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.'
And especially when the author says Israel is blamed for 9/11 and it doesn't matter whether that's right or wrong?
The article is trash.
How do you know how much anyone spends "influencing" US elections? And who are you to decide what is a "godly" amount and what is not? Are you the one who is in charge of deciding how Jews...oops, I mean "Israeli boosters" should spend their money?
Yes, your claims are as valid as the charge that Jews use Christian blood in matzos.
What a poor reader I am.
Actually, you're a poor reader, you have poor comprehension, and you're a lousy human being as well.
You have a great sense of humor, Demi, you really do.
As for myself, I am perfectly happy to give that "Missile Defense Shield" thing a whirl, and see how that works. Won't know 'till we try!! At least it is Constitutional National Defense (if one wishes to pay any attention to that musty old scrap of hemp).
And "Non-Interventionism" speaks primarily to a posture of military defense (as opposed to military interventionism), not complete withdrawal from world affairs. China has nuclear weapons? Well, sure, we can try the "direct military confrontation" thing, but there's also the option of quietly increasing trade ties with India, while giving a wink and a nod to Japanese expansion of its military defense capabilities.
Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic.
But the fact that China would thereby be hamstrung between looking West (at India) and looking East (at Japan) is pretty nice gravy on the Moral steak, IMHO. Meanwhile, US troops and taxes are able to stay home.
"Non-Interventionism" simply speaks to the policy of viewing military confrontation as the weapon of last resort, not the first.
I should also point out that foreign aid has always been part of a policy to stabilize regional conflicts.
This is assuming that it is morally correct in the first place to EVER "tax the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" (which is the essence of Foreign Aid). But even if that idea were philosophically moral in the first place, it plainly hasn't worked.
Whoa... Hold on a minute... you are saying that this (inherently illegitimate) policy of "taxing the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" is intended to stabilize regional conflicts?
Good grief. With "stability" like this, who needs Armageddon?
In the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the two likely outcomes of Arabs destroying Israel or Israel nuking its neighbors, a little financial aid is a perfectly reasonable solution. Right now we have sufficient power and money to offer to strongly influence the stability of this conflict.
Exactly what was wrong with the (NON-subsidized, in 1967) Six-Day War solution of Israel grabbing enough empty desert in a pre-emptive strike to effectively provide that little nation with the "defensive depth" she required?
All that US Foreign Aid has done is shoe-horn the Israelis out of the Sinai (leaving Egyptian armor and mechanized infantry that much closer to Tel Aviv if Islamist radicals ever do come to power in Cairo) and provided the American-killing PLO its own "mini-state" and enough camel-bags full of cash to buy whole shiploads of illegal anti-tank weapons, no doubt intended for Israeli kindergarten school-buses.
Oh, and US foreign aid has also helped to socialize the Israeli economy... an Israeli economy which, given the economic success which family- and education-conscious Jews have so often accomplished in every corner of the globe, would be far better off were it more capitalistic.
Let's see... did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, it got the buck-toothed peanut farmer Carter a purty little photo-op at US taxpayer expense. Whoop-de-do.
Now, let's see.... this is supposed to be some kind of world-wise "pragmatic realpolitik"? Because it sure looks like the same counterproductive, pork-barrel, rent-seeking practiced by every other special interest lobby in Washington, and there ain't a dime's worth of Virtue to it.
As for myself, I am perfectly happy to give that "Missile Defense Shield" thing a whirl, and see how that works.
Research on Missile Defense Shields has been going on for decades, with few signficant results. Generally the critique is that the measures needed to defeat the shield are quite simple and easily developed, or the complexity of the system would so much that the system would breakdown during operation. At this point in time there is no system that looks viable. This is reality. Perhaps in a few decades something more viable will be developed, but that is not the case now.
Let's go over this. There is no shield. So what exactly do you think is protecting this country from nuclear weapons? To confuse what *may* be developed in the future with what exists *now* is an irresponsible approach to decision making.
Won't know 'till we try!!
But we have tried -- for decades.
And "Non-Interventionism" speaks primarily to a posture of military defense (as opposed to military interventionism), not complete withdrawal from world affairs. China has nuclear weapons? Well, sure, we can try the "direct military confrontation" thing
No one is claiming that "direct military confrontation" with China is implied by an non isolationist approach. The actors that we should be worried about are unstable regimes or individuals who would tend to either use nuclear weapons against the United States or perhaps lose control of their weapons. This would include nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. You're also missing the obvious point that the time to prevent proliferation is *prior* to these nations aquiring nuclear weapons.
Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic.
Non isolationism is not incongruent with other policies as you have described above. So I'm not sure why you are raising this issue.
But the fact that China would thereby be hamstrung between looking West (at India) and looking East (at Japan) is pretty nice gravy on the Moral steak, IMHO. Meanwhile, US troops and taxes are able to stay home.
Most of this irrelevant. See above.
This is assuming that it is morally correct in the first place to EVER "tax the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" (which is the essence of Foreign Aid).
