Re: Israel pays the price for buying only Boeing (and not Airbus)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> (Quant) wrote in message
>...
> > This post is specially for brooks.
> >
> > Hebrew:
> > http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> >
> >
> > Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > Boeing planes by El Al.
>
> What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> this contract as much as you want (and one wonders how much of the
> antagonism was also due to European dissatisfaction with the actions
> of the Israeli government over the past few years...?).

Israeli pilots were making jokes about nuking Paris not so many weeks ago.
I think AI has made an enemy.

[Steph]

Tarver Engineering nous disait :

> Israeli pilots were making jokes about nuking Paris not so many
> weeks ago. I think AI has made an enemy.

If they have nukes, it's much thanks to France ...

On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

(Quant) wrote in message >...
>> This post is specially for brooks.
>>
>> Hebrew:
>> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
>>
>>
>> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
>> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
>> Boeing planes by El Al.
>
>What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
>down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
>the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
>this contract as much as you want

So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.

[Blair Maynard]

On 30 Jun 2003 14:54:44 -0700, (Quant) wrote:

>This post is specially for brooks.
>
>Hebrew:
>http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
>
>
>Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
>because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
>Boeing planes by El Al.

Exactly what "price" are you talking about?

What would the benefits of being included in the Airbus 380 project
have been and would they have outweighed the costs?

[Larry R]

Never heard the story anywhere! Your pedaling bull****.
"Anthony" > wrote in message
...
> > France has been an enemy of Israel since the 1970s when the French
> > government sold Israel to the Arabs for a few litres of oil (paid good
> > (Mirages, ships, etc.) not delivered, orders suddenly cancelled, etc.).
> > Israel discovered decades ago that Europeans cannot be trusted, and the
US
> > can (or at least is more trustworthy than Europe) so they deal with the
US
> > not Europe.
>
> Ever hear the story where Israel relabelled Brazilian (?) oranges and
goods
> produced in the illegally occupied territories as Israeli produce in order
> to defraud Europe?
>
> There is a group of people who cannot be trusted, and it isn't the
> Europeans.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message >...
> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> wrote:
>
> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> >>
> >> Hebrew:
> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> >>
> >>
> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> >
> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> >this contract as much as you want
>
> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.

LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).

Brooks

On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

> wrote in message >...
>> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
>> wrote:
>>
>> (Quant) wrote in message >...
>> >> This post is specially for brooks.
>> >>
>> >> Hebrew:
>> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
>> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
>> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
>> >
>> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
>> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
>> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
>> >this contract as much as you want
>>
>> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
>
>LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
>points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
>that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
>any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
>won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
>

American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
happen.

[Lyle]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:54:10 +0200, > wrote:

>On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
>wrote:
>
> wrote in message >...
>>> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (Quant) wrote in message >...
>>> >> This post is specially for brooks.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hebrew:
>>> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
>>> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
>>> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
>>> >
>>> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
>>> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
>>> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
>>> >this contract as much as you want
>>>
>>> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
>>
>>LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
>>points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
>>that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
>>any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
>>won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
>>
>
>American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
>happen.
>
why would they be upset, we just got done with a war, and we would use
the money and that we would give them for their military to rearm
ours.

[ralph]

Anthony wrote:
>
> > France has been an enemy of Israel since the 1970s when the French
> > government sold Israel to the Arabs for a few litres of oil (paid good
> > (Mirages, ships, etc.) not delivered, orders suddenly cancelled, etc.).
> > Israel discovered decades ago that Europeans cannot be trusted, and the US
> > can (or at least is more trustworthy than Europe) so they deal with the US
> > not Europe.
>
> Ever hear the story where Israel relabelled Brazilian (?) oranges and goods
> produced in the illegally occupied territories as Israeli produce in order
> to defraud Europe?
>
> There is a group of people who cannot be trusted, and it isn't the
> Europeans.

it's canadians. i used to work in a place that relabelled japanese steel
as canadian so it could be exported to the us without high tarriffs.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
.... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine

[ralph]

Larry R wrote:
>
> Never heard the story anywhere! Your pedaling bull****.
> "Anthony" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > France has been an enemy of Israel since the 1970s when the French
> > > government sold Israel to the Arabs for a few litres of oil (paid good
> > > (Mirages, ships, etc.) not delivered, orders suddenly cancelled, etc.).
> > > Israel discovered decades ago that Europeans cannot be trusted, and the
> US
> > > can (or at least is more trustworthy than Europe) so they deal with the
> US
> > > not Europe.
> >
> > Ever hear the story where Israel relabelled Brazilian (?) oranges and
> goods
> > produced in the illegally occupied territories as Israeli produce in order
> > to defraud Europe?
> >
> > There is a group of people who cannot be trusted, and it isn't the
> > Europeans.
> >
> >

wouldn't you think, the way things are, a better plan would to relabel
israeli stuff as brazilian to sell it in europe?
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
.... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine

[Quant]

Blair Maynard > wrote in message >...
> On 30 Jun 2003 14:54:44 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
>
> >This post is specially for brooks.
> >
> >Hebrew:
> >http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> >
> >
> >Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> >because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> >Boeing planes by El Al.
>
> Exactly what "price" are you talking about?
>
>
> What would the benefits of being included in the Airbus 380 project
> have been and would they have outweighed the costs?



According to understandings between IAI and Airbus, IAI was supposed
to manufacture parts of the Airbus 380 in Israel. We're talking about
revenues of at least 50% from the cost of the Airbus planes El Al
intended to purchase. It was profitable for El Al, for IAI and for
Airbus.

Then the state department and the government of Israel interfered (El
Al was a governmental company till few weeks ago), and El Al bought
only Boeing 777's.
More details you can find here:
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Fleets/LY777.html

It's important to note that I posted this post only for Brooks.

I don't care to pay a bit more when it comes to friends. America is a
friend and the hypocrite European terrorist-supporters are not. So, I
don't have a problem with the Boeing deal.

But its unpleasant to hear _all day_ people like Brooks who is
obsessed _morning to night_ to slam Israel on every opportunity he has
in r.a.m, especially on the subject of the US aid to Israel. Recently
I posted a post about the "Python 5" (Rafael just presented it on the
Paris Air Show). Not surprisingly, "the obsessed" jumped and asked
"when it will be sold to China"? Even though he knows that even the
"Python 4" wasn't sold to China because we don't sell cutting-edge
technology to anyone. There's an understanding between US and Israel
on this subject, the same understanding that guarantees that Israel
will have better F-15's/F-16's than Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Friendship is a two way street.

[Quant]

> wrote in message >...
> On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> wrote:
>
> > wrote in message >...
> >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hebrew:
> >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> >> >
> >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> >> >this contract as much as you want
> >>
> >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> >
> >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> >
>
> American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> happen.


Israeli defense contractors will be (very happy).
Friendship between US and Israel is a two way street.

[JGB]

Steph > wrote in message >...
> Tarver Engineering nous disait :
>
> > Israeli pilots were making jokes about nuking Paris not so many
> > weeks ago. I think AI has made an enemy.
>
> If they have nukes, it's much thanks to France ...<

If the US and France have nukes, it's thanks to the Jews. The atomic
bomb is a Jewish invention.

[JGB]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message >...
> > On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > wrote:
> >
> > (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > >>
> > >> Hebrew:
> > >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > >
> > >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > >this contract as much as you want
> >
> > So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
>
> LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).<

Sure it can happen, when the US stops selling the Arab states surrounding
Israel, and still technically at war with Israel, three times as much US
arms in dollar terms that sells it to Israel. The MAIN reason why Israel
gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message >...
> On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> wrote:
>
> > wrote in message >...
> >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hebrew:
> >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> >> >
> >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> >> >this contract as much as you want
> >>
> >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> >
> >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> >
>
> American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> happen.

