Apparant Western Bias in regards to Terrorism

[Mastreditr111]

Not to mention that Israel is productive enough to survive without a pitiful 3 billion in US aid.

 

[Little Raven]

We give other nations a lot more money than we do Israel. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs Israel ranks 9th out of our top 10 recipients. Are you alleging that those in the top 10 are also on a leash? I think you would have a hard time making that arguement.

Mobboss, that's only economic aid. Why don't you include military aid in your tally?

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid is scheduled to be reduced to $240 million and military aid will increase to $2.28 billion.

Israel is very much on a leash. It's a very comfortable one; we're generally happy to let Israel do what she will. But when Washington calls, Olmert has no choice but to pick up the phone. Especially now; Operation Set Lebanon Back 20 Years is costing the IDF 50-100 million shekels a day. I can assure you that Israel did not budget for that. They're going to want some help with that check.

 

[Norlamand]

But at the same time, we did not employe tactics that deliberately killed civilians. We never bombed Universities. We were never attacked Pakistan or Texas for its lack of action against terrorism. We were at war with the governments and the governments were at war with us. Lebanon is not at war with Israel, nor was it.

Lebanon brings war to itself by allowing a terrorist group to use its territory as a safehaven for launching attacks against Israel. The Lebanese government is responsible for policing its territory and for the maintenance of law in that territory. If it turns a blind eye to Hizbullah then it is complicit in Hizbullah's actions.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Again, 3 billion dollars a year is not something that Israel cannot survive without. Its GDP is something like 200 billion a year. A bit of a hardship maybe, but not a leash by any means.

 

[Little Raven]

Again, 3 billion dollars a year is not something that Israel cannot survive without. Its GDP is something like 200 billion a year. A bit of a hardship maybe, but not a leash by any means.

Try 130.

Could Israel survive the loss of American aid? Of course. But not happily. Israel is already running into trouble balancing the costs of its military with its socialist nature. And if its creditors get the feeling that it no longer has to total and complete backing of the United States government, they're going to want higher interest rates. Not to mention the fact that the United States is generally the one going to bat for Israel in the UN. It would be absolute insanity for an Israeli leader to disregard Washington. We scratch her back entirely too often.

 

[Mastreditr111]

My statistic was 196 billion, but whatever. God knows there are enough ways of measuring GDP. You basically repeated my argument. We help in many other ways, but the best leash we have is gossamer thin, because they can ignore it for a while, and expect funding back if they stop doing whatever we disagree with. The other benefits are less tangible, less needed by the Israelis, and also would return with funding.

Heck of a long leash in my book.

 

[Xenocrates]

We become hypocrites if we try to tell Israel that they can't fight "their" terrorists but we can fight "ours."

Right on Mr RM. It's rare day that we agree. I'll break out a bottle of bubbly

The comparison between the justification for the Afghan campaign and its method of execution and the Israeli campaign and its execution is perfect. All the more reason for the US not to do 'bad stuff' in my view!

Many of us have tried to guess the reasoning behind the Israeli attacks, as we did with Iraq and Afghanistan. My proposition was that this was planned months ago and Israel hopes to facilitate its easier expansion nto the West Bank by removing the only effective opposition; the peaceful one.

But maybe there's a less sinister but more dangerous possibility:

In private, the Foreign Office, which has a reputation as being traditionally pro-Arabist, is sceptical about the Israeli strategy and its impact on the wider Middle East. It regards the Israeli bombardment as partly reflecting a need by the new Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to establish his credibility as successor to the hawkish Ariel Sharon.

From the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1825645,00.html

It seems that it's the nature of democracy that 'leaders' are forced into counterproductive violence as they try to aquire reputations for patriotism and toughness.

 

[Mastreditr111]

To all that: I doubt it. The Israelis are definitely realpolitik, but all those alternatives are really short-sighted, and they are not that. I honestly think that, at this point, the Israeli public just wants to be left the h*** alone. No expansion, just peace. Why would they do something in the hopes of expanding when it would just piss everyone, enemy and ally, off if found out?

 

[Xenocrates]

To all that: I doubt it. The Israelis are definitely realpolitik, but all those alternatives are really short-sighted, and they are not that. I honestly think that, at this point, the Israeli public just wants to be left the h*** alone. No expansion, just peace. Why would they do something in the hopes of expanding when it would just piss everyone, enemy and ally, off if found out?

