Posted on 02/25/2002 2:14:43 PM PST by RCW2001
American Aid to Israel:
Is It Good for the Jews?
by Derek Copold
Some years ago a Jewish friend of mine met a man who worked for AIPAC, a political action committee that lobbies on behalf of the State of Israel. Judging by my friend’s reaction to him, I gathered that he was quite the salesman. The AIPAC worker had talked my friend into contributing, and that same friend, knowing my father was Jewish, thought I too might be interested. I wasn’t.
My friend was a bit put out when I declined the oppoturnity, and I felt bad at the time, having brought him down a bit. But the fact of the matter was that I didn’t, and still don’t, care for the idea of Americans lobbying our government for the purpose of sending tax money to a foreign power, even an ostensibly friendly one like Israel.
This is not to imply that my friend bore within him the seeds of disloyalty. Quite the opposite. A Vietnam veteran, he proudly served 12 years in the armed forces. Even if I disagree with his political choice, it doesn’t change the fact that he loves his country through and through.
His evident discomfort, though, raised a question. Are AIPAC and other Israel-boosting organizations in the United States doing any good when they help procure billions and billions of dollars of free aid for the Jewish State? And I ask this, not so much in relation to the United States, but rather to Israel itself, and to Jews in general.
Before answering this question, allow me to also note a twist in this situation. Most of Israel’s supporters in America hail from the political Right. Ironically, many of the people who denounce government money as a corrupting influence will, in almost the same breath, demand that Israel continue to receive her cut. So which is it? Are government subsidies bad, as is claimed for welfare recipients, charities and corporations, or are they good, as is argued for Israel?
The evidence suggests the former. Before the late 1960s, Israel was for the most part a self-sufficient country. Despite being surrounded by hostile forces, she was able to take care of herself without relying on any other power for direct aid. This status changed once she began to accept American aid. As a result of this ‘free’ money’, the Jewish State has become an American dependency. The once proud Zionist nation has been reduced to relying on the charity of Washington.
The number of visits Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has made to Washington in the last year alone attests to Israel’s servile status. Many of Israel’s boosters proudly point to Ariel Sharon’s four White House visits as a sign of favor, an accomplishment. But how can any supposedly independent country take heart in the fact that their leader has been forced to show up at another nation’s doorstep, hat in hand, humbly asking permission to do what it believes it must do to survive? Far from securing Israel's independence, America's aid has effectively destroyed it.
So much for helping Israel. But what about the Jews in general and American Jews in particular? Is America’s aid to Israel good for the Jews?
Again, the answer is not encouraging. American aid to Israel has been cited as a factor that led to the 9/11 massacre. For the moment, set aside the question of whether this allegation is true or not; simply note that it is there. Note also, that most Jews, understandably, take severe umbrage with it, and have gone to extraordinary lengths to rebut it. Now whether or not they are correct, their efforts, including the often inaccurate cries of anti-Semitism, have raised questions (most of which remain unspoken) amongst their non-Jewish compatriots about whose interests the Jews are really serving.
To be sure, these Jews believe completely and sincerely that the United States’ interests coincide with Israel’s, and though I question their logic, I don’t doubt their loyalty.
Yet the question is out there, and having that question of ‘dual loyalty’, which is inseparably tied to Israel's American aid, remain out there is deleterious to the Jews. If Israel had never accepted American largesse and remained self-sufficient, no one could have raised this question. Either there would be no terrorism directed against America, as Israel’s critics believe would happen, or if it did, there would be no aid for those critics to blame.
So if this aid is as harmful as I claim it to be, why do Israel and her friends insist on continuing it? For the same reason a heroine addict keeps looking for smack, even after he realizes that it’s killing him. Like that addict, Israel will do everything and anything to maintain a steady supply, and just like any junkie, she will never truly control her own destiny as long as she allows herself to be injected with billions of dollars of American aid.
Unfortunately, her American friends, particularly those on the Right, have suspended their better judgment, and they refuse to address this problem in any kind of an honest manner, preferring instead to revel in alternating emotions of triumphalism and self-pity. Meanwhile, the object of their affections becomes more and more enervated by their 'help.'
