Is Israel a True Ally of the United States?

[TruthSeeker]

none of this stuff is overblown..

It's ALL overblown. And it isn't a few $billions it's $trillions spent on protecting Israel, including both Iraqi wars.

 

[shravan]

You might ask why a movie has never been made about the USS Liberty in 1967? THAT would be a great movie.

True. That would be a great movie.

 

[TopCat]

Hi guys,

I dont understand why everyone out here missed the real help provided by Israel to US. Well the real help is through Intel, Mossad has its ears on all the countries in the world, specially on Pakistan,Afghanistan,iran,china and North korea. Moreover Mossad has intel on every key politician of US.The reason why US can never and ever confront israel is because of these,moreover half of the businessmen and politicians who have an upper hold in US are the JEWS.... and israels Mossad knows a lot more of american secrets than even the key people in DOD of US knows... classified top secrets of US army are with Mossad.. i dont have links to all the above claims, but i can understand from what i have read all these years.One thing is for sure,Mossad can penetrate into any country and gather intel which even the CIA can't.Its not the matter of being a good or trusted ally, its just the matter of coexsistence.America and american leaders have no choice but to exist as an ally of israel, beacause israel has penetrated deep into american defence and affairs.

It is not Jews or Israel using USA but conservative right wing christians using Isarel as their proxy. Jews in USA are the most progressive group of people and their soft corner towards Isarel is natural but those right wing christian fanatics who likes to keep the conflict alive only to screw Muslims. I talked to a lot of Jews and they have nothing against Muslim and rather want the conflict to end. But Bush like christians dont want the settlement that way.

PS: after 9/11 Jews are the first people who protested against backlashes towards muslims.

 

[Durran3]

It's ALL overblown. And it isn't a few $billions it's $trillions spent on protecting Israel, including both Iraqi wars

What a blunt statement..

Sir i am sorry to say but you are overblowing the Trillions portions.. either you come up with concrete evidence to support your claim like i've given or if you don't agree we'll leave it at that.. The United States doesn't do business for free.. Israel has the third highest number of companies on Nasdaq as well, and look at some of Israel's biotech as well as Agricultural contributions... Spending billions to get some of the best military intelligence is nothing and much better than fighting full fledge conventional warfare.. and your Trillion figure isn't backed by any substantial evidence either..

If you disagree and refuse to find out whre all the money goes than we'll leave it at that!! Israel gets like 2.5-3 billion dollars a Year from the United States since 1990.. not only are your numbers ridiculous you have nothing to back it up..

http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

 

[TopCat]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Historically jews are rich people due to their involvement in financial institution. Even they used their temple in Jerusalem as a mean of making money 2000 years ago. They are good at those.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If you disagree and refuse to find out whre all the money goes than we'll leave it at that!! Israel gets like 2.5-3 billion dollars a Year from the United States since 1990.. not only are your numbers ridiculous you have nothing to back it up..

I'm not talking only about the direct aid monies that the US has provided to Israel over the past 60 years. I am also talking about the expense of our involvements with Middle Eastern wars and tensions, especially the two Iraq wars, that we would not have had to be involved in, except for our need to keep the neighborhood safe for Israel. I am also talking about the aid we give to Arab states, the money spent on our armed forces in the neighborhood and, finally the WoT, all of which I believe have been necessitated by our total support of Israel. I maintain that if we had treated Israel the way an amoral nation like China has, we would have saved trillions of $ and thousands of American lives. We did not need to do all that we have done to buy oil. Oil is for sale to the highest bidder. And, Israel doesn't have any oil anyway.

 

[TopCat]

I'm not talking only about the direct aid monies that the US has provided to Israel over the past 60 years. I am also talking about the expense of our involvements with Middle Eastern wars and tensions, especially the two Iraq wars, that we would not have had to be involved in, except for our need to keep the neighborhood safe for Israel. I am also talking about the aid we give to Arab states, the money spent on our armed forces in the neighborhood and, finally the WoT, all of which I believe have been necessitated by our total support of Israel. I maintain that if we had treated Israel the way an amoral nation like China has, we would have saved trillions of $ and thousands of American lives. We did not need to do all that we have done to buy oil. Oil is for sale to the highest bidder. And, Israel doesn't have any oil anyway.

