Fiscal Support for Israel

[Eric_The_Pipe]

There is little question that the United States is in fiscal trouble. Too much spending of credit instead of real money. Regardless of the reasons, we are spending more money than we are taking in. The most efficient way to fix this is to limit spending. Our spending is an ocean of water drops, while removing only one will not drain out the water, it is a start. Withdrawing fiscal Support for Israel, while maintaining moral and physical support would be a benefit to both the US and Israel.

This last year, 2013, 3.814 billion was offered to Israel in financial aid, pg 18. This money is in dollars, meaning it is then spent on US military supplies. This is the equivalent of giving people a dollar to spend at our own store and does not equate to real income, as eventually we have to pay it back, not them. We, at best, would end up at zero, but due to the interest on the money being borrowed to give to Israel, we end up much worse. If we must spend money on the military applications, we would be better off spending it on our own military, especially as our own military budget is cut. Cutting the grants to Israel would not eliminate the overspending, but it would be a start.

Israel is one of the most technologically advanced nations. They have adapted to the poor environment they were forced into by the circumstances of the Second World War. They are the source for many of the world’s innovations, proving that creativity and intelligence is enough of a resource in a place with such limited resources. They do this, while relying on the US for military aid, both fiscally and in innovation. They would be much better off if they relied on their own abilities, instead of living off of the United States tit, like any individual.

Removing Israel from our debt would also allow it more freedom. Freedom to work more for its own interests instead of working to please whichever President the United States has elected this time around. It could blow up Iranian nuclear developments, without needing to ask permission first. Our current President (President Obama) has made it abundantly clear he cares nothing for Israel, excepting that many Americans still support Israel, he would would be more overt about his lack of support. Reducing the influence of the United States in Israel would be better in cases such as this.

This is not to say we stop supporting Israel in the places it needs, such as the corrupt United Nations, moving to block any stupid thing those people are doing this week. Nor is this a call to reduce our willingness to help Israel fight, should they need the support. It is instead asking, should we “kick them out of the house, as they should be old enough to live on their own.” If not, then maybe the Israeli experiment has failed and we should instead bring them to our country, give them land here. Israel deserves our support, it maybe better for them and us if that support was not fiscal.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Israel’s military pretty much is our military. While taking this drop out of the bucket may be a good start, it fails to envision the long term consequences of reducing our military presence in the area. There are a handful of cats over there who have openly declared that they wanna kill us all, or something to that effect. So while we may get closer to a balanced budget by not handing this money over to israel, it’s kinda like saving money in a piggy bank while you owe on a credit card. You’ll get pay it back plus interest when it comes due.

Think of how 10 years ago the middle east was a bunch of scattered warlords with no real cohesiveness or plan of attack. Now, you’ve got those same people organizing across borders, getting trained and hardened from years of combat, and becoming both more desperate and more equipped to handle conflicts with us. Next thing you know isis, the taliban, al qaeda, hamas, and all the iranian aid are combining into a force that we apparently don’t know how to deal with. So if you really wanted efficiency, then you’d say nuke the piss out of so many people at once that the world stands back in fear and lets us do as we please for 50 years like the last time. Then we can stop spending a billion an hour and training people who will come after us later, and supplying weapons to people who will turn on us later, and have the access that we want to the petroleum that’s there in the region.

You wanna see some real shit man…get an app that lets you watch stocks, like seeking alpha. Put in XOM and read the news alerts for them every day. It’ll blow your mind.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Eric_The_Pipe

… should we “kick them out of the house, as they should be old enough to live on their own.” If not, then maybe the Israeli experiment has failed and we should instead bring them to our country, give them land here. Israel deserves our support, it maybe better for them and us if that support was not fiscal.

“Deserves our support”?

Israel was a bad idea from the start, and remains a bad idea. Indeed, i would say it has already proven itself a bad idea. That the US has an obligation to it, and various vested interests in its survival and success, will be part of our nation’s fall from superpowerdom. Gone are the days when our alliance with Israel gave us a tactical advantage in the Middle East, now it’s just a big, dangerous liability. So, if we are making a purely pragmatic calculation, then yes, we should cut aid to Israel. But there’s more to it than that for a large majority of the country which is either Christian or Jewish and considers Israel to be sacred and holy territory - which is what you’re really going to be banging your head against if you seriously propose to most Americans that we should cut fiscal aid.