I... almost... am.
As far as the State, that's all the Law I really care for.
The rest I leave... pretty exclusively.... to Liberty.
Oh, gee, he's the mother, the brother, the sister, the idiot...who the &*ll cares how it's termed he's one of the biggest of the modern terrorists. Now, run to his defence again, hurry, kiss Arafat's arse, please.
It is fair to call Arafat a vicious little 20th-century godfather of terrorism, though.
Arafat's only saving virtue is that he has always been too much of an insignificant little bird-crap to be any kind of real Stalin-League blood-drinker.
Never had himself enough State to murder a million, and thus think himself a god.
You accuse me of logical fallacies, employing as your counter-argument a couple of textbook Appeal To Authority and Appeal To Bandwagon fallacies as your attempt at "refutation"?
LOL.
Give it up guy. You've just commited another fallacy. You're beginning to fall apart. My original objection *still* stands. I may have commited a logical fallacy but that does *not* negate your logical fallacy. Surely you are bright enough to understand this?
That's not even offensive; it's embarassing.
Yes, you are becoming embarassing. You bluster on, yet never quite making a cogent argument. I let this go on for quite a while, but it seems to be a characteristic of your replys.
If you were even past the level of Freshman Logical Analysis, I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself.
Yawn...more bluster. Where are your cogent arguments? How have you answered the original issue that started this debate? Yet, you continue posting non-sequitur after non-sequitur.
It's pitiable. You want me to respect your argumentative talents, OP, not to pity you.
Sigh.
Look, watch this: "Well, Golly-Gee, Uber, I don't think all experts are Wrong; I think that only the Foreign Policy Journal Interventionist (so-called) 'experts' are Wrong, and the Foreign Policy Journal Isolationist Experts are Right!!"
Yawn.
Actually you miss the original point. The point is that pragmatism is built on the contributions of many foreign policy experts, including no doubt contributions from isolationists. However, a strict policy of isolationism involves almost *no* decision making whatsover. It's a rigid criteria that can only be justified by a general argument -- an argument that you have failed to produce and an argument that is contradicted by the reality of global politics.
Huh, wouldja look at that -- all of a sudden, I have my very own Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon fallacies with which to counter your "arguments" -- and you have no leg to stand on
It's getting worse. First of all, as stated above, if I have commited a logical fallacy, that says nothing concerning the logical fallacy I pointed out previously. Secondly, it would not "counter" my arguments except possibly the one in context. Finally, you seem to have misunderstood my point so there may not actually be a fallacy. I see nothing wrong with you pointing out possible fallacies of mine. If the arguments are invalid, why not point it out?
That's the problem with Logical Fallacies, Uber -- they gain you nothing when debating someone who is familiar with the science and practice of Logic.
Ironically it's just the opposite. An argument based on a fallacy is typically *invalid*. Depending on the relevance of the argument this could be critical to a general discussion. I would expect you to understand what fallacy I am referring to, otherwise how would you understand what I am saying.
Sheesh, you should already know that.
LOL.
You seem to think that fallacies are some kind of debating point, but if your "arguments" are based on fallacious reasoning they will be invalid.
Oh, heck, I'll say it any way -- for that blatant argumentative blunder, you should be ashamed of yourself.
But the point is getting to the truth, not some kind of argumentative point system.
Try harder next time. I was enjoying our debate, but now you are just disappointing me.
LOL.
The point still stands. You seem to be getting desperate in trying to argue for something that is unsupportable.
Sigh. Try harder next time OP -- don't disappoint me.
Yes, to show you how crude some of your "comments" are becoming. If you don't like it then why direct them toward me?
, Uber, but if you do, I might be forced to really embarass you.
Yawn.
You continue to bluster. How have you made any cogent arguments in support of isolationism? You also continue to ignore significant points made in support of intervention. Why no replies?