America could have solved the problem long ago and end the conflict in middle east. Why they did not do it? Is it Israel who had the ability to block it or the unwillingness of American administration? Dont give me BS of Jew influence. Republicans has a very small support base in Jew community.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I think this topic is lame. What difference will it make any way. US will continue to lend any kind of support to Israel. Israel's influence in the middleeast is what US gets in return.

 

[freeman]

I think its a very interesting question. How is it that such a small population of people wield so much influence and clout in this world? The Palestinian situation is surely a thorn in the US's side that it would love to solve.
A lot of jewish people are highly intelligent and have more than represented their kind in all sorts of science, financial and art contributions. One thing you cant accuse jews of is being dumb.

In my opinion, and yes i do believe the conspiracy theories is that jewish financial families control the wheels of international money flows and loans. This brings huge influence and power, this is also coupled by the fact that jews stick together and are very secretive. You will also find jews in controlling positions at some of the largest companies in the world.

Wana find out more? do some research on the Bilderberg Group or on the Rothschild family.

 

[MastanKhan]

So, Desertfalcon, you can't think of any tangible help either? Just "being there" makes Israel a true ally? The things you mentioned were what the US does to support Israel. Is there any tangible reciprocity?

Hi,

Neither can I think of any thing substantial coming from israel to help the u s in any way possible in america or in the middle east. The u s is always trying to cover up whatever is left---for israel.

Netanyahu blantantly stated that he won't stop the new construction---when George Bush sr tried to confront the israelis---he lost his elections real real bad---some of the congressmen and senators face the same threat from israel.

As a matter of fact the the elected memebers in the u s are so scared of israel and its lobby that they act more catholic than the pope on most issues pertaining to the jews and israel.

 

[Durran3]

I maintain that if we had treated Israel the way an amoral nation like China has, we would have saved trillions of $ and thousands of American lives. We did not need to do all that we have done to buy oil. Oil is for sale to the highest bidder. And, Israel doesn't have any oil anyway.

You are correct with that analysis but the thread you started conveys a completely wrong message than. Your subject matters states that "Is Israel a TRUE ally of the United States" .. The Answer is YES it is.. and the US has benefited tremendously from Israel, and i will state again that none of the stuff i mentioned is overblown but are real facts and figures.. ..

That was the question and that was my answer..

Where your heading is a completely different scenario of 'What If's'.. What If the US didn't support Israel, What If the US wasn't an Ally of Israel, What if the US treated Israel like China, etc etc etc..

You asked a straight forward question with a straight forward answer.. either stick to that or you will be getting in to an argument where there is nothing but a false sense of accomplishment because questions like 'What if' serve no purpose no matter how much you argue becaue its not real.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

You might ask why a movie has never been made about the USS Liberty in 1967? THAT would be a great movie.

It might make a good movie but you know as well as most of the surviving crew and officers that will never happen.
The still locked away boxes of information on this case have a better chance of being released than the movie being made.

But one could try a U-571 style of the film. Actually that may come close to the real truth for a change.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

In the US we have regular regime changes, even our Constitution demands it Presidents are limited to two four-years terms. But while the regime changes, the ideological-political foundation is not.

What you outline has nothing to do with democracy or freedom. That is a style of political operation.

When the Soviet Union ignobly and spectacularly collapsed, not only the regime changed but also the ideological-political foundation that once supported that regime. So when the Russians decided to give 'democracy' and 'capitalism' a try, tell the forum who shoved democracy down the Russian's throats? When Red China decided to abandon communist style 'economics', a joke if there ever was one, who shoved capitalism down the Chinese's throats? Nature abhors a vacuum, as the old saying goes, so when communism was removed from Russia, something must take its place. When communist style economics was removed from Red China, something must take its place. And the world see success in China and failure in Russia. In both situations, no external forces were involved. Internal rot was the catalyst for change.

