Replies

"Why would I talk about AIDS in Africa (which is something I oppose our funding as well) in response to this posted article? "

Because if one indeed stands on principles, he applies them uniformly. Conversely, applying a particular criterion to one person or country but not another in the similar circumstances is bias (positive or negative).

Since 1800s, when anti-Semites no longer could fall onto indictment "Jews killed Christ" and had to offer an enlightened thought, their favorite method was a three-step procedure: (i) judge the Jews on a criterion that somehow applies only to them, (ii) show that they failed when so judged, and (iii) declare explain "why what's coming" to them is due. [The quoted words are from a poster like you, just a few days ago, here on FR.] They do the same today (e.g. Israeli blockade of Gaza).

If you (i) are bothered by the benefit-cost balance of our aid to Israel and (ii) stand on principle, then you should be equally bothered by other aid with the same or worse balance. You and your ilk are not. Not a peek from you about our bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, or Italy. Ever. Not a peek about any other aid, unless asked. You do not apply your principles uniformly, hence they cannot be viewed as principles: they are nothing but a mental and rhetorical device that you use, unsuccessfully, to justify you prejudice.

"AIDS in Africa (which is something I oppose our funding as well)"

This reminds me of Arabs: they too, when asked, tell us that Islam is against terrorism --- but only when asked. No real attempt by public to stamp it out. That is why we call them phonies, that is how we know that we are in a fight with most of them and not just a few. Well, in the same exact way, you too are phony.

If you were principled, you would be appalled that only our aid to Israel requires articles --- somehow, no need to explain all of the other cases I listed above. The article is needed precisely because of people like you, who treat Israel differently than all others.

I gave you enough food for thought. If there still is some light in your heart, think a bit. If you choose to continue as is, just keep in mind how unoriginal your arguments are: whether inadvertently or deliberately, the same boring "arguments" were applied for a century and a half --- from Hitler to Stalin to present-day Arabs and our public figures such as Pat Buchanan. Watch for the company you keep.

Have a good day.

I think you need to understand exactly what this article is ... it is a SALES BROCHURE by someone who wants to sell the US something, by convincing Americans that they will be better off buying an item (in this case spending more money on Israel), than keeping the money in their pocket. Exactly like buying a new stereo, washer/dryer, or car.

You attempt to either put words in my mouth, or attack me by using guilt by assocation.

So far, neither your nor the others who have responded to my original comment on this thread, have refuted any of the points I raised, which are factual in nature, not opinion-based.

Do you agree or disagree that in inflation-corrected terms, the USA has spent at least $300 Billion since 1945/48 until now?

Do you agree or disagree that charitable donations from Americans leave the US economy and go to Israel, resulting in a lower amount of tax dollars?

Do you agree or disagree that Russian Jews, but specifically not Russian Orthodox Christians, are treated with special privileges under the Lautenberg Amendment? How could this be justified under the US Constitution?

By the way I am wrong in one point I made - Israel's area is 10,000 square miles, not 10,000 acres, my computation was wrong by a factor of 640.

If we do not have agreement on facts, we cannot really have a meaningful, adult progression to argument and opinions.

You have a very good point with aid to Egypt - I was not aware of the level of aid they are receiving - it is less than Israel's but still high.