Please. Take a gander at what portion of US defense exports go to
Israel; the last figures I found (covering 97-99) indicated that
Israel accounted for just over 5% of total US sales. Given that even
*without* US aid money the IDF is going to *have* to continue to shop
in the US for parts, components, etc., your predictions of defense
contractors storming the government appear to be significantly
exaggerated. And imagine the potential of increased sales to Arab
nations should the US cease its economic and military underpinning of
Israel...

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message >...
> > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message >...
> > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hebrew:
> > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > >> >
> > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > >>
> > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> > >
> > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > >
> >
> > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > happen.
>
>
> Israeli defense contractors will be (very happy).
> Friendship between US and Israel is a two way street.

Yep. We give the Israelis beaucoup bucks, and they turn around and
sell their most advanced military products to the PRC while
simultaneously engaging in espionage activities here in the US. One
hell of a two way street you got there.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jeroen Wenting" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Quant) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > This post is specially for brooks.
> > > >
> > > > Hebrew:
> > > > http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > > > because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy
only
> > > > Boeing planes by El Al.
> > >
> > > What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > > down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > > the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > > this contract as much as you want (and one wonders how much of the
> > > antagonism was also due to European dissatisfaction with the actions
> > > of the Israeli government over the past few years...?).
> >
> > Israeli pilots were making jokes about nuking Paris not so many weeks
ago.
> > I think AI has made an enemy.
> >
> >
> France has been an enemy of Israel since the 1970s when the French
> government sold Israel to the Arabs for a few litres of oil (paid good
> (Mirages, ships, etc.) not delivered, orders suddenly cancelled, etc.).
> Israel discovered decades ago that Europeans cannot be trusted, and the US
> can (or at least is more trustworthy than Europe) so they deal with the US
> not Europe.

It was centuries ago and the Arabs are not the first to kill Jewish
children.

> The fact that Germany is also a partner in Airbus only makes the choice
not
> to go with Airbus even easier.

Those who believe Jews run the world should understand that AI has stepped
on their dick.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
>...
> > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message
>...
> > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> (Quant) wrote in message
>...
> > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hebrew:
> > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380
project
> > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy
only
> > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > >> >
> > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out
on
> > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > >>
> > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro
quo.
> > >
> > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > >
> >
> > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > happen.
>
>
> Israeli defense contractors will be (very happy).
> Friendship between US and Israel is a two way street.

Yes, America will not hate Israel, like "old Europe".

[Kevin Brooks]

(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > wrote in message >...
> > > On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hebrew:
> > > >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > > >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > > >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > > >
> > > >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > > >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > > >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > > >this contract as much as you want
> > >
> > > So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> >
> > LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).<
>
> Sure it can happen, when the US stops selling the Arab states surrounding
> Israel, and still technically at war with Israel, three times as much US
> arms in dollar terms that sells it to Israel.


But which the largest part of is paid for by US taxpayers; odd idea w
the concept of "selling" stuff to Israel, IMO.

The MAIN reason why Israel
> gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
> Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
> opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
> states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
> It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.

Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we
started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. From what
I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).

Brooks

[Quant]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > wrote in message >...
> > > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > wrote in message >...
> > > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Hebrew:
> > > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > > >>
> > > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> > > >
> > > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > > >
> > >
> > > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > > happen.
> >
> >
> > Israeli defense contractors will be (very happy).
> > Friendship between US and Israel is a two way street.
>
> Yep. We give the Israelis beaucoup bucks, and they turn around and
> sell their most advanced military products to the PRC while
> simultaneously engaging in espionage activities here in the US. One
> hell of a two way street you got there.
>
> Brooks



Brooks knows the facts but he doesn't let them to confuse him.


1. The money America "give" is subsidizing the American industries and
hurting the Israeli industries.
2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
and in many cases in quality. Instead of whining, develop your own
better weapons and you don't have to worry that somebody else has
better technology than yours.

[Peter Kemp]

On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...

>> Yep. We give the Israelis beaucoup bucks, and they turn around and
>> sell their most advanced military products to the PRC while
>> simultaneously engaging in espionage activities here in the US. One
>> hell of a two way street you got there.
>
>1. The money America "give" is subsidizing the American industries and
>hurting the Israeli industries.

Ten why does Israel accept it? Is the government really that stupid?
Or are they grateful for the aid in filling a big hole in their
budget?

>2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
>subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
>and in many cases in quality.

And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
are "inferior" and "more expensive". Again, is Israel really that
stupid or are you missing something.

Something doesn't gel here. If Israel would be better off in terms of
cost and quality without the aid, then why take it?

[Quant]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Quant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> (Quant) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Hebrew:
> > > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380
> project
> > > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy
> only
> > > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out
> on
> > > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > > >>
> > > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro
> quo.
> > > >
> > > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > > >
> > >
> > > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > > happen.
> >
> >
> > Israeli defense contractors will be (very happy).
> > Friendship between US and Israel is a two way street.
>
> Yes, America will not hate Israel, like "old Europe".


I'm not sure what you intended to say, but I recognize the fact that
America (as contrary to Europe) is dealing with Israel fairly and
without prejudice or hate. I am thankful for that and I think that the
existence of the American nation is the best gift Israel and the world
could get.

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > -
(Kevin Brooks) writes:
>

[snip]

>> >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
>> >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
>> >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
>> >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).

It started to happen gradually when Benjamin Netaniyahoo was at the
PM post: Israel started on its own a multi-year initiative to reduce the
aid sum by 100M$ per year. But he only stayed 3 years at this post -
after failing to prevent Netaniyahoo's win in 1996, in 1999 elections
the US made every effort to not let it fail again and with lots of
US-funded pro-Barak "associations" Netaniyahoo lost to the most
worthless PM I remember. Needless to say, Barak stopped the process
of gradual reduction of aid that Netaniyahoo started. In general, US
administrations from both sides prefare Israeli elections to be
won by our left (which act to increase the ammount of aid we take) than by
our right (which act to gradually decrease the ammount of aid). It almost
looks like US administrations are not interested in Israel stopping
asking for aid. Why? I had a hunch but you gave a figure few lines
below which supports my hunch:

>> >
>>
>> American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
>> happen.
>
>Please. Take a gander at what portion of US defense exports go to
>Israel; the last figures I found (covering 97-99) indicated that
>Israel accounted for just over 5% of total US sales. Given that even

Only 5% of US weapons given away for free to Israel? That explains why
US administrations would prefare things to remain as they are now.

The F-16 alone has about 800 changes in them suggested by IAF as a result
of their operation and which worth billions to the F-16s manufacturer when
selling to other states. In a similar way, almost any US weapon in IDF has
lots of "bugs" found and reported, which translates to higher profits when
selling to other states. Also, there are other issues that salespeople
know worth a lot:

The first A-G use of F-16 was by IAF, the destruction of the Iraqi reactor.
The first A-A victory of F-16 also happened in IAF few weeks earlier.
The first A-A victory of F-15 also happened in IAF.

When a salesperson from General Dynamics (those old days, Lockheed today,
IIRC) competes on a fat contract against, say a salesperson from Marcell
Dassault (sp?) from one of these other 95% states, the words "our product
had been tested by Israel" worth LOTS of money. So it makes a perfect
business sense: give away 5% of weapons to Israel, which'll debug them
and most probably use them in real combat and after that use the weapon
record in IDF to rip profits from the remaining 95% of the market.

Like another poster mentioned in this thread, nothing is given for free.

************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[JGB]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message

> The MAIN reason why Israel
> > gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
> > Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
> > opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
> > states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
> > It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.
>
> Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we
> started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs.<

Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions
of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the
aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its
capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel
as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was
effectively
jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both
sides
in the conflict.


> From what
> I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
> increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
> to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
> agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
> to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).<

I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES
since
1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields
that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but
for the life
of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which
received
from Israel a much improved Sinai! Not only does Israel lost strategic
depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a
similar
amount of aid to Egypt. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how
Israel
gained in that "bargain?" The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
training
and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
tutelage.

