Not a SINGLE mention of support of Israel in the entire DNC!

amother

Ecru

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 1:48 am

I watched the convention which was broadcast online via the L.A. Times (no talking heads or commentary). There were a number of men wearing yarmulkes prominantly shown.

With regards to aid to Israel, under Bush military aid was $3 billion a year. Under our current president it was raised to $5 billion. There were also increases in aid to Israel for education, agriculture and medical research, although I don't remember the exact figures off the top of my head. (The $3 and $4 billion were from the GAO, under the Foreign Military Aid budget.) The Obama administration also honored another $2billion in loan guarentees to Israel which were cut by president Geo. H.W. Bush.

It's nice that everyone picked up on the dog whistles of Israeli support at the Republican convention. But once the dog whistle is silenced, it would help to do some independent fact checking.

FWIW I am a registered Republican.

amother

Indigo

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 1:59 am

gp2.0 wrote:

That's true. So then you apply logic. What's in it for the US? What does America gain by supporting Israel?

And then you draw some conclusions - would the US give up all those advantages? Why on earth would they want to?

Thus you come to a conclusion based not on a sense of comfort and wellbeing or a sense of impending doom. A conclusion based not on blind naivete or blazing indignity. A conclusion based not on denial or on exaggeration.

A conclusion based on the cold hard facts.

Historically speaking, state sponsored persecution of Jews consistently defied logic and self-interest, was to the detriment not the advantage of the sponsoring state, and always led to the decline if not total demise of the sponsoring state yet someone else always picks up the baton. Historically, anti-semitism defies logic.

DrMom

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:46 am

gp2.0 wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what your conclusion is, but if you are basing this conclusion on the assumption that US politicians always act in the US's best self-interest, you are sadly naive.

Was it in the US's best self-interest to arm Iran with nuclear weapons, with which it could destroy supposedly valued US ally Israel, and with which it could destroy a decent-sized US city or two? Not at all, yet that's precisely what this administration did.

Sadly, politicians often do not act in the US's self-interest, but rather in their own self-interest. "Clinton Cash," anyone?

ally

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:56 am

amother wrote:

And then it helps to analyse the facts.

What percentage of this budget must be spent in the US - I.e., is effectively a stimulus package for the country?
What percentage of this budget is spent on defense technology as opposed to offense?
What is the US's best interest in this?
What is their long term goal?
What policy accompanied this spending?

For example, a very significant part of this defense budget funded the iron dome.
The Iron Dome is used to intercept rockets fired mostly from Gaza (but would also work with Lebanon or Syria).
Due to the Iron Dome (in part, of course the accuracy of the rockets also contributes to this - but this will no doubt be improved), the percentage of hits on Israeli targets is very low.
As a result, although there are a lot of people (including children) walking around with severe PTSD from continual sirens, there are not a lot of deaths.

This then makes the current status quo with Gaza seem like a tolerable state of affairs and enables external parties to demand "restraint" from Israel. If there were frequent hits, and if these hits extended out of the periphery towards the centre, such demands would be a little more difficult to make.

Thus providing Israel with a defense budget, "stabilizes" the region somewhat without at all addressing the source of conflict. In whose interest is this short-term band aid solution?

DrMom

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 3:01 am

Also, mentioning Israel is not necessary. Most American Jews are registered Democrats, and seem to vote Democratic no matter how awful the Democratic party is.

Hillary Clinton does not need to work hard to get their votes.

She would not bother to court evangelicals, who want nothing to do with her and her ultra-liberal left-wing policies.

She does need to worry about not further alienating the Israeli-flag burning Bernie supporters, the Palestinian-flag-waving crowd, and the J-Street Bernie Sanders crowd. So she is playing it smart by not saying anything at all positive about Israel.

ora_43

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 5:17 am

gp2.0 wrote:

The US has given billions to Israel, and also billions to the Palestinian Authority and to Gaza (the latter is OK because it's "human aid" which totally doesn't help Hamas. A distinction I'm sure the US would make if I were to send $1 billion in human aid to ISIS-held territories of Iraq).

Oh, and billions to other Arab countries that are at war with Israel.

And the billions to Israel, as ally has pointed out, are largely to fund technologically impressive but militarily useless projects.

