The Israel Problem: Why We Should End The Welfare

self | 12/30/01 | Rick Fisk

[Demidog]

Arguments over Israel and support of Israel are extremely contentious.

Support for Israel runs the gambit from those who support them, to the extent of wanting them to be an extension of the U.S. in the middle east, to those who are anti-Semitic and would like to see Israel destroyed.

Of course there is some middle ground, but in general the arguments about how the U.S. should treat Israel in the context of our broader foreign policy decisions is generally framed with opponents accusing each other of one extreme end of the spectrum or the other.

Hidden amongst the rhetorical rubble of these combative arguments, is the unanswered question which I believe is the core issue regarding Israel and U.S:

Who gets to decide the fate of Israel?

Is it Israel? Or is it the foerign policy wonks of the U.S. who are more interested in U.S. interests than those of Israel?

Staunch supporters of Israel would like to have their cake and eat it too. They would like the U.S. to continue to send billions in foreign and military aid, and yet butt out of Israel's own foreign policy decisions. Those on the opposite end probably want the same cake: U.S. support ceases and is over-run by her enemies.

If Israel lobs a missile or plants a booby trap that kills Palestinian children, the arguments flare up again and those who do not support Israel (like the so-called "Amen-Corner") perceive such incidents as license to condemn Israel and question U.S. support. While the "Amen-Corner" fights tooth and nail sometimes even ignores real attrocities or blames the victims of those attrocities in order to keep the pressure on to continue aid to Israel.

But it's a losing proposition for both sides.

Those who support Israel to the extreme do not get what they want because U.S. foreign policy is not concerned at all with what is in the best interests of Israel. It is concerned with U.S. interests. And those who do not support Israel (for whatever reason) do not have a choice. They must support Israel because they cannot direct their tax dollars away from Israel.

The money and aid that the U.S. sends to Israel has strings attached like all welfare programs foreign or domestic. Israel will never get to fully direct its own foreign policy as long as it is required to cowtow to U.S. demands. And it will always have to cowtow to U.S. demands as long as the U.S. government is providing the aid.

The right thing for Israel to do, if it is interested in becoming truly independent is to reject that aid. But this is easier stated than put into action.

Israel could no more reject American aid than a heroin addict could stare at a fresh fix and walk away.

The relationship between Israel and the U.S. is viewed by some as necessary to bring stability to the middle east. But the relationship is not healthy. It is marred, and more resembles a pimp/hooker relationship than two friends who are trying to help each other.

I have said on more than one occasion that our support of Israel is not moral. But this is not quite accurate. It isn't the support itself that is immoral. It is the forced nature of the support that is immoral combined with the U.S.'s insistence that control be associated with that support.

Those Americans that do not wish to support Israel should not have to do so. Just like none of us should have to support a family with our labor via Section 8, welfare programs or public schools, we should also not have to support another nation against our will.

Those who wish to support Israel with their taxes should be allowed to send as much as they wish. And I would venture a guess that the support Israel received from private citizens would far surpass what is given now (12 dollars or so per taxpayer).

And furthermore, how much sense does it make for the U.S. to send aid to both Israel and the Palestinians or Jordanians or other potential enemies of Israel against the wishes of those who support Israel?

It doesn't at all. That is why we must stop foreign aid to Israel and leave it in the hands of our private citizens. Of course, combined with this must also be the end of the Income tax. Ending the Income Tax would free the American people to support whomever they wished, foreign or domestic, without strings and without government control.

Since when is the U.S. as a nation qualified or even authorized to decide what is best for any nation other than the U.S.?

Since.....never.

And the added benefit to such a solution is the immediate calming of the rhetoric and the elimination the perceived problem with those of us who want an end to U.S. managed support of Israel: coersion.

There is nothing wrong with supporting Israel. It should not be forced at the point of a gun.

[Buckeroo]

What is your reasoning to claim that Muslims are the principles for the current state of terrorism? Do you need more clicks?

[Sueann]

You are kidding aren't you??

You don't think America is blessed??

We have the right to worship GOD; we have the right to vote (even if we occasionally vote for a jerk); we have the most modern plumbing of any other nation; we have the highest standard of living anywhere in the world; we have the best universities; we have the most modern and well trained military; we have freedoms other nations envy - to the point of killing us; we have endless supplies of every kind of food you could imagine.

But ... we're not blessed??

[Huck]

Any aid that doesn't have the 100% support of the American people is by definition coersion and thus immoral.

A follow up question re: the above quote:

Is any expenditure by the gubmint "that doesn't have the 100% support of the American people by definition coersion and thus immoral" in your understanding, or just aid?

[Ridin' Shotgun]

You told me to read articles in AFP. And you offered to look up Justin Rainmondo's photo in your back issues of Spotlight.