Hamas has been offering Israel peace for years. They recognised Israel and proposed a return to the 1967 borders, exactly as UN resolution 242 demanded (maybe it was 212 I can't remember, there's been about 40 resolutions against Israel!). This is a reasonable position as it gives up Palestinian claims on a lot of land, while giving Israel a viable country.

 

[Mastreditr111]

It is widely understood that the Hamas offer was a proverbial pile of BS. It did not in fact recognize Israel's right to exist, let alone exist in peace. It actually said nothing about terrorism against Israelis, only between Palestinians. Also, how does that point have anything to do with what I said beforehand?

 

[Little Raven]

Heck of a long leash in my book.

Indeed. Like I said, it's a very comfortable collar. God know we cut Israel more sweetheart deals than everyone else combined.

But at whatever point Bush decides Olmert has had enough fun for the time being, the IDF operation will stop. And everyone knows this.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Possibly. Only if the Israelis view it as not crucial would an operation stop at American behest. They can afford to alienate our government for short periods, as I have said. This particular invasion will probably stop, but some actions would not stop for us.

 

[Xenocrates]

They offered a total 10 year ceasefire to the Israelis, so I disagree on that (post 30 that is).


There's something that I forgot to say - THE CUBAN 5

If you read through this link and can say with a straight face that the US war on terror is more than a hypocritical sham I'd like to see it.

Link: http://friendsoflatinamerica.typepad.com/hocofola/2005/09/the_fate_of_the.html

 

[Mastreditr111]

Xeno: OK STOP drifting off. You are doing this to refute my statement that the motives you assign Israel are stupid. If you cannot argue why they aren't, then stop arguing. Nothing you have said since my response has had anything to do with it. You can't seem to refute it, so you are merely misdirecting attention.

Ex: What does the war on terrorism have to do with our prior argument? What does Hamas have to do with it either? The motives you suggested for Israel were stupid to me, and I think at this point you are just trying to start an argument.

EDIT: If you want me to say the war is a sham, why don't you try producing some unbiased and non-propaganda links that you think might argue such. I will not read drivel that tailors events to suit itself.

 

[Xenocrates]

Xeno: OK STOP drifting off. You are doing this to refute my statement that the motives you assign Israel are stupid. If you cannot argue why they aren't, then stop arguing. Nothing you have said since my response has had anything to do with it, but it is all said in response to it.

EDIT: What does the war on terrorism have to do with our prior argument?

The official explanation for the blitzkreig is that they are trying to get their soldiers back. As that explanation is obviously hogwash, I invite you to suggest another.

I've been through all of this before with regards to Hamas etc. on the 'who's primarilly to blame' thread with Leha etc.

Did you read the Cuban 5 article? its very good.

 

[Mastreditr111]

1. You still have not told me why you suggested those motives, or made any move to defend them properly. The official explanation is reasonable to me, I wish my government gave half that consideration to individual civilians with their lives in danger.
2. Its drivel... read my edit.

 

[Xenocrates]

1. You still have not told me why you suggested those motives, or made any move to defend them properly. The official explanation is reasonable to me, I wish my government gave half that consideration to individual civilians with their lives in danger.
2. Its drivel... read my edit.

When the Israelis suggested that bombing the Gaza power station was to black out Gaza to disrupt the kidnappers, John Snow (of Channel 4 news - UK - it's the best news channel BTW) said that kidnappers usually preferred to move under darkness. The best way to get the soldiers back is to find out where they are and launch a pin-point attack. They aren't doing that. Getting the soldiers back is not the motive here. Besides which Israel has kidnapped 9,000 Palestinians so you could make the same argument for them.

But that's a subject for threads gone by....

Other links about the Cuban 5:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4137036.stm

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/1464/1/108

And finally:

Following their arrest, and notwithstanding the fact that the detainees had been informed of their right to remain silent and had their defense provided by the Government, they were kept in solitary confinement for 17 months, during which communication with their attorneys, and access to evidence and thus, possibilities to a adequate defense were weakened,

from http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/1464/1/108

That's just after 5 minutes of searching the net.

Basically there are terrorist organisations operating from the US with the complicity of the US government. When Cuba trued to expose them their 5 policemen were locked away by the same US that preaches against terrorism.