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:50:00 -0400 Peter Kemp >
wrote:

:>On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...

:>>> Yep. We give the Israelis beaucoup bucks, and they turn around and
:>>> sell their most advanced military products to the PRC while
:>>> simultaneously engaging in espionage activities here in the US. One
:>>> hell of a two way street you got there.

:>>1. The money America "give" is subsidizing the American industries and
:>>hurting the Israeli industries.

:>Ten why does Israel accept it? Is the government really that stupid?

It allows the Israeli government to defer hard choices.

And, yes, it is stupid.

:>Or are they grateful for the aid in filling a big hole in their
:>budget?

Some are.

Some aren't, because making the hard choice would be much more beneficial in
the long term and thus accepting the money ends up hurting.

:>>2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
:>>subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
:>>and in many cases in quality.

:>And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
:>are "inferior" and "more expensive".

False.

Of course you can attempt to prove me wrong by supplying examples, but
supplying proof is rarely the interest of the typical Holocaust denier.

:> Again, is Israel really that
:>stupid or are you missing something.

Could be.

:>Something doesn't gel here. If Israel would be better off in terms of
:>cost and quality without the aid, then why take it?

It allows the Israeli government to defer making hard choices.

--
Binyamin Dissen >
http://www.dissensoftware.com

[Quant]

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
>
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
>
> >> Yep. We give the Israelis beaucoup bucks, and they turn around and
> >> sell their most advanced military products to the PRC while
> >> simultaneously engaging in espionage activities here in the US. One
> >> hell of a two way street you got there.
> >
> >1. The money America "give" is subsidizing the American industries and
> >hurting the Israeli industries.
>
> Ten why does Israel accept it? Is the government really that stupid?
> Or are they grateful for the aid in filling a big hole in their
> budget?
>
> >2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
> >subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
> >and in many cases in quality.
>
> And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
> are "inferior" and "more expensive". Again, is Israel really that
> stupid or are you missing something.
>

I also recommand you too take a look at the following sites:
http://www.iai.co.il/
http://www.rafael.co.il/
http://www.elbit.co.il/products11.htm

and here is a small message apearing now on Rafael site's frontpage:

"U.S. Air Force upgrades 47 targeting pods to Litening AT; completes
integration of Litening ER on F-16 Block 40, 50."

IAI, Elbit, (and soon Rafael too) are profitable companies. They
couldn't present wide variety of high quality products without having
customers.


> Something doesn't gel here. If Israel would be better off in terms of
> cost and quality without the aid, then why take it?

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:01:12 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:50:00 -0400 Peter Kemp >
>wrote:
>
>:>On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
>
>:>>2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
>:>>subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
>:>>and in many cases in quality.
>
>:>And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
>:>are "inferior" and "more expensive".
>
>False.
>
>Of course you can attempt to prove me wrong by supplying examples, but
>supplying proof is rarely the interest of the typical Holocaust denier.

Holocaust denier? Me? I suggest you alter your medication mate, as
I've said nothing of the sort *ever*, and I'd like to see you show one
iota of evidence that I have supported such notions.

As for proof, the IDF use of the M-16 vice the Galil, or the F-16 vice
the Lavi

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:42:39 -0400 Peter Kemp >
wrote:

:>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:01:12 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
> wrote:

:>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:50:00 -0400 Peter Kemp >
:>>wrote:

:>>:>On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:

:>>:>>2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
:>>:>>subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
:>>:>>and in many cases in quality.

:>>:>And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
:>>:>are "inferior" and "more expensive".

:>>False.

:>>Of course you can attempt to prove me wrong by supplying examples, but
:>>supplying proof is rarely the interest of the typical Holocaust denier.

:>Holocaust denier? Me? I suggest you alter your medication mate, as
:>I've said nothing of the sort *ever*, and I'd like to see you show one
:>iota of evidence that I have supported such notions.

:>As for proof, the IDF use of the M-16 vice the Galil, or the F-16 vice
:>the Lavi

Have you compared the prices of each to the GOI?

In these cases the inferior product is also cheaper.

--
Binyamin Dissen >
http://www.dissensoftware.com

[Quant]

Arie,

I just saw the following headline in Globes:

"Netanyahu undecided on using US loan guarantees this year".

(http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=702622&fid=942)


and I thought that whatever the reasons he has for not using the
guarantees, not using them will immediately project independence and
feeling of Israeli economic strength.

[Kevin Brooks]

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > > wrote in message >...
> > > > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > wrote in message >...
> > > > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Hebrew:
> > > > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > > > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > > > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > > > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > > > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > > > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> > > > >
> > > > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > > > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > > > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > > > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > > > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > Israeli defense contractors will be (very happy).
> > > Friendship between US and Israel is a two way street.
> >
> > Yep. We give the Israelis beaucoup bucks, and they turn around and
> > sell their most advanced military products to the PRC while
> > simultaneously engaging in espionage activities here in the US. One
> > hell of a two way street you got there.
> >
> > Brooks
>
>
>
> Brooks knows the facts but he doesn't let them to confuse him.

No, I just recognize the distinct difference between "facts" and the
laughable crud you have been peddling.

> 1. The money America "give" is subsidizing the American industries and
> hurting the Israeli industries.

So Israel is inherently *stupid*, accepting these funds against their
own best interests? LOL! I don't think so...do you?

> 2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
> subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
> and in many cases in quality.

That is a good one. Evidence of all of those rampant subsidies? And
when was the last time the international market screamed for delivery
of the latest *Israeli* automobiles, trucks, computers, aircraft,
etc.?

Instead of whining, develop your own
> better weapons and you don't have to worry that somebody else has
> better technology than yours.

Which really explains why israel buys so many "inferior* US weapons,
right? You apparently *do* think the israelis are stupid...

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

Binyamin Dissen > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:50:00 -0400 Peter Kemp >
> wrote:
>
> :>On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
>
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
>
> :>>> Yep. We give the Israelis beaucoup bucks, and they turn around and
> :>>> sell their most advanced military products to the PRC while
> :>>> simultaneously engaging in espionage activities here in the US. One
> :>>> hell of a two way street you got there.
>
> :>>1. The money America "give" is subsidizing the American industries and
> :>>hurting the Israeli industries.
>
> :>Ten why does Israel accept it? Is the government really that stupid?
>
> It allows the Israeli government to defer hard choices.
>
> And, yes, it is stupid.
>
> :>Or are they grateful for the aid in filling a big hole in their
> :>budget?
>
> Some are.
>
> Some aren't, because making the hard choice would be much more beneficial in
> the long term and thus accepting the money ends up hurting.
>
> :>>2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
> :>>subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
> :>>and in many cases in quality.
>
> :>And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
> :>are "inferior" and "more expensive".
>
> False.
>
> Of course you can attempt to prove me wrong by supplying examples, but
> supplying proof is rarely the interest of the typical Holocaust denier.

How ripe (and unfortunately, to be expected). Anytime someone is
critical of Israeli policies, or dares to differ with an
Israeli/Pro-Israeli, the old "racist/Holocaust denier" card is whipped
out. I mean, how DARE someone have the temerity to disagree with
Israeli policy--obvious evidence in that of a deep-seated
racial/religious prejudice.

Is it just me, or is there a serious logical disconnect in that
reasoning path?

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> On 3 Jul 2003 02:20:30 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
>
> >Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> >> On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
> >> >2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
> >> >subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
> >> >and in many cases in quality.
> >>
> >> And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
> >> are "inferior" and "more expensive". Again, is Israel really that
> >> stupid or are you missing something.
> >
> >You're wrong. America lost big contract to Israel in India.

Errr...say what? We only recently started selling the more benign
military products to India again after a few years of embargoing
military exports to them (unlike israel, we sometimes try to apply
*some* degree of moralistic control to our sales programs).

America is
> >losing big contracts in Europe (UAV's, Spike Anti Tank missilis
> >instead of the American Javelin for example), South America (Pyhton on
> >behalf of AIM-9 for example),

"Big contracts"? Yeah, sure...

Turkey (Sabra tanks instead of Abrams
> >tanks),

LOL! Let's wait and see if *any* tanks are procured--and BTW, aren't
those just M60A1 mods? Which is a US tank, right?

South Korea,

Yeah, there was a lot of competition from israel for the F-15K
contract, not to mention the recent Mk 41 VLS selection by the
ROKN...not.

Taiwan,

Taiwan being that country that is pursuing additional US weapons
deliveries as fast as they can get approval, right?

Eastern Europe. Israel is also leading in
> >the market of upgrading soviet era systems using advanced technology
> >etc.

Wow, now *that* is gonna define a true market leader, right? Can't
build much yourselves, but golly you are good at piling onto everybody
elses efforts...

Brooks

>
> Sorry, wasn't clear, I was referring to contracts within Israel.
> Things like the M-16 having displaced the damn good Galil simply
> because the M-16 could be paid for out of the aid (or so it appeared
> to this humble Brit).
>
> But since we seem to agree that the aid doesn't help Israel, we can
> leave it there.

[Kevin Brooks]

(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
>
> The MAIN reason why Israel
> > > gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
> > > Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
> > > opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
> > > states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
> > > It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.
> >
> > Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we
> > started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs.<
>
> Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions
> of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the
> aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its
> capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel
> as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was
> effectively
> jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both
> sides
> in the conflict.

Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the
very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich
would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel
*because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong.

>
>
> > From what
> > I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
> > increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
> > to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
> > agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
> > to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).<
>
> I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES

You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile
Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 67, of which no less a
figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to
face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial
gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)?

> since
> 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields
> that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but
> for the life
> of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which
> received
> from Israel a much improved Sinai!

Which is less than what we provide to Israel.

Not only does Israel lost strategic
> depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a
> similar
> amount of aid to Egypt.

Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel;
AIPAC would have it no other way.

Can you explain to me the rationale, or how
> Israel
> gained in that "bargain?"

They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care
to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to
Egypt? And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt
goes to non-military requirements as well?

The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
> training
> and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
> tutelage.

And is still no threat to Israel.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(Arie Kazachin) wrote in message >...
> In message > -
> (Kevin Brooks) writes:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> >> >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> >> >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> >> >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
>
> It started to happen gradually when Benjamin Netaniyahoo was at the
> PM post: Israel started on its own a multi-year initiative to reduce the
> aid sum by 100M$ per year. But he only stayed 3 years at this post -
> after failing to prevent Netaniyahoo's win in 1996, in 1999 elections
> the US made every effort to not let it fail again and with lots of
> US-funded pro-Barak "associations" Netaniyahoo lost to the most
> worthless PM I remember. Needless to say, Barak stopped the process
> of gradual reduction of aid that Netaniyahoo started. In general, US
> administrations from both sides prefare Israeli elections to be
> won by our left (which act to increase the ammount of aid we take) than by
> our right (which act to gradually decrease the ammount of aid). It almost
> looks like US administrations are not interested in Israel stopping
> asking for aid. Why? I had a hunch but you gave a figure few lines
> below which supports my hunch:

So the US is running Israeli elections? No more so (and probably a lot
less so)than AIPAC is influencing US elections.

>
> >> >
> >>
> >> American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> >> happen.
> >
> >Please. Take a gander at what portion of US defense exports go to
> >Israel; the last figures I found (covering 97-99) indicated that
> >Israel accounted for just over 5% of total US sales. Given that even
>
> Only 5% of US weapons given away for free to Israel? That explains why
> US administrations would prefare things to remain as they are now.

???

>
> The F-16 alone has about 800 changes in them suggested by IAF as a result
> of their operation and which worth billions to the F-16s manufacturer when
> selling to other states. In a similar way, almost any US weapon in IDF has
> lots of "bugs" found and reported, which translates to higher profits when
> selling to other states. Also, there are other issues that salespeople
> know worth a lot:

This hyperbole is unsupported. The US itself was operating the F-16,
along with NATO nations, before Israel ever put it into service.

>
> The first A-G use of F-16 was by IAF, the destruction of the Iraqi reactor.

So?

> The first A-A victory of F-16 also happened in IAF few weeks earlier.

So?

> The first A-A victory of F-15 also happened in IAF.

So?

>
> When a salesperson from General Dynamics (those old days, Lockheed today,
> IIRC) competes on a fat contract against, say a salesperson from Marcell
> Dassault (sp?) from one of these other 95% states, the words "our product
> had been tested by Israel" worth LOTS of money. So it makes a perfect
> business sense: give away 5% of weapons to Israel, which'll debug them
> and most probably use them in real combat and after that use the weapon
> record in IDF to rip profits from the remaining 95% of the market.

Methinks you exaggerate the the situation quite a bit.

>
> Like another poster mentioned in this thread, nothing is given for free.

And Israel can cease accepting that aid anytime it wants--but it does,
as you have noted, not desire to, seeing itself as being benefitted by
our largesse.

Brooks

[Quant]

Binyamin Dissen > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:42:39 -0400 Peter Kemp >
> wrote:
>
> :>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:01:12 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
> > wrote:
>
> :>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:50:00 -0400 Peter Kemp >
> :>>wrote:
>
> :>>:>On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
>
> :>>:>>2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
> :>>:>>subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
> :>>:>>and in many cases in quality.
>
> :>>:>And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
> :>>:>are "inferior" and "more expensive".
>
> :>>False.
>
> :>>Of course you can attempt to prove me wrong by supplying examples, but
> :>>supplying proof is rarely the interest of the typical Holocaust denier.
>
> :>Holocaust denier? Me? I suggest you alter your medication mate, as
> :>I've said nothing of the sort *ever*, and I'd like to see you show one
> :>iota of evidence that I have supported such notions.
>
> :>As for proof, the IDF use of the M-16 vice the Galil, or the F-16 vice
> :>the Lavi
>
> Have you compared the prices of each to the GOI?
>
> In these cases the inferior product is also cheaper.


Benny,
The Galil is too heavy for the infantry but Israel continues to use it
for the armored force and other units. For the near future the IDF
also preferred the excellent M-16 M4 on the new Israeli Tavor bullpup
but the main reason was the dollaric budget of the IDF (American guns
don't cost money to Israel, its part of the military aid).
The Lavi is irrelevant today. It was buried 20 years ago when the US
tried to prevent competition to the F-16.

The bottom line is that we all agree that Israel-US relations are a
mutual relations and that it's wrong to say that the US was "doing a
favor" to Israel when it decided to give financial/military aid to
Israel and to other states in the region.

[JGB]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
> >
> > The MAIN reason why Israel
> > > > gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
> > > > Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
> > > > opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
> > > > states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
> > > > It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.
> > >
> > > Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we
> > > started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs.<
> >
> > Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions
> > of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the
> > aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its
> > capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel
> > as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was
> > effectively
> > jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both
> > sides
> > in the conflict.
>
> Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the
> very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich
> would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel
> *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong.<

AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to
sell
AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually
borders
on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and
displace
Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf
States
in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition,
a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the
Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at
a
good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically
cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and
the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and
outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s,
more or less. That is the real
reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to
Israel, because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed
into
all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off
aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab
states
which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14
billion
dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME,
including
Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others.
>
> > > From what
> > > I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
> > > increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
> > > to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
> > > agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
> > > to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).<
> >
> > I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES
>
> You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile
> Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? <

And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it
captured
as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was
arming
and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev
and
murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Your
assumption
assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder
civilians
is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice
(the
1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with
Afghanistan
ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban
gov't.