Let's not kid ourselves: I've already had to smear your claims of "logical fallacies" back in your face, given your egregious Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon Fallacies in your very same post.
Sorry you are taking it so badly. Pointing out logical fallacies is anything but a "smear". It's part of getting to the truth. I actually appreciate it *if* you would point out logical fallacies of mine. You should also be more specific in pointing out fallacies, otherwise it will get hard to follow what you are saying. I also explained part of a misunderstanding that may have led to your belief that a fallacy was commited.
I enjoy good-faith debates, so let's keep it friendly.
LOL.
Almost every one of your replys has some explicit or implicit insult, so I really doubt you want to keep it friendly -- unless of course you mean in some one sided manner.
But take on airs of condescension with me, and I'll be forced to crush your little pretense of logical acumen.
LMAO.
You can't even argue a simple point but you're going to "crush" me?
ROFL.
You should do a comedy act with this routine...very funny.
It's already obvious that I easily can
The only thing obvious is that you are becoming more desperate as you slowly run out of valid arguments -- if you even had any to begin with.
, so let's just keep it cordial, fair 'nuff? I prefer it that way.
Cordial? Just go back and read your replies -- you are anything but cordial. Not just to me but to others. How can you miss such a simple point?
Your "objection" was a Logical Fallacy, Uber.
Let's try a little exercise:
Now: Identify the portion of your "objection" which is not a Logical Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon Fallacy.
Hint: Your whole "objection" here was a a Logical Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon Fallacy, so you did not even provide an "objection" to debate.
Your initial "point", if you care to grace it by that name, was this:
Ergo, how could your initial "point" possibly stand?
You are telling me that I should respect your preliminary Appeal to Common Practice fallacy....
Your preliminary Appeal to Common Practice was a fallacy in itself, no matter how much you believe that you bolstered your "point" (and now you admit, oh, gee, maybe it really didn't bolster your point at all, howzabout that) by a subsequent Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon fallacy.
Given that you began with fallacy, how can I even begin to respect your initial "point" as vaild?
Advance a point which is not predicated upon an Appeal to Common Practice/Inverse Biased Sample fallacy, and bolstered thereafter by a subsequent Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon fallacy, and I will entertain it. But not the drivel you have posted above.
You started a little better than this. Now, as it is, you are just trying to dig yourself out of a hole. And it ain't pretty.
I do NOT assume that "the balance of power is how the nature of how the world works". I take it is a given that nations devour other nations. Those they want to devour, that is, or are devoured in turn in the attempt.
So we are back to the beginning of this debate. What about countries like Iraq, who back in the early 90's was dilegently attempting to aquire nuclear weapons -- and supposedly came very close at one point. They invaded Kuwait. We stopped them. An isolationist stance would very likely have led to serious repercussions in terms of both Israel and the United States. This simple argument is enough to refute a strict isolationist viewpoint.
Even Israel had enough sense to bomb their main reactor to prevent the production of fissionable material.
Your "objection" was a Logical Fallacy, Uber.
Huh? The "objection" I am referring to was to point out the logical fallacy in one of your replies.
Okay, name one.
A specific evidentiary example in which pro-active US Interventionism has "worked".
Ideally, you will be able to point to an instance which you have already offered, as any new claims of Interventionist "success" will only prove that you haven't made any "significant" points thus far.
But hey... I am a gracious sonofagun. Introduce new evidence, and I will overlook the fact that thus far, your "arguments" for Interventionism have been nothing but an Inverse Biased Sample fallacy (i.e., ", c'mon, OP; just 'cause Interventionism never worked in cases a, B, C, D, et cetera ad nauseum, doesn't mean it can never work" -- which is as I said, nothing but a sort of Inverse Biased Sample fallacy on your part).
But I am generous. I will overlook that. Since I don't really believe that you have offered evidentiary arguments thus far, go ahead and offer new ones. I won't hold it against you.
Just offer one evidentiary example of a case in which pro-active US Interventionism has "worked".
Do that, and you will have actually made an evidentiary Point. A novelty for you, I eagerly anticipate it!!