I think you missed the point about this. Though I can understand you approach.
Besides I never said who was doing the shoving nor imply any particular nation. You did via you highly touchy approach.

What, if you care to read, is that I am pointing out that people talk about democracy and how nations should have it for their governance but really have no understanding of what they are really talking about for that specific nation.

Blaming US for the mess in Iraq misses the point about ideologies and politics. If democracy was practiced 'half cocked' the root cause can only be those who applied and live under what they created. Democracy demands that people compromise and are suicide bombings the normal response in functional democracies in the West? When Gore challenged Bush's re-election, the only bloodshed were from paper cuts and the victims were lawyers. Today we see bullets and voters' bodies in Iran and can you guess from what form of politics the Iranians are applying? Is it 'half cocked' or may be 'quarter cocked'?

Firstly democracy does not demand compromise. Governance implements levels of compromise.

As far as Iran goes do they actually have democracy? Take a look on how nominations for president are made. Look at where the power comes from and it is not the position of president.

Again if you bother to actually read I did not blame anyone for the state of Iraq. Again I will excuse your approach due to your very touchy approach to your nationalism.

What I did ask, is does Iraq have real democracy? This also applies to most western nations as well. Are we really running under real democracy or in essence a hybrid?
If we in fact have a hybrid system, how then can we call for democracy in other nations?

As far as democracy goes I can not think of anyone who has real democracy. Some may come close.
Also of note not even ancient Athens had true democracy. Though we all say that is the foundation of the concept.

 

[shravan]

Wow, yes but who is doing this and what really do you mean by freedom and democracy.

You can shove democracy down people's throats till they choke but is real democracy that you are pushing or some half cocked version. Is it what is needed or something else. Governance can be delivered in many pseudo forms of so called democracy.

Does Iraq now have real democracy? Has Jordan got democracy? Has USA got democracy? Now that last one is very interesting.
How about freedom..

All nice motherly words.

So how does this actually fit into that equation of input and output?

Obama: Iran's leaders must stop all `violent and unjust actions' amid postelection crackdown

.
.
"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people," Obama said in a written statement. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."
.
.
"Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away," the president said, recalling a theme from the speech he gave in Cairo, Egypt, this month.

"The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government," Obama said. "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

 

[gambit]

In the US we have regular regime changes, even our Constitution demands it Presidents are limited to two four-years terms. But while the regime changes, the ideological-political foundation is not.

What you outline has nothing to do with democracy or freedom. That is a style of political operation.

Wrong...What I said has everything to do with being a functional democracy. A 'regime', as far as politics goes, is (or should be) a temporary body of governance. Peaceful regime changes is a sign of a society willing to exercise restraints, amenable to debates and ideas, and finally open to concessions if necessary. If what the people elected became unpalatable, the regime has a finite period of existence before being peacefully rejected and a new regime installed. The 'style of political operation' is representative of the political foundation.

When the Soviet Union ignobly and spectacularly collapsed, not only the regime changed but also the ideological-political foundation that once supported that regime. So when the Russians decided to give 'democracy' and 'capitalism' a try, tell the forum who shoved democracy down the Russian's throats? When Red China decided to abandon communist style 'economics', a joke if there ever was one, who shoved capitalism down the Chinese's throats? Nature abhors a vacuum, as the old saying goes, so when communism was removed from Russia, something must take its place. When communist style economics was removed from Red China, something must take its place. And the world see success in China and failure in Russia. In both situations, no external forces were involved. Internal rot was the catalyst for change.

I think you missed the point about this. Though I can understand you approach.
Besides I never said who was doing the shoving nor imply any particular nation. You did via you highly touchy approach.

Come now...Do not be so disingenuous. When you said this...

You can shove democracy down people's throats till they choke but is real democracy that you are pushing or some half cocked version.

...And then throw in Iraq who do you think you are fooling? Who is the most prominent foreigner and to date has the most impact in Iraq? We can certainly rule out that next to worthless UN.

What, if you care to read, is that I am pointing out that people talk about democracy and how nations should have it for their governance but really have no understanding of what they are really talking about for that specific nation.

On the surface, your argument does have merits. However, when the argument is about principles there are little, as we say, 'wiggle room' for criticisms. On principles, it is quite indisputable that everyone in a society should have a say about his government. The 'how' to have his say contains the mechanics of governance, and that is where deviations can be most drastic from principles.

Elsewhere on this forum I pointed out some differences between the US, a confederation of distinct political entities -- states, and Switzerland, also a confederation of distinct political entities -- cantons. The President of the Swiss confederation is not popularly elected but the office is a rotating one-year term among the representatives of the leaderships of the cantons. It is said that 9 out of 10 Swiss would not recognize their President even if the person take the train at peak morning commuting hours. But in the US, we can have nearly a cultish atmosphere around a US President, look at John F Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or currently Barack Obama. And yet no one really dispute that despite all the mechanical differences betwen the US and Switzerland, both are functional democracies. Some have even argued (shallowly) that the Swiss are more 'democratic' than the US despite the fact that the Swiss President is not popularly elected.

So when someone said something about the promotion of democracy and basic human rights and freedoms, he is not talking about exporting EVERYTHING he knows about the mechanics of governance into another society but about introducing high level principles and let the indigenous population create the mechanics of governance for themselves. Some deviations will be necessary, as the US-Switzerland differences illustrated, and it is those deviations that will tell observers if that society is comparably 'democratic' or not.

Firstly democracy does not demand compromise. Governance implements levels of compromise.

Nonsense...Democratic principles indeed demand compromise down to the most local level of governance, which would be something as simple as the county dog catcher if the position is an elected one. If I voted Joe Schmoe for the position but Jim Nobody received more votes, I have to swallow the loss and that is a compromise.

As far as Iran goes do they actually have democracy? Take a look on how nominations for president are made. Look at where the power comes from and it is not the position of president.

How nominees became so is a separate issue, so if the Iranians decide for themselves, at this time or for the next one hundred years, that all nominees should come from a theocratic foundation, that is within their perceived need to create a mechanism to vet the candidates, much like how candidates in other societies must pass through ideological filters. War is the only time a leader is elected for his foreign policy, else leaders from any country are usually stressed about domestic issues such as taxes, education, or the economy. So while we can throw some legitimate criticisms at Iran on how much deviations there are from general principles, what we must acknowledge and applaud to some degrees is the fact that there are competing nominees for the people to chose as their next leader. The current crisis in Iran is indicative that regardless of how foreigners view the nominees, Iranians feel sufficiently passionate about them that the general populace is willing commit massive public dissent when they perceived that this nominally 'democratic' mechanism have been discarded by the government.

Again if you bother to actually read I did not blame anyone for the state of Iraq. Again I will excuse your approach due to your very touchy approach to your nationalism.

Why the lack of courage? Again...Who is the most prominent foreigner in Iraq? We can rule out the ineffective UN.

What I did ask, is does Iraq have real democracy? This also applies to most western nations as well. Are we really running under real democracy or in essence a hybrid?
If we in fact have a hybrid system, how then can we call for democracy in other nations?

A hybrid? In order to call something a 'hybrid' there has to be distinct FOUNDATIONAL elements, like gasoline and electrical motors in a car and that BOTH must be the motivational factors to drive that car. I cannot see how democracy can peacefully coexist with tyranny in the same political environment.

As far as democracy goes I can not think of anyone who has real democracy. Some may come close.
Also of note not even ancient Athens had true democracy. Though we all say that is the foundation of the concept.

Basically, what you are saying is that because I am an imperfect father I have no right to express moral outrage or even mild criticisms at a convicted child molester. By the way, I am single and have no children.