[Uccisore]

The point of foreign aid to Israel has been military support for the past several decades now. Israel is a very wealthy, technologically advanced nation- in per capita terms. But specifically when it comes to defense, per capita wealth (or per capital military spending) isn’t much of standard. It’s important to note that Israel’s population is about 8 million people, while Iran’s (for example) is 75 million- and an attack against Israel would most likely be a coalition of several nearby nations. For a nation to win a defensive war against an army that much larger, it isn’t enough for their army to be somewhat better equipped, it has to be dramatically better equipped.
And that’s what the QME (Qualitative Military Edge) policy towards Israel is all about- we give them aid (about twice as much as we give Pakistan, about a quarter of what we spend in Afghanistan, according to Wikipedia), so that they can have a better trained, better equipped military than their nations GDP could support on its own. The general idea is that a larger richer nation (the U.S.) pumps money into a much smaller nation’s military in order to outfit it much better than could be done on their own.
If it is agreed that Israel ought to be protected by the U.S., that they should remain a strategic ally, and that we should come to their aid if they are attacked, it has to be asked what the alternative to helping fund Israel’s military might be. Israel’s enemies are their neighbors, and their country is about the size of New Jersey. The U.S. is on the other side of the planet. In order to realistically respond to an attack on Israel ourselves in the timeframe dictated by geography, we’d have to have a permanent military presence there. Would that be cheaper than the aid we’re giving now in order to produce the same level of protection? Maybe on the logistics level, but of course we’ve then given the Palestinians and Jordanians and etc. another target for there rocket strikes and suicide bombers, so the real tally isn’t something we could calculate reliably or expect to be consistent, and that’s if you only consider dollars and not American lives. If it is accepted that Israel cannot defend themselves against it’s enemies in the region without our help, then the three billion dollars we spend on military-financial aid has to be weighed not against doing nothing, but against the cost of some other sufficient alternative.
If one wants to make an economic argument that we shouldn’t be giving foreign aid to Israel, I don’t think that can be done consistently while acknowledging a U.S. advantage or obligation to keeping Israel as a military ally safe from it’s enemies. If one wanted to argue that we have no reason to invest in Israel whatsoever, and should allow them to fend for themselves, that’s consistent, but another conversation altogether.

[James_S_Saint]

Among many other confusions, “the Jews” were not “forced” into that land. They manipulated an agreement with England (The Balfour Agreement) in order to capture that land for their own use. And the agreement was for about 1/10 of what they have expanded it into. Since then, the USA has become merely an Israeli suburb, and their Gehenna.

But what determines fiscal and military support is largely a matter of contractual agreements made between royal families, not pragmatic economics or sanity of any kind. The USA is merely a glorified stepchild and has become the world’s toilet for its refuse, waste, and want, a human compost heap.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@Uccisore

The point of foreign aid to Israel has been military support for the past several decades now. Israel is a very wealthy, technologically advanced nation- in per capita terms. But specifically when it comes to defense, per capita wealth (or per capital military spending) isn’t much of standard. It’s important to note that Israel’s population is about 8 million people, while Iran’s (for example) is 75 million- and an attack against Israel would most likely be a coalition of several nearby nations. For a nation to win a defensive war against an army that much larger, it isn’t enough for their army to be somewhat better equipped, it has to be dramatically better equipped.

And this technologically advanced, amazingly clever nation would have more incentive than any to improve their military if we did not act as a father, bailing them out of their poor situation.

@Uccisore

And that’s what the QME (Qualitative Military Edge) policy towards Israel is all about- we give them aid (about twice as much as we give Pakistan, about a quarter of what we spend in Afghanistan, according to Wikipedia), so that they can have a better trained, better equipped military than their nations GDP could support on its own. The general idea is that a larger richer nation (the U.S.) pumps money into a much smaller nation’s military in order to outfit it much better than could be done on their own.

