEA's agenda."
> > Why is it impossible to have a sensible, open debate in the United
> > States regarding our relationship to Israel? The clearest example of
> > why it is not possible occurred in 2006 when John Mearsheimer of the
> > University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published a white
> > paper about the power of AIPCAC, the principal Israeli lobby in the
> > US. The ensuing debate was not centered on the issues of the white
> > paper, quite the contrary; both academics were accused of everything
> > from lack of professionalism to anti-Semitism. The White Paper made
> > very clear arguments about the power of AIPAC and their silencing of
> > Israel's critics. Mearsheimer and Walt pulled no punches,
> > "For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
> > 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
> > relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for
> > Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the
> > region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only
> > US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation
> > has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been
> > willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies
> > in order to advance the interests of another state?"
> > The authors received a drubbing and were quickly silenced. Alan
> > Derschowitz as well as Eliot Cohen of John Hopkins both accused
> > Mearsheimer and Walt of anti-Semitism and bigotry.
> > When Jimmy Carter came out with his book about the Israeli-Palestinian
> > question, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, the debate again became about
> > him, not the plight of the Palestinians.
> > Increasingly, the war in Iraq is being attributed to the Neo-
> > Conservative wing of the Republican Party that had a very influential
> > role in the Bush administration. For most of the world this has been
> > obvious, but in the US it has been a taboo topic. Michael Kinsley is
> > quoted as saying "the connection between the invasion of Iraq and
> > Israeli interests had become 'the proverbial elephant in the room.
> > Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.'" The Neo-Cons had for
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment