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.'
No, in your #94, you claimed that there was a Logical Fallacy in my following challenge:
Actually that is what I meant by "objection" in this statement. It doesn't matter if I specifically identified the fallacy or not. What I am point out is what I meant by the term "objection", which you seem to have misunderstood.
But it has worked. Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.
C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
You identified nothing.
Which is irrelevant to what I meant by "objection" in the later statement. I identified a fallacy but I did not express it -- mainly because I knew it would bog down the debate.
Merely claiming Logical Fallacy in my response is without value. You must identify my Logical Fallacy.
The fallacy identified is an invalid analogy. The reason it is invalid is that there exists a large support staff of policy analysts that receive feedback based on decision making. There also experts and degrees in Foreign Policy Studies, *unlike* the case of Corporate subsidies. Based on these essential criteria the analogy you presented was invalid.
The problem here is that you weren't willing until now to concede that your favorite experts might not be experts at all in anything other than the tool of foreign intervention and have a bias and pre-disposition to using intervention always and claiming it "works."
Switzerland has had peace for hundreds of years and these same experts would claim that they haven't been a success. Switzerland is by no stretch of the imagination isolationist (they trade with virtually everyone) and yet if you bring them up as an example to the meddling variety of foreign policy "experts" they will mock you rather than deal with the obvious FACT that Switzerland has enjoyed both peace and prosperity for half a millineum.
The foreign policy "experts" of which you appeal do not consider that success. They measure success as how one can play one nation against another in an effort to create "regional stability" and "preserve the balance of power."
Switzerland is just Europe's "pussies" who aren't armed with nuclear weapons and don't have a badass carrier group circling the globe "projecting power" and letting everyone know that if they make a wrong move they'll get their asses kicked.
Foreign Policy Studies may be utter garbage, but this would be an entirely new debate...
Okay, point granted, but still respectfully rejected.
As you well know, Appeal to Authority is still a logical fallacy, even in the case of "relevant" experts, if it incorporates an Appeal to Popularity fallacy -- as yours did.
Fifty Million Frenchmen can be wrong. So can fifty million foreign-aid lobbyists whose jobs depend upon bringing home the bacon for their local tin-pot dictator.
The object of debate is finding the Morally Right policy, not merely "appealing to Authority" (or even "appealing to popularity", in those cases where you can find enough bought-and-paid-for foreign lobbyists whose expertise is "relevant" enough for you to cleverly evade the direct accusation of an Appeal to Authority fallacy).
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. ~~ 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...
If you wanted to ask me whether or not Israel's 1981 strike on the Osirak nuclear reprocessing plant was justified, I will tell you that, "well, Israel bloody-well believed that it was, and I can understand that." Provided that US blood and treasure are not involved, I fully understand that foreign nations (such as Israel) will undertake those pre-emptive military actions they feel to be crucial to their defense, and I understand and defer to that.
I am a Non-Interventionist as concerns my country, the USA, in conflicts thousands of miles from my borders.
I am a Friend of Israel, and if she wants to knock down a hostile nuclear reactor in the region where she lives, I can understand that.
But it has next-to-nothing to do with my family's blood and taxes where I live.
Okay, "Invalid Analogy". Now there's an actual identification of a logical fallacy -- if the analogy is, in fact, invalid.
No offense, it's about time. Shee-eesh.
Now, let's see if my Analogy was Invalid.
Nope. There exists a large support staff of Commerce and Treasury analysts that receive feedback based on decision making. And, amazingly, these analysts will identify a corporate subsidy as a "success" if it benefits the Industry in question.
But that's no surprise. The purpose of Corporate Subsidies is to benefit one industry at the expense of Taxpayers. And if that one industry is shown to have benefitted, then the policy wonks may term the Subsidy a "success" at "saving jobs" (or more accurately, garnering additional Industry contributions for their Congressional bossess).
In exactly the same way as foreign lobbyists ply their trade. The Analogy is validated.
If you imagine for one second that corporate lobbyists and Commerce-Department wonks do not have MBA's, just as Foreign lobbyists and State-Department wonks have "International Relations" degrees, you are just being naive.
The Analogy is validated.
Both essential criteria proven to be analogous. The analogy is therefore doubly valid.
Soooouu-eee!! Belly up to the Taxpayer trough; Pork of a different cut turns out to be... still Pork.
My point all the time...one can never have a civil discussion about world affairs whitout beign labeled a enemy of Israel or a bigot for that matter.
Since when is Israel beyond reproach of criticism in the realm of civil objection? I for one do not agree whith the way Israel handles its relationship with the States vis-a-vis our policies. We pumping every year 2+ Billion of tax payer money in this money pit with no palpable results. All we get is lip service from various cabinet representatives justifing the auctions.
Dare I mention that Israelies are spying on us on regular basis and that they are selling Hi Tech weaponry to the Chinese?
I do understand the strategic position of Israel in the Arabian Peninsula and our support for the only democratic elected leaders in that country, but somewhere is a limit to all that largesse.
Note: the fact that the world's private Capitalist entrepreneurs have trusted the Swiss with supervision of one-third of the entire planet's liquid monetary assets is mere coincidence.
The Swiss just got lucky. The idea the Private Capitalists trust and respect the Swiss policy of Non-Interventionism is clearly balderdash.
Besides, the Swiss would've been successful anyway. If they had not earned the Trust of the world's productive entrepreneurs by a 500-year policy of Non-Interventionism, they would have still become a World Financial Powerhouse by exploiting their "natural resources", like rocks and snow and goat-crap and stuff.
Non-Interventionism has not uniquely benefitted the Swiss.
Non-Interventionism cannot have uniquely benefitted the Swiss.
The very idea is Heresy.
I don't trust them. They stole the gold.
Details?
Note: I will stipulate in advance that Gold is but a microscopic fraction of the Liquid Assets which the World's Capitalists have freely trusted to the isolationist Swiss. Gold is nice and all, but the Swiss have been entrusted supervision over one third of the planet's liquid assets, not just Gold.
But, if I am about to hear a "The Swiss are the Illuminati, and Gold is the only Asset in the entire world" story, I will faithfully don my tinfoil hat and will listen attentively.
Fire away, I await your wisdom.
The summary you provided is thus mistaken at its core and your conclusion is equally faulty.
My position is simple: While I believe the aid may be necessary at least for the short term, I am aware that the aid does not come without a hefty price. Would I prefer that Israel do without the aid? Certainly. But if that comes at the expense of nuking the Arabs, I'm not sure that is a price America would enjoy.
Is there anything else?
Completely debunked. That was a liberal story put out ther in hopes that the Swiss could be blackmailed.
Do you lie for pleasure or is it an intrinsic aspect of your character and thus you can't help it?
No other country on this earth has cost the American taxpayer this much. No other country on this earth has tried to exert this much influence on US politics.
You should be ashamed of this!
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.