Perhaps slow reductions would be better than a cold turkey method. But the supporters must prove that it is helping Israel, rather than allowing them to divert resources to purposes that are of less importance. We take care of them, so that they can not need to take care of themselves.

I would also encourage the removal of fiscal support from Afghanistan and Pakistan, under the same premise. It’s turning into a cliché of sorts, but do we not have enough fiscal trouble at home. We borrow the money from Japan and China so that we can give it to other countries, maybe it’s their time to pay the interest.

@Uccisore

If it is agreed that Israel ought to be protected by the U.S., that they should remain a strategic ally, and that we should come to their aid if they are attacked, it has to be asked what the alternative to helping fund Israel’s military might be. Israel’s enemies are their neighbors, and their country is about the size of New Jersey. The U.S. is on the other side of the planet. In order to realistically respond to an attack on Israel ourselves in the timeframe dictated by geography, we’d have to have a permanent military presence there. Would that be cheaper than the aid we’re giving now in order to produce the same level of protection?

It may not be cheaper, but it would allow us a different set of circumstances with which to work. We would have a soldiers on location, allowing us to train with their military, act as active members in the situation and create a greater bond with the Israelis. We would be less interested in having Israel give up more land, we could establish better communications with the Muslims that live in the area.

@Uccisore

Maybe on the logistics level, but of course we’ve then given the Palestinians and Jordanians and etc. another target for their rocket strikes and suicide bombers, so the real tally isn’t something we could calculate reliably or expect to be consistent, and that’s if you only consider dollars and not American lives.

Instead we offer up Israel as the target, exchanging American lives for Israeli?

@Uccisore

If it is accepted that Israel cannot defend themselves against its enemies in the region without our help, then the three billion dollars we spend on military-financial aid has to be weighed not against doing nothing, but against the cost of some other sufficient alternative.

I do agree they cannot currently defend themselves, but I do not predict they could never do so. If they had even less choice they could do it. They’ve proven more than any group they have the ability to survive.

@Uccisore

If one wants to make an economic argument that we shouldn’t be giving foreign aid to Israel, I don’t think that can be done consistently while acknowledging a U.S. advantage or obligation to keeping Israel as a military ally safe from it’s enemies.

I can accept that to a point. While refusing that the only way for Israel to survive is if we are their saviors… Maybe instead we should bring them into the fold, call Israel the 51st state. Cause those attacking it to really fear the consequences.

@Uccisore

If one wanted to argue that we have no reason to invest in Israel whatsoever, and should allow them to fend for themselves, that’s consistent, but another conversation altogether.

True.

[Uccisore]

@Eric_The_Pipe

And this technologically advanced, amazingly clever nation would have more incentive than any to improve their military if we did not act as a father, bailing them out of their poor situation.

Incentive doesn't create the ability! It's a question of if a country that small has the ability even in theory to protect itself from that many hostile neighbors without some kind of assistance from a third party.  We're really going to have to dig into the numbers to figure that out, but I think it's at least plausible that Israel needs us (or somebody) to stand a chance. 

@Uccisore

Perhaps slow reductions would be better than a cold turkey method.

Assuming that any kind of reduction is the tactically wise move in the first place, sure. In order for a reduction to make tactical sense, you’d either have to show that something about the recent situation has made it such that Israel needs less from us than they used to, which I think is pretty clearly false, or that the amount that they needed from us has always been far lower than we estimated, which I’m open to.

But the supporters must prove that it is helping Israel, rather than allowing them to divert resources to purposes that are of less importance.

Cash is fungible, so you can't ever prove that conclusively.  Acccording to this: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... t_spending](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending)  Israel spends more on R&D per capita than any other country on Earth including us, so at the very least we can say they aren't spending the money we give them on other stuff- they really are using what we give them to get a technological advantage over the rest of the world. I think that's as close to proving that our donations are helping Israel as it's possible to get. 

I would also encourage the removal of fiscal support from Afghanistan and Pakistan, under the same premise.

I can’t see any reason to give Pakistan anything at all.

@Uccisore

]It may not be cheaper, but it would allow us a different set of circumstances with which to work. We would have a soldiers on location, allowing us to train with their military, act as active members in the situation and create a greater bond with the Israelis. We would be less interested in having Israel give up more land, we could establish better communications with the Muslims that live in the area.