I'm not sure what kind of moral argument you could possibly present to dispute the practice of foreign aid. Money going from poor people to rich people is also typical of the essense of capitalism. Try presenting an argument that doesn't work for foreign aid but does work for capitalism.
But even if that idea were philosophically moral in the first place, it plainly hasn't worked.
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.
Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Batista, and managed to so radicalize the Cuban peasantry that they allowed the murderous Castro to come to power. Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Somoza, and managed to so radicalize the Nicaraguan peasantry that they allowed the murderous Sandanistas to come to power. Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Shah, and managed to so radicalize the Iranian peasantry that they allowed the murderous Ayatollahs to come to power. So, in order to "counterbalance" the murderous Ayatollahs, Interventionists subsidized Saddam Hussein of Iraq. That ended up working out real good too. Interventionists subsidized the maniacal Taliban, and they thanked us by carting barrel-loads of US dollars down to the local Al-Queda training camps where fanatics were poring over schematics of the World Trade Center.
Every example you have given is to some extent bad policy. So how is this is a general critique of foreign aid or specific policies toward Israel?
Whoa... Hold on a minute... you are saying that this (inherently illegitimate)
Perfectly legitimate.
policy of "taxing the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" is intended to stabilize regional conflicts?
You are confusing specific implementation with the general policy. You are also making judgements concerning what would have occurred *without* foreign aid. This is a very complex subject. Are the policy wonks in the State Department sometimes wrong? Of course, but I would rather trust this pragmatic decision making rather than any sort of idealism based on isolationism.
Research on Missile Defense Shields has been going on for decades, with few signficant results. Generally the critique is that the measures needed to defeat the shield are quite simple and easily developed, or the complexity of the system would so much that the system would breakdown during operation. At this point in time there is no system that looks viable. This is reality. Perhaps in a few decades something more viable will be developed, but that is not the case now. Let's go over this. There is no shield. So what exactly do you think is protecting this country from nuclear weapons? To confuse what *may* be developed in the future with what exists *now* is an irresponsible approach to decision making. "Won't know 'till we try!!" But we have tried -- for decades.
I reserve the right to disagree with the idea that the Shield "will not work". While I would be the first to doubt Government press releases, recent reports on the success of directed laser weapons at successfully accomplishing multiple independent shoot-downs are encouraging, to say the least. (I'll admit it's about time. We have indeed spent many years, and many billions, trying to get where we are today).
That said, until the Shield is fully implemented, what's wrong with makin' like Switzerland? If Muslims really hate us purely for our "freedom, our constitutional democracy, our wealth", etc.... why not ram 767's into Geneva? The Swiss asset base is gigantic (far out of proportion to their population), their Government is constitutional rather than Theocratic, and their freedoms secure and cherished.
Yet nobody's particularly interested in picking a fight with the Swiss.
Is it just possible that this is because the Swiss are not really interested in picking a fight with anybody in particular?
I mean, seriously... is that verboten even to imagine that Swiss non-interventionism might have something to do with their lack of real enemies, just for the sake of discussion?
Nor is size and population -- "we are really big, that's why they hate us" -- a valid excuse. The Islamists aren't particularly interested in picking fights with Brazil, either, last I checked.
If you want to avoid potential WMD conflicts, make like Switzerland. The fact that this particular "switzerland" is the size and population of Brazil is besides the point; them as don't stick their feet in snake pits, get bit less.
No one is claiming that "direct military confrontation" with China is implied by an non isolationist approach. The actors that we should be worried about are unstable regimes or individuals who would tend to either use nuclear weapons against the United States or perhaps lose control of their weapons. This would include nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. You're also missing the obvious point that the time to prevent proliferation is *prior* to these nations aquiring nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has nukes. Now.
But their attention can be entirely focused on India, quite easily. Without a dime of Foreign Aid outlays, or restrictions on Home Liberties.
Same with North Korea (they hate the *other* Koreans -- the Free ones; and they are always going to be paranoid about the Japanese), and Iran and Iraq (they hate eachother).
Why cram your feet into third-world snake pits in which -- if you are not present -- the snakes are perfectly content to kill eachother and not us?
Islamic Proverb:
Me against my brother.
Me and My brother against our cousin.
Look, an Infidel!! All three against the Infidel!!
Unless, of course, the "infidel" doesn't bother making an appearance in the region.
Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic. ~~ Non isolationism is not incongruent with other policies as you have described above. So I'm not sure why you are raising this issue.
Because these policies are not incongruent with Non-Interventionism either, and Interventionism doesn't work.
At least, it hasn't worked for decade after decade after decade.
Insanity is, attempted the same failed policy over and over, and expecting a better result.
At least, it hasn't worked for decade after decade after decade.
But it has worked for decade after decade after decade. It doesn't work perefectly but it still works.
And so we are back to the beginning. What to do about the proliferation of WMD (especially among unstable regimes) -- the fundamental question that started this debate, and a question you have yet to answer.
Okay, how's this: If I want to give money to the Rich rulers of Poor nations, I will do so of my own choice.
