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

ora_43

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 11:25 am

amother 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.

American aid is like 2% of Israel's budget.

Israel could finance its own defenses. But aid to Israel helps America (or more, helps American politicians) in several ways:
1. As ally said, it's used as a way to funnel US taxpayer money to specific US industries - like the subsidies of corn or the dairy industry.
2. It keeps Israel and Israel supporters quiet about the US aid to hostile Arab dictatorships.
3. It buys the US influence in Israel.
4. It buys the US a certain degree of control over the Israeli weapons industry - what weapons Israel develops, and who they can be sold to (eg, keeping Israeli tech out of Chinese hands).
5. It's part of a tight defense relationship that includes sharing intel, joint training, and probably more that the public doesn't hear about.
6. When money is spent on new technology, it's spent on projects the US approves of - so it can be a way to fund military research that will benefit the US, but list it in the budget as foreign aid.

Also, considering that you're basically accusing Israel of taking money from poor Americans and forcing them to use bad bridges - and bringing up the old "Israel relies on the US, without us you couldn't support a military" chestnut to boot - you're really not disproving OP's point, here.

ora_43

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 11:37 am

marina 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.

No.

OK, I can't speak for ally, but I totally agreed with her post. And no, that's not what I was thinking at all.

The point is that Hamas' attacks on Israel are still very very dangerous - but because we have technology that shoots down *most* of the rockets, now there's an attitude among many that Israel shouldn't respond to Hamas attacks at all.

Even though the rockets still kill people, the mortar shells still kill people, the tunnels are a gun pointed constantly at the heads of thousands of people in southern Israel - and have also been used to kill people, the sniper attacks still kill people, and the rockets restrict the movement of millions of people including everyone living in the area where most of Israel's crops are grown.

And... did nobody notice the last half a year over here? When terrorists can't kill people in one very specific way, they don't just give up and go home.

It's like if someone were trying to stab you, and I solved your problem by building you a $10 million robot that flew around your body and blocked 50% of knife thrusts - and then criticized you for shooting the attacker, because hey, you had a knife-blocking-(sometimes) robot, you could have just left the poor guy alone.

ally

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 11:40 am

marina 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.

No.

I am arguing that the success of the Iron Dome is a band-aid solution which perpetuates the status quo and means that tackling the underlying causes of the conflict is put off for yet another decade. It means that Israel can be coerced to show "restraint" in the short term, even when it is known that in the long term, whatever terrorist infrastructure is left standing is just going to grow exponentially.

In terms of US interest, which is in favour of forcing a two state solution, I believe that the Iron Dome enables the pretense that the withdrawal from Gaza was successful, the current situation is livable - and by extension, if we were to have the same situation in the West Bank, we could live with it too.

amother

Ecru

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 11:58 am

ora_43 wrote:

[b]

#1 provide a citation for your claim. My figures came from the GAO. #2 Egypt receives less than half of that as military aid. Israel states 1/4 of their military budget is provided by the US. Are they lying? #3 Lobbies do just as well but their pockets aren't as deep as the govts. #4 Nothing new here most military aid has the same caveats. #5 Intel costs are not included in this budget, the CIA secret ops budget is quite secret. US military aid to Israel does not include secret ops. That's how our govt. budgeting process for that particular agency works. #6 Again if you read the conditions of the aid, your scenario is forbidden. It's a natural argument that sounds good but is not grounded in the actual facts about military aid to Israel.

And yes, I would love to see the US taxpayer paid aid to all countries in the middle east reduced nation by nation by 50%, even that which is required by treaty. I'd prefer to see that money going to early reading programs and interventions for children, expanding elder care options for working families, paid family leave, national infrastructure, lowering the cost of higher education for public universities and colleges, alternative energy development and a host of other programs that would help Americans.

ora_43

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 12:21 pm

#1 - our figures don't contradict Confused

. I'm simply pointing out that 20% of the military budget isn't irreplaceable - it's a relatively small percent of the total budget.