 None of that sounds bad, but if you're willing to do all of that [i]even if it costs us more,[/i] then I don't think you're disagreeing with me about the necessity of fiscal support for Israel so much as the form it should take, right?

@Uccisore

Instead we offer up Israel as the target, exchanging American lives for Israeli?

Well, yes. If the argument is that we’re spending too much on Israel, then I’ll stand by spending American dollars instead of American lives, sure. And Israel is the target, it’s not fair to say that we’re ‘offering them up’ to the Palestinians by funding them instead of fighting in their place.

I do agree they cannot currently defend themselves, but I do not predict they could never do so. If they had even less choice they could do it. They’ve proven more than any group they have the ability to survive.

I think Israel’s ability to survive depends primarily on things going on completely outside of Israel. I’d need to see changes in Palestine, Iran, Jordan and so on before I’d think circumstances have changed such that they don’t need us- after all, let’s not forget that their enemies are getting outside funding too.

I can accept that to a point. While refusing that the only way for Israel to survive is if we are their saviors… Maybe instead we should bring them into the fold, call Israel the 51st state. Cause those attacking it to really fear the consequences.

If that's what Israel wants, sure. I get the impression that their enemies mostly see them as the 51st state as it is, though. I think that's a really interesting idea though- Israel becoming a mostly self-Governing commonwealth of some other nation.  I can't picture them ever going for it, but it would certainly make the political landscape less confusing. If Israel was simply a Jewish-inhabited territory of the U.K. from the start, I wonder how things would have gone.

[Innovice]

@Eric_The_Pipe

There is little question that the United States is in fiscal trouble. Too much spending of credit instead of real money. Regardless of the reasons, we are spending more money than we are taking in.

yeah, what you said is probably true

also, some other info

en.mercopress.com/2013/10/16/uni … il-in-2013

[The_Golden_Turd]

So, you WANT another mideast war? The only thing that calmed the middle east down from pushing Israel to pull back from the Sinai to the Arab Spring was reinforcing in everyone’s heads it made absolutely no sense to invade Israel even with the three way power struggle of the cold war. It stabilized Egypt, Jordan, and Israel in terms of knee jerks reactions to wars, and severely restrained the necessity of Turkey, who is historically friendly with Israel, into conflicts.

Its a geopolitical substratum that is buried under flashy, eye catching terrorism and internal conflicts in each country… Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, Israel with the Palestinians, Syria with the Sunnis, Jordan with… its mafia. But the silver lining is, there is no longer a mad rush to organize Islam wide coalitions stretching all the way back to Uganda to Invade, and Israel isnt compelled to launch tank blitz to preemptively strike Arab build ups.

Egypt and Israel on the government level have been quiet (I did loose a friend on a Egyptian protest to Gaza shortly after the Arab Spring, but that was not government lead). Syria rarely does anything than send cannon fodder to release political tension to scapegoat the jews. Qatar opened up to Israel, jews can visit Dubai now. Israel is broadening palestinian integration into Israeli society piecemeal given their sense of security is sorta increasing over time to the Sunni.

Now, Iran is as bad as ever, especially its Lebanese proxy. Causes alot of border confrontations. However, Hamas started to mellow out once ISIS showed up. They lost their supply lines for the most part to Iran… last major attack on Israel recently was mortars, not missiles. We have the tech to take out mortars apparently in limited supply, in a few years it be more plentiful.

It be cheaper and more beneficial if we switch from direct aid to just buying select Israeli Arms, and even if we dont use it, give it to regional allies in nation building missions. They can then open up a direct military trade with them for parts needed for maintenance, which will further calm them down as they will be less inclined to wage war against their arms supplier.

The underlining prejudice against Israel is the Nazi era prejudice against the jews, no other nation so underservedly draws out hatred. Its easily forgotten the US fought in WW2, as nice as we have been to the former axis powers, know we havent forgotten what you done, and our responsibilities in liberating subject peoples, especially the Jews. We arent going to let you sickos finish the job just because you reformalized how your going to express your anti semetic rhetoric.