>nd 67, of which no less a
> figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to
> face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial
> gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)?<

That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all.
Try
"The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters.
It is both a lie and totally libellous. Israel did its utmost NOT to
go
into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come
and
conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab
distortion
of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no
Marines
in Baghdad.

> > since
> > 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields
> > that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but
> > for the life
> > of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which
> > received
> > from Israel a much improved Sinai!

> Which is less than what we provide to Israel.
>
> Not only does Israel lost strategic
> > depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a
> > similar
> > amount of aid to Egypt.
>
> Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel;
> AIPAC would have it no other way.<

Not by much. $2.8 vs. $3. And why should EGypt get ANY??? It was the
aggressor
in 1948 and 1967, and indirectly in 1956 with Nasser's actions of
arming
terrorists and expropriating international properties by fiat.

> Can you explain to me the rationale, or how
> > Israel
> > gained in that "bargain?"

> They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care
> to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to
> Egypt?<

But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you
saying that
they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical
superiority
over Israel as well???

> And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt
> goes to non-military requirements as well?<

It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean.
But
I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it
also
cuts off all aid to Egypt and all arms sales to all sides in the
Middle East.
If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of
dollars worth
of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Do you
think that
Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world
wants
to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the
region!


> The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
> > training
> > and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
> > tutelage.
>
> And is still no threat to Israel.<

Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt,
against which
Israel has no defense, could be a very serious threat, particularly if
the
Egyptians acquired nukes. ANd there are those in the Egyptian
parliament
calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army
has
never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Unlike the past,
when it
was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with
F-16s,
M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite
good
US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they
pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael
would have no
alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could
defeat
the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past.
As
for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty
of Sedan
between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What
counts
is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be
repudiated
and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down
in
the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can
count
on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the
ME
would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch
to
survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows
any
relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars
in
the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the
region.
Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom.

[Quant]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> > On 3 Jul 2003 02:20:30 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
> >
> > >Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> > >> On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
> > >> >2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
> > >> >subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
> > >> >and in many cases in quality.
> > >>
> > >> And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
> > >> are "inferior" and "more expensive". Again, is Israel really that
> > >> stupid or are you missing something.
> > >
> > >You're wrong. America lost big contract to Israel in India.
>
> Errr...say what? We only recently started selling the more benign
> military products to India again after a few years of embargoing
> military exports to them (unlike israel, we sometimes try to apply
> *some* degree of moralistic control to our sales programs).
>

Again you continue to spread false arguments. India is heavily
depended on Arab oil and for years embargoed Israel and acted against
it on the UN. Only in 1992 Israel and India established diplomatic
relations for the first time.

All the major Israeli military sales to India happened on the last few
years.

Despite of it, today 50% of the Indian military import is coming from
Israel.



> America is
> > >losing big contracts in Europe (UAV's, Spike Anti Tank missilis
> > >instead of the American Javelin for example), South America (Pyhton on
> > >behalf of AIM-9 for example),
>
> "Big contracts"? Yeah, sure...
>


In Israeli terms its big contracts.

For example:
Armies using the airborne litening pod: US Air Force Reserve's and Air
National Guards for their F-16 Block 25/30/32 Fighting Falcon. Other
air forces operating the system include the US Marine Corps (AV-8B),
Israeli air Force (F-16), Spanish and Italian Navy (AV-8B) and Spanish
air force (F/A-18), German Air Force (Tornado IDS), and the Venezuela
(F-16A/B). The pods were also selected for South Africa's Grippens,
India's Mirage 2000, MiG-27 and Jaguar. The most recent inquiry for
the pods came in March, for a planned procurement of F-16s by Austria.
The pod is also fully integrated in the Eurofighter, F-5E, MiG-21 and
other types. Testing are underway to integrate the pod with Boeing
F-15I operated by the Israel Air Force.


> Turkey (Sabra tanks instead of Abrams
> > >tanks),
>
> LOL! Let's wait and see if *any* tanks are procured--and BTW, aren't
> those just M60A1 mods? Which is a US tank, right?
>

I'm glad you're laughing. It's important to know how to laugh after
you lost a contract.
700 million dollars are guaranteed to Israel, and if Turkey will
choose to upgrade 800 tanks, the Israeli industries will get another 2
billions.
But its upgraded M60's so you don't care about the money do you?



> South Korea,
>
> Yeah, there was a lot of competition from israel for the F-15K
> contract, not to mention the recent Mk 41 VLS selection by the
> ROKN...not.
>
> Taiwan,
>
> Taiwan being that country that is pursuing additional US weapons
> deliveries as fast as they can get approval, right?
>
> Eastern Europe. Israel is also leading in
> > >the market of upgrading soviet era systems using advanced technology
> > >etc.
>
> Wow, now *that* is gonna define a true market leader, right?

Nope, Israel with an economy of one-hundredth smaller than the
American economy is not intended to be THE market leader, but we are a
major player and growing while the market is shrinking. This is
despite the fact that we are competing against heavily subsidized
American industries.


> Can't
> build much yourselves, but golly you are good at piling onto everybody
> elses efforts...
>




> Brooks
>
> >
> > Sorry, wasn't clear, I was referring to contracts within Israel.
> > Things like the M-16 having displaced the damn good Galil simply
> > because the M-16 could be paid for out of the aid (or so it appeared
> > to this humble Brit).
> >
> > But since we seem to agree that the aid doesn't help Israel, we can
> > leave it there.

[JGB]

Lyle > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:54:10 +0200, > wrote:
>
> >On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> >wrote:
> >
> > wrote in message >...
> >>> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (Quant) wrote in message >...

> >American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> >happen.
> >
> why would they be upset, we just got done with a war, and we would use
> the money and that we would give them for their military to rearm
> ours.<

They would be upset not only because they would be denied the
GUARANTEED
$2 billion they get from the US treasury annually to build planes for
Israel, but also the loss of an additional $5 billion in profitable
arms sales annually to the Middle East ARab states in general, because
without arms sales to Israel, AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies would
cause a reimposition of
the ENTIRE embargo on arms sales to the region that was the law before
1961. But in addition, they would lose access to a few thousand good
Israeli
engineers that have helped upgrade US military technologies. The F-15I
was specified by the Israeli military. The Israeli designed Arrow II
theater
ABM system was designed in Israel, albeit 2/rds financed by the US. It
helped
the US circumvent the US-Soviet ABM treaty in its development, and its
technology and design also belongs to the US partner which can limit
its
sales by Israel to third parties. INdeed, Boeing will now be
manufacturing
Arrow IIs in the US. Indeed, the US and Israeli defense industries
have become
so intertwined at the design level that it is increasingly difficult
to know
where one begins and the other lets off.

[Richard Conway]

"Anthony" > wrote in message >...
> > France has been an enemy of Israel since the 1970s when the French
> > government sold Israel to the Arabs for a few litres of oil (paid good
> > (Mirages, ships, etc.) not delivered, orders suddenly cancelled, etc.).
> > Israel discovered decades ago that Europeans cannot be trusted, and the US
> > can (or at least is more trustworthy than Europe) so they deal with the US
> > not Europe.
>
> Ever hear the story where Israel relabelled Brazilian (?) oranges and goods
> produced in the illegally occupied territories as Israeli produce in order
> to defraud Europe?

Don't understand? What do you mean Brazilian? Defraud Europe with
what? This produce was produced using Palestinian arab labour they get
paid for it, what is Europe's response (largely due to arab and
"liberal" lobbying) boycott the products which also feed Palestinian
arabs. If anything Europe lacks common-sense.

> There is a group of people who cannot be trusted, and it isn't the
> Europeans.