Possible conclusions -
1. America is Israel's bestest friend, and just happens to also be friends with Arab dictatorships that want to wipe Israel off the map. It's tough when your friends don't get along. We've all been there.

2. America likes playing both sides off the middle. An arms race in the Middle East is great for the US economy.

3. America benefits from being allied with Israel, and also benefits from being allied with Abbas and other Arab dictators. There's no need for America to pick a side, since ultimately everyone is too afraid of losing their own military aid (and thus falling behind) to make a real fuss about the US arming their enemies, too.

4. America will always help Israel, because America supports democracy and would never allow genocide even if it became politically convenient to do so. Except in Rwanda, or Iraq, or Sudan, or... The point is, they would never do that to Israel.

****

I dunno, I still have a slight sense of impending doom.

ora_43

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 5:21 am

I'm not impressed by American politicians talking about support for Israel. We all know it's just lip service. And ultimately, what matters is how badly they screw up the Middle East.

(Bush Jr and Obama both talked the talk, and both played their part in pushing the Middle East farther into chaos. I'd rather a US president who cut aid to Israel, and just didn't make things worse... )

But still, the fact that Democrats didn't feel the need to even pay lip service - assuming it's true - goes to show that for them, supporting Israel is no longer politically convenient. That's a big deal.

gp2.0

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 1:53 pm

Of course there are no guarantees that the US will continue supporting Israel. There are no guarantees in life, except death and taxes.

But why be troubled if they do or don't "pay lip service" as another poster wrote? What they SAY they'll do is a far cry from what they ACTUALLY do. This applies to all politicians.

The democrats didn't pay lip service to support Israel because it's not the popular opinion among their demographic. I've accepted as fact that liberals don't want to support Israel, just as I've accepted as fact that the US will continue to support Israel no matter who's in the White House.

Let's go to the worst case scenario - if the US cuts all funding and support to Israel, what happens next? Would Israel be left unable to sustain and defend itself? Is Israel really so dependent on the US at this point in time? I have no idea. I'd like to know, if anyone knows.

amother

Ecru

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:01 pm

ally wrote:

The Iron Dome cost the taxpayers of the US $225 million. That is not the majority of the aid we provide to them for defense purposes. We, the US taxpayers fund 1/4 of the Israeli defense budge. Over the past 8 years aid to Israel has increased by 25%. Initially we supported additional aid for education, health service and research in hopes of Israel becoming more self sufficient, and building their economy so that they can finance their own defenses. That goal line shifts every year.

The US claims to have an interest in Israel's security for the purposes of stabilizing the middle east. We've been doing this same thing for years and years, giving billions to Israel with the same results. At the same time Americans are complaining about broken bridges, declining infrastructure, increased taxes and yet we squander billions on defense funding for Israel. At the same time the billions aren't enough for some, the Democrats must also give lip service to them at their convention.

marina

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:10 pm

ally wrote:

Are you arguing that we should let more Israelis die so that the region can be destabilized and we can then address the conflict?

Surely I am misunderstanding you.

Amarante

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:14 pm

And given that Trump has threatened to withhold aid from NATO allies if they don't cough up sufficient dollars and has also emboldened Russia by stating that he might reconsider the issue of Russia's takeover of the Crimea, why does anyone think he would be willing to continue to supply more money to a "freeloader". :-) Does anyone think the world (including Israel) is more secure with someone who has no control over what comes out of his mouth and has expressed admiration for Putin as a good leader - and didn't back down even when it was pointed out that he killed journalists and political opponents.

And as others have posted, no country was specifically mentioned and I have been watching the convention gavel to gavel so why does anyone think Israel should be specifically mentioned? I am not even understanding reading anything into this other than paranoia fed by the same sources who seem to have claimed numerous Palestinian flags at the convention :-)

And why no mention of the neo Nazi's like David Duke who have found Trump's statements to be in line with their perverse thinking - If you want to read anti-Semitic vitriolic postings, try a random look at some of the far right wing forums and websites.

ora_43

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:15 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

But why be troubled if they do or don't "pay lip service" as another poster wrote? What they SAY they'll do is a far cry from what they ACTUALLY do. This applies to all politicians.

The democrats didn't pay lip service to support Israel because it's not the popular opinion among their demographic.

... and you don't see this as being at all significant? Less than a decade ago, it would have been the popular opinion.