There is a natural progression to the end of international conflict. The ideal is a eventual, pragmatic pacifism, but to get there, the perennial conditions that reinforce and drive men mad, into war after war, same place, same people, similar excuses and different eras in a long continuous string through history has to be removed. We live in a era where determined genocide is too easy, and nuclear weapons far too available.

World War 2 needs not be followed by a third. The philosophies of sheer violence, from infanticide to global wars, need to be smashed. Scientifically, surgically, and competently, so the loss of the humanitarian curve is always less than letting things go. There is no invisible hand that adjusts warfare… it goes on and on, and only gotten worst approaching the 20th century. Im not longer interested in it, and seek a realistic, non-utopian end to it.

One of the best methods I know is to combat the ideologies that hate and support the death of others in favor of other groups. This Anti-Semitism has to stop. We’ve been applying alot of Carrot and Stick measures to peacefully integrate Israel… we would rather the results of South Africa than say, Zimbabwe.

Sometimes bloodier in some theaters than others. Just so ling as you made, quasi-intellectual heathens stop mindlessly killing one another. You dont have to justify your existence in the murders of others, trust in God as he once trusted in us, and know that mankind is very much worth it. Learn to live and have dreams beyond preying selfishly on one another. Our unsolicited hatred of others who made no effort to damage your people is evidence of said impulse to violence. If you fear others, make yourself strong in war, both knowledge and capability, pick your alliances carefully, and follow up on them, strike humanely with long term vision, and if you cant, play defense and turn the other cheek when possible, if your isolated and untrusting of potential allies.

[The_Golden_Turd]

m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28192747

And as soon as I pointed out Hamas wasnt shooting missiles, they shoot missiles. Everyone intercepted, using US tech.
ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 … 34,00.html

It began, this time… the Palestinians were killing Jewish kids, , dumping their bodies, and a Israeli took it upon himself to do likewise to a Palestinian kid. Hamas launched mortar barrages instead of demanding cops apprehend their pedokillers, and demanding the Israelis do likewise.

End result is predictable. Missiles all got intercepted from their rash and poorly thought out attack, and Israel continues to root out the inevitable staging, personal, storage, and logistic points used to make such attacks possible.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

And this technologically advanced, amazingly clever nation would have more incentive than any to improve their military if we did not act as a father, bailing them out of their poor situation.

Incentive doesn’t create the ability! It’s a question of if a country that small has the ability even in theory to protect itself from that many hostile neighbors without some kind of assistance from a third party. We’re really going to have to dig into the numbers to figure that out, but I think it’s at least plausible that Israel needs us (or somebody) to stand a chance.

If they are not capable by themselves, are we not throwing good money after bad. How much do we spend before we realize that we are wasting time fighting a losing cause

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

Perhaps slow reductions would be better than a cold turkey method.

Assuming that any kind of reduction is the tactically wise move in the first place, sure. In order for a reduction to make tactical sense, you’d either have to show that something about the recent situation has made it such that Israel needs less from us than they used to, which I think is pretty clearly false, or that the amount that they needed from us has always been far lower than we estimated, which I’m open to.

No, the supporters must prove that it is helping Israel, rather than allowing them to divert resources to purposes that are of less importance.

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

But the supporters must prove that it is helping Israel, rather than allowing them to divert resources to purposes that are of less importance.

Cash is fungible, so you can’t ever prove that conclusively. Acccording to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … t_spending Israel spends more on R&D per capita than any other country on Earth including us, so at the very least we can say they aren’t spending the money we give them on other stuff- they really are using what we give them to get a technological advantage over the rest of the world. I think that’s as close to proving that our donations are helping Israel as it’s possible to get.

While I don’t argue they put a lot of their money towards R&D, quite successfully, they would be more interested in assigning resources appropriately if they did not get so many subsidies from us.

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

I would also encourage the removal of fiscal support from Afghanistan and Pakistan, under the same premise.

I can’t see any reason to give Pakistan anything at all.

I concur…

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

It may not be cheaper, but it would allow us a different set of circumstances with which to work. We would have a soldiers on location, allowing us to train with their military, act as active members in the situation and create a greater bond with the Israelis. We would be less interested in having Israel give up more land, we could establish better communications with the Muslims that live in the area.