Because taking my money from me at gunpoint to subsidize foreign kleptocrats is antithetical to Capitalism.
And I am consummately Capitalist, so I think that's a bad thing.
Saying "Capitalism moves money from the Poor to the Rich, and that's sorta like Foreign Aid" is morally tantamount to saying, "Consensual Sex is sorta like Forcible Rape". Well, yeah, there are certain mechanical similarities involved, but there is that funky little idea of consent separating the two.
And don't expect me to buy into "majoritarian consent" for a moment either. Even if most Americans were in love with the idea of Foreign Aid (and we ain't), nine out of ten folks voting that a gal should be forcibly raped does not turn the intercourse into consensual sex, any way you wanna swing it.
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".
Well, yeah, they "work" to extract money from the taxpayer to benefit the corporation, who then hires more lobbyists to get more subsidies (essentially same thing with personal Welfare, save that Votes are purchased, not Lobbyists). That is how these subsidies "work", and how they stay in place.
Same with Foreign Aid.
But just because you take someone's money, and give it to someone else, and the recipient says, "Thanks, could I have some more? I'll contribute to your re-election campaign if you'll vote me more cash," does not mean that the program is "working" in any sort of capitalistic or otherwise beneficial sense.
Capitalism depends on the Rule of Property Law.
ALL Income Transfer Payments subvert the Rule of Property Law.
Every example you have given is to some extent bad policy. So how is this is a general critique of foreign aid or specific policies toward Israel?
Israel, without US foreign aid, would probably still hold the Sinai, and would be forced by economic reality to be more Capitalistic.
That should suffice to speak to Israel's benefit (although the statist elites who receive Foreign Aid would be out some cash; and, oh, how my heart bleeds for the Israeli Socialist-Labour Party if we cut their subsidies, boo-hoo). Shall I also detail the benefits to the US of curtailing Foreign Aid, or is it enough between Friends of Israel (as I count myself) to speak to Israel's benefit?
You are confusing specific implementation with the general policy. You are also making judgements concerning what would have occurred *without* foreign aid. This is a very complex subject. Are the policy wonks in the State Department sometimes wrong? Of course, but I would rather trust this pragmatic decision making rather than any sort of idealism based on isolationism.
Why not also, then, trust the "pragmatism" of the Treasury and the Commerce Departments to plan your economic Life for you, over any sort of idealistic, non-interventionist Capitalism?
Big Brother knows best, doesn't he? And Big Brother is never interested in handing out a billion in taxpayer Foreign Aid, to get back ten million in campaign contributions for himself, right, because Big Brother can be trusted, can't he?
As for myself, two gin-scented tears trickle down the sides of my nose. It is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over My Self. I trust Big Brother.
I love Big Brother.
Without the inducement of money Pakistan could just as easily focus its attention toward helping its Muslim brothers in other nations. What if a more fundamentalist government were to gain power in Pakistan? You make quite a number of assumptions concerning what Pakistan would do without *any* financial aid from the US. It's a foolish wish that by isolating ourselves from the world that "somehow" things will work out for the best.
C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
Huh? Now you're beginning to commit logical fallacies. Try reading up on foreign policy journals and articles. The recommendations almost always involve either some financial aid or intervention. Do you really think that these experts are *all* wrong but you with your overly simplistic idealism are correct?
LOL.
Talk about insane...
My answer is simple: Let them kill eachother.
Name one rogue WMD State whose primary enemy is the USA. North Korea? They hate South Korea. Pakistan? They hate India. Iraq? They hate Iran.
And this is the situation even with US Troops overseas. Without US troops in the region, the fanatics are delighted to kill the "infidel" next door. And not, ahem.... us.
For whom has it worked? For the elites in power who derive the benefits from being close to those in power and therefore lucrative business contracts? Or perhaps the multinational corporations that get their bacon pulled out of the fire at taxpayer expense?
Or maybe the 250 dead soldiers in Lebanon was what you were talking about? That worked too eh? Perhaps you meant the hundreds of dead in the embassy bombings. More examples of the practice working?
Oh I know....it's the 500,000 dead in Iraq. That worked. Though I doubt if you'd find many Iraqi's who'd share your almost religious belief in how well everything is "working."
Why not also, then, trust the "pragmatism" of the Treasury and the Commerce Departments to plan your economic Life for you, over any sort of idealistic, non-interventionist Capitalism?
Because the "actors" in each case are entirely different. Foreign policy "actors" typically are nations, while economic "actors" are typically individuals. Surely you see the difference. The most ideal entity to implement decision making for an individual is the individual himself. There will always be decision making concerning state actions, so your point fails.
Comparing capitalism to foreign policy is of course a poor method of making sense of either of them.
War is hell. Concerning those killed *after* the Iraqi intervention, you should directing this to OP, since these deaths would not be the result of economic aid and military intervention but its exact opposite.
Read the previous posts to try and make sense of what we have been talking about. All you are doing is listing examples of poor policy making, and I probably would agree with you.
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.