We're still waiting for a full audit of every penny of the $2.5 bn
that was given to the Palestinians during Oslo. The audit has
conveniently not appeared. What is absolutely guarenteed though is
that the European parliament under the auspices of Chris Patten funded
incitement in the Palestinian education system and paid for large
shipments in arms which end up as shrapnel or empty shell casings in
Israeli towns.

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > -
(Kevin Brooks) writes:
>

[snip]

>
>So the US is running Israeli elections? No more so (and probably a lot
>less so)than AIPAC is influencing US elections.

In 1992 Israel was swamped by a wave
of new comers from the former USSR (10% of population in few short years)
and was asking for a loan guaranties from US. At the same period there was
a demand from US to start "advancing" in the so-called "peace process"
(as usuall, the "advance" is in the direction of the sea). Israely right
headed by Shamir was opposing US demand while Israely left headed by
Rabin was supporting it. So, shortly before the 1992 elections, the US
secretary of the state Jim Baker said: "Israeli voters should choose:
either they vote for Shamir or for the loan guaranties".
If that isn't "an offer we can't refuse" I don't know what it is.

But let's return to aircrafts:

>> The F-16 alone has about 800 changes in them suggested by IAF as a result
>> of their operation and which worth billions to the F-16s manufacturer when
>> selling to other states. In a similar way, almost any US weapon in IDF has
>> lots of "bugs" found and reported, which translates to higher profits when
>> selling to other states. Also, there are other issues that salespeople
>> know worth a lot:
>
>This hyperbole is unsupported. The US itself was operating the F-16,
>along with NATO nations, before Israel ever put it into service.


Imagine two aircraft salespersons attempting to make a fat deal
with a representative of some country. Salesperson A claims:

"For the last few years our aircrafts had been patroling
the airspace, practicing on firing ranges and in mock A-A engagements, etc".

Salesperson B claims:

"For the last few years our aircrafts attacked Iraqi reactor at range
slightly longer than the manufacturer stated and they also participated in
real A-A engagements and went out victorious at all times".

With all other factors being equal, I'm sure you'll agree that
salesperson B will make the sale because to the customer, real
combat experience is much more important that peace time operation.
And not only the customer knows that, the manufacturer knows too.
And it might make business sense to give away product to 5% of the market
it it can help get publicity and get higher profits from the remaining 95%
of the market.





************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[Kevin Brooks]

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> > > On 3 Jul 2003 02:20:30 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> > > >> On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote:
> > > >> >2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily
> > > >> >subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price
> > > >> >and in many cases in quality.
> > > >>
> > > >> And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that
> > > >> are "inferior" and "more expensive". Again, is Israel really that
> > > >> stupid or are you missing something.
> > > >
> > > >You're wrong. America lost big contract to Israel in India.
> >
> > Errr...say what? We only recently started selling the more benign
> > military products to India again after a few years of embargoing
> > military exports to them (unlike israel, we sometimes try to apply
> > *some* degree of moralistic control to our sales programs).
> >
>
> Again you continue to spread false arguments. India is heavily
> depended on Arab oil and for years embargoed Israel and acted against
> it on the UN. Only in 1992 Israel and India established diplomatic
> relations for the first time.

And maintained them while others were trying to limit arms deliveries
in light of their nuclear testing. That a great thing to be proud of.

>
> All the major Israeli military sales to India happened on the last few
> years.
>
> Despite of it, today 50% of the Indian military import is coming from
> Israel.

Ummm...you seem to be *ignoring* the question--WHAT great contract did
the US lose to israel? Being as we did not allow our companies to even
BID on Indian defense contracts for quite a few years, it will be
interesting to see your answer--come on, you made the claim, now back
it up.

>
>
>
> > America is
> > > >losing big contracts in Europe (UAV's, Spike Anti Tank missilis
> > > >instead of the American Javelin for example), South America (Pyhton on
> > > >behalf of AIM-9 for example),
> >
> > "Big contracts"? Yeah, sure...
> >
>
>
> In Israeli terms its big contracts.
>
> For example:
> Armies using the airborne litening pod: US Air Force Reserve's and Air
> National Guards for their F-16 Block 25/30/32 Fighting Falcon. Other
> air forces operating the system include the US Marine Corps (AV-8B),
> Israeli air Force (F-16), Spanish and Italian Navy (AV-8B) and Spanish
> air force (F/A-18), German Air Force (Tornado IDS), and the Venezuela
> (F-16A/B). The pods were also selected for South Africa's Grippens,
> India's Mirage 2000, MiG-27 and Jaguar. The most recent inquiry for
> the pods came in March, for a planned procurement of F-16s by Austria.
> The pod is also fully integrated in the Eurofighter, F-5E, MiG-21 and
> other types. Testing are underway to integrate the pod with Boeing
> F-15I operated by the Israel Air Force.

Great. You have developed a good pod (which IIRC the US partner firm
has improved). Now, can you demonstrate any other wonderful bids you
have taken home against US competition?

>
>
> > Turkey (Sabra tanks instead of Abrams
> > > >tanks),
> >
> > LOL! Let's wait and see if *any* tanks are procured--and BTW, aren't
> > those just M60A1 mods? Which is a US tank, right?
> >
>
> I'm glad you're laughing. It's important to know how to laugh after
> you lost a contract.
> 700 million dollars are guaranteed to Israel, and if Turkey will
> choose to upgrade 800 tanks, the Israeli industries will get another 2
> billions.
> But its upgraded M60's so you don't care about the money do you?

So you are crowing that they chose to upgrade old US products because
they could not afford to purchase their first choice (the M1 series)?
Israel gets a "leftovers" upgrade contract (which IIRC is still in
question as to whether or not the program will actually come to
fruition due to Turkish budgeting problems). Wow.

>
>
>
> > South Korea,
> >
> > Yeah, there was a lot of competition from israel for the F-15K
> > contract, not to mention the recent Mk 41 VLS selection by the
> > ROKN...not.

So you can't show where Israel beat out the US in direct competition
in the ROK either. Why am I not surprised?


> >
> > Taiwan,
> >
> > Taiwan being that country that is pursuing additional US weapons
> > deliveries as fast as they can get approval, right?

Repeat comment from above, insert "Taiwan" in place of ROK.

> >
> > Eastern Europe. Israel is also leading in
> > > >the market of upgrading soviet era systems using advanced technology
> > > >etc.
> >
> > Wow, now *that* is gonna define a true market leader, right?
>
> Nope, Israel with an economy of one-hundredth smaller than the
> American economy is not intended to be THE market leader, but we are a
> major player and growing while the market is shrinking. This is
> despite the fact that we are competing against heavily subsidized
> American industries.

One last time--show us where you are competing directly against US
firms. Surely not in the PRC with your Phalcon attempts, not to
mention falling all over yourselves trying to sell that radar for the
J-10 fighter, and the helmet mounted sight, and the advanced
Pythons...

Brooks

>
>
> > Can't
> > build much yourselves, but golly you are good at piling onto everybody
> > elses efforts...
> >
>
>
>
>
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry, wasn't clear, I was referring to contracts within Israel.
> > > Things like the M-16 having displaced the damn good Galil simply
> > > because the M-16 could be paid for out of the aid (or so it appeared
> > > to this humble Brit).
> > >
> > > But since we seem to agree that the aid doesn't help Israel, we can
> > > leave it there.