Because of our individual fickle natures, something like 'democracy' must be created lest either anarchy or tyranny remain as unsavory options. It does not take much to rapidly move a society from stability to anarchy, look at Germany near the end of WW II, for example. Neither does it take much for a society to have a dictator at the helm, North Korea at the end of the Korean War is another example. But precisely because of our individual fickle natures, democracy comes in fits and starts. What you miss is that democracy is BOTH a goal and a process. Those fits and starts are when the people realize the flaws in their political institutions, the ones that are supposed to preserve and promote their 'democratic' ideals, and proceed to make changes or even eliminate some institutions. The US Civil War is a major event in US political history where divergent viewpoints had so much passionate support that to this day, that war remain the costliest for the US in human lives. But a major stumbling block -- slavery -- to create a more 'democratic' society was removed.

American War Deaths Throughout History

Civil War (1861-1865) 623,026
World War 2 (1941-1945) 407,316

Say there are three countries:

Country A of one million is a dictatorship, benevolent or malevolent is not the point for now.

Country B of one million has a council of leaders where elected members must be males and right-handed.

Country C of one million has a council of leaders where elected members must be males.

The number of exclusions from the political process is clearly obvious with Country C having the least. However, the differences between B and C is nowhere as great as when either is compared against A. History proved that more often than not dictatorships are of the malevolent kind and for the last one hundred years when not-so-tru democracies are bordered against dictatorships, those dictatorships became even more oppressive. Why? Because that if given a chance, people, males or females, will migrate from A to either B or C. For the females, even though they will have no representations in either B or C, at least the governments are composed of elected officials hence the ODDS of reforms where females can participate in governments would be greater. What if some people from B and C decide to move elsewhere and create Country D where men and women, right- or left-handed, are equal? Would B and C, in trying to preserve their existences, became dictatorial in nature? More likely both would evolve, perhaps painfully, but they would change their ways.

I have been to East Berlin when it existed. Even if West Berlin was half as 'democratic' as current unified Germany, East German guards still would have shot anyone who try to 'migrate' to West Berlin. I lived in Florida for several years. Many people love to criticize US via Cuba's universal health care or higher literacy rates. And yet, no news exists for Americans in rickety homemade rafts floating themselves to Cuba for the health care and education. What you questioned as 'true democracy' is very true and real even for those who never experience this not-so-true democracy. Those who managed to migrate to any of these not-so-true democracies, many of them returned to their oppressive native lands to try to give their people a taste of this not-so-true democracy. Not-so-true democracies, like South Korea or Taiwan for many years, have proven to be economically prosperous, scientifically innovative, and intellectually and culturally more vibrant.

As the critic proclaim that practice should be as 'true' as possible with regard to theory and that this is a desirable condition, the critic actually misses the point that while people are fully capable of critical analyses from a principled stance they are also realists and moralists. Majority rule, one of the foundational elements of the democratic process, is actually less popular in democratic practice than in democratic theory. The moralist in all of us demands that we question WHY exclusions exists in the democratic process. Parallel to that is SHOULD exclusions exists. The realist in all of us then attempts to balance all arguments. The willingness to counter majority rule when morals demands it, such as institutionalized slavery or women's rights issues, the fact that we make changes even though those changes required time, is what give functional democracies the right to call ourselves 'democratic' societies. That is why democracy is BOTH goal and process.

how then can we call for democracy in other nations?

It is then clear that there really is no intention other than attempting to defend odious ideologies and regimes in an oblique way by questioning if any country can rightly call itself a 'democratic' society when there are institutional flaws in those countries. Political dissidents wisely do not focus on low level mechanistic flaws or even higher level institutional flaws of democratic societies. They focus on ideological flaws and pointing out ideological differences have been the justification for many deaths and imprisonments. Low level mechanistic flaws can come from simple personal incompetence that hinder effective administration of an office. Institutional flaws are exposed in any discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of a bicameral legislature, or the percentage threshold in parliamentary seat allocation, or on the pros and cons of elected over appointed judges. I will take a flawed democracy over a true dictatorship any day and so do many Cubans who floated to Florida in their rickety homemade rafts.