#2 - OK, for one thing, looking only at Egypt is strange. What about US aid to all of Israel's enemies? (Davka Egypt has a peace deal with Israel). For another, aid as a percent of national budget is almost as important as total quantity of aid. America might not be buying Iron Dome installations for Hamas, but of all the countries on earth it's playing the largest role by far in propping up the Palestine regime(s). (Whether that's good or bad for Israel, I'm not sure).

#3, 4, 5 - the point is that lobbies can only attempt to influence public figures. US aid + the US security council vote means America can almost guarantee Israel will do what it wants in certain areas.

I think maybe my point wasn't clear? I'm not saying that American aid to Israel is well spent. I'm saying that it's unreasonable to portray it as either a. America propping up a still-dependent Israel b. America frittering money away on nothing. The money is spent with American interests in mind - maybe not the best interests, maybe not the interests that benefit most Americans as opposed to just weapons tycoons, but still, American interests.

happybeingamom

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 12:48 pm

ally wrote:

So your theory is that if the bombings caused more fatalities then Israel would have a stronger reaction to the terrorist and the world won't restrain them.

The problem is we can have a lot of innocent people dead, deaths that can be prevented. Not worth it.

All I can think of is sacrificial lambs! I have very close family in Israel, I'll stick with the Iron Dome.

Also I disagree because I don't think world opinion will change if there are more Jews dead. That makes the sacrifice not worth it.

ally

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 1:00 pm

happybeingamom wrote:

No.
I think the Iron Dome is a short term solution.
I think pushing off a long-term solution (and ignoring/enabling terrorism while you do so) is dangerous.

BasMelech120

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 6:42 pm

amother wrote:

And the 'Republican' who is running for president spoke, many, many times, with hateful messages that awoke sleeping bears and brought white supremacist anti-Israel, anti Semites out of their caves and into the open.

He uses a slogan which was used during WWII to deny entry to thousands of desperate Jews - America First.

Did you see the comments in the live feed of the Republican convention? Press H for Hitler, Let's kill the Jews, etc. These are Trump supporters!!

Once hate is unleashed, it doesn't discriminate. Hate breeds hate. You think you're safe because the hate is now directed at Spics and Muslims? Jews have always been a soft target and vulnerable to hate.

Once we resort to using scare tactics, let me tell you, if you're shaking from Clinton, you should be seizing from Trump.

Trump's supporters can unleash anti-semitism in the most vicious, frightening way possible.

I'd love to see some examples of this.

And you do know that not only Trump supporters were on the live feed of the Republican convention; hundreds if not thousands of trolls are on there with so many other messages. So before saying that 'these are Trump supporters', you'd actually have to verify what those people's political leanings are.

Amarante

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 6:43 pm

BasMelech120 wrote:

No surprise there...

BTW, there wasn't a single American Flag on there all throughout the first day of the convention. This group has proven that they do not know of respect to their own country or to their allies. Over and over and over again.

Sigh. Yet another myth being perpetuated by the right wing. This is like whackamole :-).

Both the Republican and Democratic sets had large screens in lieu of flags fir production reasons. At various times, flags were used as a backdrop or not at both conventions.

amother

Ecru

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 6:46 pm

BasMelech120 wrote:

I've been watching via the L.A. Times which is a multi camera feed with zero commentary. There were plenty of flags. I doubt you will believe Snopes, Fact Check or Politfact but they were there, on the changing media screen in the background and on the stage. I'm sure you missed the opening when representatives of our military carried the colors, and never saw the flag imagery during the pledge of allegiance. You can turn it on right now and see the flags. But hey, that's not what you want to see.

ETA: If you are so concerned about nationalistic symbolism how often do you fly the the US flag, assuming you are a citizen and live here? I know I'm the only Jew in my small OOT community that flies a flag every day. See my father chose this country and he decided to serve his adopted country, I fly the flag from his service every day. And yea, my two brothers are veterans and in their communities they are the only fruma to fly an American flag every day.

BasMelech120

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 7:08 pm

amother wrote:

Every. Single. Day. In fact, even on the days that the weather is not appropriate for it, I have one hanging prominently in my home. It's small, but it's there.

Quick question thought: I do have an undocumented neighbor who feels awfully offended by my flag. What do you think? Should I have to stop flying it?