[Kevin Brooks]

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (Arie Kazachin) wrote in message >...
> > > In message > -
> > > (Kevin Brooks) writes:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >> >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > > >> >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > > >> >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > > >> >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > >
> > > It started to happen gradually when Benjamin Netaniyahoo was at the
> > > PM post: Israel started on its own a multi-year initiative to reduce the
> > > aid sum by 100M$ per year. But he only stayed 3 years at this post -
> > > after failing to prevent Netaniyahoo's win in 1996, in 1999 elections
> > > the US made every effort to not let it fail again and with lots of
> > > US-funded pro-Barak "associations" Netaniyahoo lost to the most
> > > worthless PM I remember. Needless to say, Barak stopped the process
> > > of gradual reduction of aid that Netaniyahoo started. In general, US
> > > administrations from both sides prefare Israeli elections to be
> > > won by our left (which act to increase the ammount of aid we take) than by
> > > our right (which act to gradually decrease the ammount of aid). It almost
> > > looks like US administrations are not interested in Israel stopping
> > > asking for aid. Why? I had a hunch but you gave a figure few lines
> > > below which supports my hunch:
> >
> > So the US is running Israeli elections? No more so (and probably a lot
> > less so)than AIPAC is influencing US elections.
> >
>
>
> Its just shows how much the US and Israel are close to each other.

"Close" to each other? Ever heard of Pollard? Or the DoD analysis of
the major espionage threats facing the US (hint--Israel was waaay up
that list)? Selling every weapon you can to the PRC? And you call that
*close*?

Brooks

<snip>

[Kevin Brooks]

(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
> > >
> > > The MAIN reason why Israel
> > > > > gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
> > > > > Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
> > > > > opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
> > > > > states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
> > > > > It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.
> > > >
> > > > Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we
> > > > started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs.<
> > >
> > > Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions
> > > of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the
> > > aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its
> > > capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel
> > > as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was
> > > effectively
> > > jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both
> > > sides
> > > in the conflict.
> >
> > Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the
> > very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich
> > would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel
> > *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong.<
>
> AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to
> sell
> AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually
> borders
> on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and
> displace
> Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf
> States
> in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition,
> a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the
> Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at
> a
> good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically
> cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and
> the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and
> outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s,

IIRC the date for the AWACS sales, not to mention the other advanced
arms going to Arab nations, was in the *80's*. Which is quite a bit
AFTER we had already been bankrolling Israel. So your argument that
all of the aid was quid pro quo for sales to the Arabs appears to be
baseless.

> more or less. That is the real
> reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to
> Israel,

No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions.

because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed
> into
> all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off
> aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab
> states

Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it
would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off.


> which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14
> billion
> dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME,
> including
> Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others.
> >
> > > > From what
> > > > I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
> > > > increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
> > > > to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
> > > > agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
> > > > to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).<
> > >
> > > I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES
> >
> > You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile
> > Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? <
>
> And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it
> captured
> as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was
> arming
> and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev
> and
> murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards.

Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and
had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise
is just plain wrong. You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the
reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab
shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break...

Your
> assumption
> assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder
> civilians
> is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice
> (the
> 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with
> Afghanistan
> ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban
> gov't.

Stretch much?

>
>
> >nd 67, of which no less a
> > figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to
> > face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial
> > gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)?<
>
> That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all.

Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli
press at the time with that disagreement.

> Try
> "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters.
> It is both a lie and totally libellous.

No, it is not.

Israel did its utmost NOT to
> go
> into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come
> and
> conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab
> distortion
> of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no
> Marines
> in Baghdad.

You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you
can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising.

>
> > > since
> > > 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields
> > > that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but
> > > for the life
> > > of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which
> > > received
> > > from Israel a much improved Sinai!
>
> > Which is less than what we provide to Israel.
> >
> > Not only does Israel lost strategic
> > > depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a
> > > similar
> > > amount of aid to Egypt.
> >
> > Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel;
> > AIPAC would have it no other way.<
>
> Not by much. $2.8 vs. $3. And why should EGypt get ANY??? It was the
> aggressor
> in 1948 and 1967, and indirectly in 1956 with Nasser's actions of
> arming
> terrorists and expropriating international properties by fiat.

$3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit:

"For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given
Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid
allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department
of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72
billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound
interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to
give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS
tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli
charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax
deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280
million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax
deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September
30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers
over $10 billion."

Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer


>
> > Can you explain to me the rationale, or how
> > > Israel
> > > gained in that "bargain?"
>
> > They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care
> > to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to
> > Egypt?<
>
> But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you
> saying that
> they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical
> superiority
> over Israel as well???

Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel.

>
> > And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt
> > goes to non-military requirements as well?<
>
> It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean.

I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other
day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/


> But
> I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it
> also
> cuts off all aid to Egypt

But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such
a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid?

and all arms sales to all sides in the
> Middle East.

Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel
stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US
(like the PRC) in return?

> If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of
> dollars worth
> of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime!

Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard
to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long.

Do you
> think that
> Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world
> wants
> to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the
> region!

The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI.

>
>
> > The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
> > > training
> > > and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
> > > tutelage.
> >
> > And is still no threat to Israel.<
>
> Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt,
> against which
> Israel has no defense,

What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded
Arrow?

could be a very serious threat, particularly if
> the
> Egyptians acquired nukes.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE
nukes.


ANd there are those in the Egyptian
> parliament
> calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army
> has
> never been a greater threat to Israel than today.

Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put
out this kind of farcificial nonsense.

Unlike the past,
> when it
> was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with
> F-16s,
> M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite
> good
> US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they
> pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael
> would have no
> alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could
> defeat
> the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past.
> As
> for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty
> of Sedan
> between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What
> counts
> is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be
> repudiated
> and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down
> in
> the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can
> count
> on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the
> ME
> would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch
> to
> survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows
> any
> relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars
> in
> the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the
> region.
> Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom.

More pure BS.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(Richard Conway) wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message >...
> > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message >...
> > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hebrew:
> > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > >> >
> > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > >>
> > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> > >
> > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > >
> >
> > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > happen.
>
> Absolutely! 75% of that aid MUST be spent on American hardware.

Nope. Not if you are looking at the TOTAL aid package, of which the
direct military credits makes up only a relatively small portion. And
if we were not selling to Israel, how much *more* could we sell to
Arab nations (most of whom actually *pay* for their purchases
themselves)?

Brooks

[Quant]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (Richard Conway) wrote in message >...
> > > wrote in message >...
> > > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > wrote in message >...
> > > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Hebrew:
> > > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > > >>
> > > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> > > >
> > > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > > >
> > >
> > > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > > happen.
> >
> > Absolutely! 75% of that aid MUST be spent on American hardware.
>
> Nope. Not if you are looking at the TOTAL aid package, of which the
> direct military credits makes up only a relatively small portion.

Again and again, you're spreading false arguments.
USD 600 mn are the direct aid.
USD 2100 mn are the military aid.

=>

78% - must be spent on American products


> And
> if we were not selling to Israel, how much *more* could we sell to
> Arab nations (most of whom actually *pay* for their purchases
> themselves)?
>
> Brooks


If you were not selling to Israel you couldn't sell so much as you
already did to the Arabs because it would cause Israel to lose its
superiority and the consequence will be a full war in the Mideast.

[JGB]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message

> > > > The MAIN reason why Israel
> > > > > > gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
> > > > > > Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
> > > > > > opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
> > > > > > states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
> > > > > > It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.
> > > > >
> > > > > Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we
> > > > > started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs.<
> > > >
> > > > Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions
> > > > of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the
> > > > aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its
> > > > capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel
> > > > as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was
> > > > effectively
> > > > jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both
> > > > sides
> > > > in the conflict.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the
> > > very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich
> > > would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel
> > > *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong.<

Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks.
It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help.
It's been losing ground literally ever since.

> > AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to
> > sell
> > AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually
> > borders
> > on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and
> > displace
> > Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf
> > States
> > in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition,
> > a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the
> > Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at
> > a
> > good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically
> > cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and
> > the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and
> > outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s,
>
> IIRC the date for the AWACS sales, not to mention the other advanced
> arms going to Arab nations, was in the *80's*. Which is quite a bit
> AFTER we had already been bankrolling Israel. So your argument that
> all of the aid was quid pro quo for sales to the Arabs appears to be
> baseless.<

ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began.
In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s.
I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided
that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce
its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided
for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams
M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs.