None of that sounds bad, but if you’re willing to do all of that even if it costs us more, then I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me about the necessity of fiscal support for Israel so much as the form it should take, right?

Yes and no, I am arguing it would be better for them if they did not rely on us for that support. I do acknowledge they would struggle without some help at the start, and I’m not against astablishing a base in the area, especially if we know the government is going to want us there. (My more impish side wants to kick as into the Gaza Strip and turn the whole damned thing into the base. )

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

Instead we offer up Israel as the target, exchanging American lives for Israeli?

Well, yes. If the argument is that we’re spending too much on Israel, then I’ll stand by spending American dollars instead of American lives, sure. And Israel is the target, it’s not fair to say that we’re ‘offering them up’ to the Palestinians by funding them instead of fighting in their place.

It is holding them up as a target, fiscally holding them up. I know they want to exist, but we are using that desire against them. Like fodder, the throw them before the barbarians.

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

I do agree they cannot currently defend themselves, but I do not predict they could never do so. If they had even less choice they could do it. They’ve proven more than any group they have the ability to survive.

I think Israel’s ability to survive depends primarily on things going on completely outside of Israel. I’d need to see changes in Palestine, Iran, Jordan and so on before I’d think circumstances have changed such that they don’t need us- after all, let’s not forget that their enemies are getting outside funding too.

All too often I want to turn to the solution of violence… Money to Israel maybe a reason for the support to the other groups. A group of people looking to siphon off resources from the US.

@Uccisore

@Eric_The_Pipe

I can accept that to a point. While refusing that the only way for Israel to survive is if we are their saviors… Maybe instead we should bring them into the fold, call Israel the 51st state. Cause those attacking it to really fear the consequences.

If that’s what Israel wants, sure. I get the impression that their enemies mostly see them as the 51st state as it is, though. I think that’s a really interesting idea though- Israel becoming a mostly self-Governing commonwealth of some other nation. I can’t picture them ever going for it, but it would certainly make the political landscape less confusing. If Israel was simply a Jewish-inhabited territory of the U.K. from the start, I wonder how things would have gone.

It was one of the greatest mistakes of that time frame that the US didn’t accept them in with open arms. They didn’t need a different place, they just needed friends, we did not act appropriately.

[tab]Oh, and Bowler hats kick ass!! (Though I do not wear one IRL. My head is too big and my ears stick out too much.)[/tab]

[James_S_Saint]

@Eric_The_Pipe

There is little question that the United States is in fiscal trouble. Too much spending of credit instead of real money. Regardless of the reasons, we are spending more money than we are taking in. The most efficient way to fix this is to limit spending. Our spending is an ocean of water drops, while removing only one will not drain out the water, it is a start. Withdrawing fiscal Support for Israel, while maintaining moral and physical support would be a benefit to both the US and Israel.

But then on the other side of that coin…

Let’s say that perhaps Israel is the only resistance to global domination of the Globalist “Nazis” (perhaps “Globzis”). It is apparent that socialist politicians in the UN feel free to make whatever laws they like even if it kills millions of people. In fact, they are advertising that billions have to die just so the Globalist system can maintain itself. And after listing an agenda remarkably reminiscent of the US-Liberal stance on just about everything, they then openly stated, “Because this is the future that WE want” (Ref: Rio +20, Agenda 21).

Now if it is true that Israel with the help of the USA is the only resistance to the Socialist Globzis, then perhaps we should help them in any way we can. So then the question becomes, “how is the money being spent in regards to slowing down the Globzis?” They aren’t going to let you know that, because letting you know is weakening the resistance.

Thus how can you present any argument at all concerning where the money is spent? You don’t know where it is actually going right now. You know relatively nothing of the battle front.

[Arminius]

The US and the EU have no real possibility to decide whether they give or refuse Israel supports, because that decide those on whom the US and the EU depend. Whatever will be done in this case, the cause of that will never be a decision of the US or the EU.

Even if only one of the so-called “politicians” would dare to operate a different policy, he would not be able to gain an election, or would even be killed.