No, in your #94, you claimed that there was a Logical Fallacy in my following challenge:
C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
Merely claiming Logical Fallacy in my response is without value. You must identify my Logical Fallacy.
Therefore, consider the following:
You claim that there is a Classic Logical Fallacy therein.
Okay, then; identify the Classic Logical Fallacy herein:
Alas no answer. Apparently, if you read the right magazines you get a particular insight on why the CIA keeps installing dictators in South America and the Middle East (and trains people how to do this in the "School of the Americas") and why our hard earned money is important in order that these immoral cretins can teach the dictators how to kill their own citizens and get away with it.
What these magazines normally don't mention (unless you read Covert Action Quarterly or Soldier of Fortune) is the drug running and other sordid fund raising techniques that take place so that some things remain secret from even the Congress.
But I digress. I know the answer to my question and I know why Uber doesn't want to answer.
The answer to the question is that foreign intervention is a tool to impose our will on other nations.
If thousands of people die in the process, big effing deal. As Madeline Halfwit said: "it's was worth it." The foreign policy wonks cannot get away with these kinds of dictatorial and murderous actions locally so they do it abroad.
(One MILLION Dollars! [queue sinister music seque])
It would be almost comical if it weren't costing millions their lives. These wonks bandy around complicated-sounding terms like "balance of power" and "regional stability" as if foreign policy was it's own discipline like economics or archeology.
Frankly, most of these people are murderous bastards who, if there was any justice in the world, would be set loose on the streets of Baghdad, Bogata or El Salvador with nothing but a sandwich board exclaiming "I am a U.S. foreign policy expert, kick me."
The problem is that there is justice in this world and God is the fellow who mettes it out. And unfortunately when he decides to pass along some judgement to US foreign policy makers, it will trickle down like so much Reaganomics (or as Bush the senile called it "Voodoo" economics). We could call it trickel down Justice and we might not like it so much when these people who consider the worlds serfs their playthings and the world their chess board get us involved in the next world war. The Uber's of the world will be telling us "you should have listened to us" just like the communist sympathizers claim that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a result of Marxist ideals not being properly executed.
Why?
Without committing Logical Fallacies, Uber, why is this an indictment of the strict Non-Interventionist argument as concerns the US?
Did the Autocracy of Kuwait become a US State, Constitutionally entitled to US military defense, and I missed it?
In 1990, Iraq conquered Kuwait.
In 1870, Prussia conquered Alsace-Lorraine.
Precisely why should the US intervene, or not, in either case?
Even Israel had enough sense to bomb their main reactor to prevent the production of fissionable material.
Yes, and were Mexico hostile to the US, and building nuclear weapons, I might consider a pre-emptive stike. I am a believer in Defense, and Defense can include Pre-Emption.
But the Swiss did not bomb the Osirak nuclear re-processing plant in 1981; Israel did.
And Israel had their reasons. All of which has exactly WHAT relation to Swiss Non-Interventionism... or to US Non-Interventionism?
Gee, how about, Exactly nothing, lest ye can show otherwise? (and please, no Bandwagon or Common Practice fallacies this time. Thanks).
Now: Identify the portion of your "objection" which is not a Logical Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon Fallacy.
I am specifically appealing to expert testimony. This is how knowledge is typically gained. We end up having to trust experts to some extent.
Here is the definition of Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam):
Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject, (iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm
Appealing to expert opinion does not always fit this fallacy, but I suppose you could push the point if you wanted. I was primarily appealing to expert analysis, that even though there is not total agreement among experts, there typically is a congruence of opinion that eschews isolationism. You should also realize that this was *not* part of an argument of mine. I actually poised my reply in the form of a question -- waiting for you to answer the question.
Oh, then we may be arguing about different points. If this is your stance, then we may actually be much closer in viewpoint than I realized. I was under the impression that you were a STRICT isolationist.
I'm going to call it a night and pick this up tomorrow...
LOL!! Gee, methinks Demidog has perused the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine a time or two.
In eight cases out of ten, entirely too true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.