You are something out of a george orwell novel. I have no back issues of the spotlight.

[Catspaw]

Oh, Demi, once again retreating, dodging, weaving. When someone makes a statement like yours ("Because the publishers of spotlight write something does not necessarily mean it isn't true"), it's your responsibilty to provide this forum with a truthful article from Spotlight, not me--unless, of course, you have a reason why you won't post a truthful article from Spotlight--of course, you'll have a tough time finding one, now won't you?

[Sueann]

Are you actually going to try to make me believe that Israel is hindered by taking money from us. I don't care what the agreement says - you don't stop Israel from doing what they believe is in the best interest of Israel. And ... I believe that very attitude is of some contention - but Israel still prevails no matter what. I don't see how any agreement with the U.S. or our giving them money will hinder or stop them from protecting Israel at any cost.

[Demidog]

it's your responsibilty to provide this forum with a truthful article from Spotlight

No it isn't. As I said the statement was self evident. It does not necessarily follow that simply because an article appears in the spotlight that the article is untrue.

I don't have to "prove" anything because the statement requires no proof.

[cardinal4]

What is your reasoning to claim that Muslims are the principles for the current state of terrorism?

Some people,myself included,find it hard to be dissuaded from that notion.

[Demidog]

I haven't turned into a moderator at all. There are moderators here for that. Pray tell, what did I do that in any way is not libertarian by flagging a moderator?

Be specific.

[Buckeroo]

Please explain. I find Muslims to be some of the most peaceful folks walking this planet.

[Demidog]

Are you actually going to try to make me believe that Israel is hindered by taking money from us.

Absolutely, just like those who take welfare are hindered by the regulations they become jusrisdictioned to when they accept federal and state money.

There are strings attached and it is one of the chief complaints of the so-called "Amen Corner" that the U.S. meddles too much in Israel's responses to terrorist acts.

The fact is, the U.S. shouldn't be attempting to make Israel refrain from any action that Israel sees fit to defend itself. The treaties that bind Israel and guarantee aid, do make Israel beholden to the U.S.

It would be to everyone's advantage if all support for Israel was voluntary.

You do realize that there are even rules regarding Israel's use of weapons we provide them do you not?

[cardinal4]

Sorry,I misread the question.In my opnion one of the most glaring connections between Islam and terrorism is the fact that most of these peoples last words are "Allah Akbar!"Ill bet all the CVRs from the airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 will bear me out.

[cardinal4]

Please explain. I find Muslims to be some of the most peaceful folks walking this planet.

Yes Im sure Mohamed Atta was a peaceful and charming guy right up until he slit the PIC's throat.

[Demidog]

What do you think the founders meant when they said that "Governments are institued among men, deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed"?

[Buckeroo]

The problems are simple to understand. Since the removal of Palestinnans from their lands as a function of the created state of Isreal some 50+ years ago there is quite a bit of tension that is occurring throughout the Middle East.

The issue is not Muslims not is it Christianity or Judaism. The issue is about formal displacement of the Palestinnians; something that the UN is responsible for.

[Ridin' Shotgun]

We have the right to worship GOD; we have the right to vote (even if we occasionally vote for a jerk); we have the most modern plumbing of any other nation; we have the highest standard of living anywhere in the world; we have the best universities; we have the most modern and well trained military; we have freedoms other nations envy - to the point of killing us; we have endless supplies of every kind of food you could imagine.

And in what way is our support for Israel responsible for any of the above listed blessings?

[Huck]

What do you think the founders meant when they said that "Governments are institued among men, deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed"?

I think they meant that strange women laying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. But you didn't answer my question. Could you? Here it is again:

Is any expenditure by the gubmint "that doesn't have the 100% support of the American people by definition coersion and thus immoral" in your understanding, or just aid?

[Ridin' Shotgun]

.... the fact that most of these peoples last words are "Allah Akbar!"

You've actually heard this on the black box recorders? Are you with FAA or FBI? Didn't think any one else was allowed to hear what's on them.

[cardinal4]

The issue is not Muslims not is it Christianity or Judaism. The issue is about formal displacement of the Palestinnians; something that the UN is responsible for.

Maybe so,but once you attempt to further political or religious agenda using violence,it becomes a moot agenda IMHO.Plus,Buckeroo,you know as well as I do that its not about a Palestinian state,its about them not wanting the Jews to have one of there own.Its time the world backed off of Israel and let them get rid of the animals that continue to attack them in the name of Allah.I mean,how can you negotiate with animals like these?

Its an ingrained,irrational mindset being taught to these kids that are making them glorify the vilolence.Unfortunatley,violence is the only thing these barbarians understand,unleash the IDF and let them rid the territories of these animals,and then talk about a homeland.