Harvard study: AIPAC makes US act against own interests

Jerusalem Post ^ | 3/19/6 | NATHAN GUTTMAN

[drhogan]

thanks for posting this.

[drhogan]

thanks for the link.

[dervish]

But you are okay with the fact that we subsidize in much greater amounts, in blood as well as treasure, the far richer than Israel, Europe?

Of course those numbers are concealed in the DEFENSE budget not as foreign aide.

http://www.issues.org/21.4/pena.html

Our subsidies of European defense are put to good use by the all encompassing European social welfare system.

[antisocial]

I'd rather give Israel "3 to 5" billion each year than see us give one thin dime to any muslim country.

[Slings and Arrows]

My pleasure. It's just a gut feeling, but I think I smell the scent of Saudi money.

[bvw]

A large "kernel".

That's true in English and Hebrew too. They spurt off every slander against Israel that they dig up and dress it up as a scholarly white paper. It's a sack of "kernels"!

[yuta250]

I agree with your link that we would be able to cut back on defense spending by insisting Europe take full resposibility for their own defense and we should do just that, but our stationing of troops over there is more for our own strategic military interests than for Europe's benefit, so I wouldn't characterize it as a subsidy in the strict sense of the word. We do it to project our power and to keep our troops more rapidly deployable to protect our interests in that part of the world.

[yuta250]

We shouldn't be giving a dime to any muslim country, but even when we do that, it is usually for the reason of getting them to 'play nice' with Israel. If we don't support the Mubarak regime in Egypt, most likely the muslim brotherhood would take power, and that's not in either one of our interests. Be that as it may, I still would be more than happy to cut off the aid, the only relationship I want with these crazy Arab countries is a business one. The geo-political chessgame we are attempting to play with these medieval crackpots isn't working.

[dervish]

"but our stationing of troops over there is more for our own strategic military interests than for Europe's benefit"

I don't agree. If the issue was apolitical rapid deployment we would station in Israel or elsewhere in the ME. Clearly that's where the action is and has been since the Cold War ended.

It is clear to me that having a tight and strong ally in that region, an ally that is not going to turn on us or get overthrown, is invaluable. The military ties and cooperation between Israel and US are much stronger than is publicized because of US fear of Arab reaction. That is a mistake too IMO. US contributes in that way to Arab attempts to delegitimize Israel.

Also we should push Japan to arm to counter the China threat.

Some military experts do not hold with the necessity of overseas bases for rapid deployment. Then there are those who posit that the most efficient and fastest would be more carriers.


Here is another link that is striking for having been written pre 9/11 but being prescient on the US/Europe split.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/hl657.cfm

[mewzilla]

thanks for posting this.

You're welcome. I was happy to do it.

[mewzilla]

Also we should push Japan to arm to counter the China threat.

Not to worry. According to Mearsheimer, China's not a threat to anyone outside its borders.

[SauronOfMordor]

Unfortunately many of them possess anti-Israel/US ideologies themselves to their own detriment and to Israel their only santuary in the world if the US (God forbid) becomes an anti-Jewish nation.

If the US ever became anti-Jewish enough that Jews would fear for their safety, consider that without US support Israel would fold within a short time thereafter.

In other words, if the US ever became unsafe, then noplace is safe, which is why AIPAC spends so much attention on the state of the US political scene

[SauronOfMordor]

The same could be said for the NEA, the Trial Lawyers Assoc. etc.

And the number of supporters of those groups on FR is?

[Calvin Locke]

the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University

Well, I see two problems right off...

[A. Pole]

without US support Israel would fold within a short time thereafter.

Doubtful. Israel was doing very well before close ties with USA were established in 1967.

For example during Suez War of 1956 it was France and UK siding with Israel while USA was opposing it. BTW it was after 1956 when France decided to help Israel with nuclear technology.

[adam_az]

"Harvard study: AIPAC makes US act against own interests"

My first thought -

Since when can Harvard studies identify US interests?

[adam_az]

"Leaving aside the argument of whether or not our wholesale support of Israel is or is not in our best interest, is there any doubt that American Jews have influence in American politics in great disproportion to their numbers? I'm not saying that's good or bad; it simply seems indisputable to me."

Yup, better start banning us from certain careers and having anti-Jew quotas. Can's let us get uppity, now, can ya!

[wideminded]

1. AIPAC's announced intention is to support the interests of Israel.
2. No two countries have the same interests and every pair of countries has some conflicting interests..
3. It follows that sometimes AIPAC will influencing the US to act against its own interests.

Encouraging people to think that it is antisemitism to mention these facts is a form of mind control.

[adam_az]

"It's well past time they draw up permanent borders and quit pestering us for money."

Please explain whan you know about the genesis of US aid to Israel.

Also, why would you cut aid to Israel, but continue billions of miltary aid to Egypt?