> > more or less. That is the real
> > reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to
> > Israel,
>
> No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions.<

Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated
out in the last 20 years. If anything, it would be the Christian Right
that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided
aid and arms embargo on Israel.

> because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed
> > into
> > all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off
> > aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab
> > states
>
> Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it
> would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off.<

Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B
to its enemies annually? That would be nuts. Let the US embargo BOTH sides,
and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber
Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does.


> > which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14
> > billion
> > dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME,
> > including
> > Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others.
> > >
> > > > > From what
> > > > > I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
> > > > > increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
> > > > > to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
> > > > > agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
> > > > > to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).<
> > > >
> > > > I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES
> > >
> > > You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile
> > > Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? <
> >
> > And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it
> > captured
> > as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was
> > arming
> > and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev
> > and
> > murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards.
>
> Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and
> had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise
> is just plain wrong.<

No it ain't! Israel lost a helluva lot more people proportionately to its
population in the 1950s then America lost in 9/11. Probably ten times as many
proportionately. I lived in Israel and heard plenty about fedayeen terrorization
of the Negev in the 1950s.

>You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the
> reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab
> shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break...<

No breaks, and I can PROVE everything I say if you wish.

> Your
> > assumption
> > assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder
> > civilians
> > is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice
> > (the
> > 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with
> > Afghanistan
> > ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban
> > gov't.
>
> Stretch much?<

Hardly. I understate the case. Imagine if thousands of Americans in the
Southwest were being murdered by Mexican terrorists. How long would it take
for the US to invade Mexico? Think General Pershing in 1916.
>
> >
> >
> > >nd 67, of which no less a
> > > figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to
> > > face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial
> > > gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)?<

>
> > That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all.
>
> Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli
> press at the time with that disagreement.<

REFERENCE, please! Actual source text, in Hebrew or English, as you wish. I can
read either.

>
> > Try
> > "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters.
> > It is both a lie and totally libellous.
>
>
> Israel did its utmost NOT to
> > go
> > into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come
> > and
> > conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab
> > distortion
> > of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no
> > Marines
> > in Baghdad.
>
> You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you
> can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising.<

Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas,
and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies.

> $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit:
>
> "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given
> Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid
> allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department
> of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72
> billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound
> interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to
> give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS
> tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli
> charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax
> deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280
> million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax
> deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September
> 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers
> over $10 billion."
>
> Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer<

Yeah, a totally honest Arab source.

> > > Can you explain to me the rationale, or how
> > > > Israel
> > > > gained in that "bargain?"
>
> > > They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care
> > > to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to
> > > Egypt?<
> >
> > But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you
> > saying that
> > they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical
> > superiority
> > over Israel as well???
>
> Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel.<

I don't accept your figures as being factual. MOre fictional than factual.

> > > And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt
> > > goes to non-military requirements as well?<
> >
> > It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean.
>
> I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other
> day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/
>
>
> > But
> > I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it
> > also
> > cuts off all aid to Egypt
>
> But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such
> a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid?
>
> and all arms sales to all sides in the
> > Middle East.
>
> Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel
> stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US
> (like the PRC) in return?<

If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would
support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone
else the US considers a mortal threat.

> > If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of
> > dollars worth
> > of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime!
>
> Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard
> to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long.<

Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit
from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it.

> Do you
> > think that
> > Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world
> > wants
> > to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the
> > region!
>
> The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI.<

Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better
tank, the Merkava II.

> > > The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
> > > > training
> > > > and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
> > > > tutelage.
> > >
> > > And is still no threat to Israel.<
> >
> > Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt,
> > against which
> > Israel has no defense,
>
> What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded
> Arrow?<

You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War
which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans, or do
you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but
mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an
Israeli project?

> could be a very serious threat, particularly if
> > the
> > Egyptians acquired nukes.
>
> If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE
> nukes.<

So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII.
>
> ANd there are those in the Egyptian
> > parliament
> > calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army
> > has
> > never been a greater threat to Israel than today.
>
> Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put
> out this kind of farcificial nonsense.<

How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a
MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much
about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly.
It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint.

>
> Unlike the past,
> > when it
> > was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with
> > F-16s,
> > M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite
> > good
> > US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they
> > pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael
> > would have no
> > alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could
> > defeat
> > the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past.
> > As
> > for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty
> > of Sedan
> > between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What
> > counts
> > is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be
> > repudiated
> > and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down
> > in
> > the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can
> > count
> > on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the
> > ME
> > would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch
> > to
> > survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows
> > any
> > relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars
> > in
> > the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the
> > region.
> > Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom.
>
> More pure BS.<

Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the
Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US
was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to
put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of
Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing
WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly
arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid
nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened.

[Kevin Brooks]

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (Richard Conway) wrote in message >...
> > > > wrote in message >...
> > > > On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > wrote in message >...
> > > > >> On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > > >> >> This post is specially for brooks.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Hebrew:
> > > > >> >> http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes/docView.asp?did=701548
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project
> > > > >> >> because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only
> > > > >> >> Boeing planes by El Al.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn
> > > > >> >down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from
> > > > >> >the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on
> > > > >> >this contract as much as you want
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo.
> > > > >
> > > > >LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient
> > > > >points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out
> > > > >that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and
> > > > >any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you
> > > > >won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > > Absolutely! 75% of that aid MUST be spent on American hardware.
> >
> > Nope. Not if you are looking at the TOTAL aid package, of which the
> > direct military credits makes up only a relatively small portion.
>
> Again and again, you're spreading false arguments.
> USD 600 mn are the direct aid.
> USD 2100 mn are the military aid.

Depends on how you look at it:

"For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given
Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid
allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department
of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72
billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound
interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to
give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS
tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli
charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax
deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280
million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax
deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September
30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers
over $10 billion."

Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

This was tagged onto a report from a USian who had just noted the
destructive acts of Israelis from the Beit Hadassah settlement aimed
at a USAID improvement project in Hebron (vandalism, even stone
throwing at construcion workers--and wouldn't you know it, *none* of
those Israeli stonethrowers were shot by the IDF...go figure).

>
> =>
>
> 78% - must be spent on American products
>
>
> > And
> > if we were not selling to Israel, how much *more* could we sell to
> > Arab nations (most of whom actually *pay* for their purchases
> > themselves)?
> >
> > Brooks
>
>
> If you were not selling to Israel you couldn't sell so much as you
> already did to the Arabs because it would cause Israel to lose its
> superiority and the consequence will be a full war in the Mideast.

Yeah, right. But weren't you just spouting off about how *Israeli* are
so superior to USian products?

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
>
> The MAIN reason why Israel
> > > > > > > gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt,
> > > > > > > Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without
> > > > > > > opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other
> > > > > > > states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to.
> > > > > > > It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we
> > > > > > started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs.<
> > > > >
> > > > > Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions
> > > > > of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the
> > > > > aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its
> > > > > capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel
> > > > > as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was
> > > > > effectively
> > > > > jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both
> > > > > sides
> > > > > in the conflict.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the
> > > > very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich
> > > > would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel
> > > > *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong.<
>
> Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks.
> It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help.
> It's been losing ground literally ever since.

None of which has anything to do with the false claim that we only
provided Israel with aid after deciding to sell advanced weapons to
neighboring Arab nations. Stick with the subject at hand and control
your rants.

>
> > > AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to
> > > sell
> > > AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually
> > > borders
> > > on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and
> > > displace
> > > Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf
> > > States
> > > in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition,
> > > a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the
> > > Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at
> > > a
> > > good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically
> > > cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and
> > > the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and
> > > outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s,
> >
> > IIRC the date for the AWACS sales, not to mention the other advanced
> > arms going to Arab nations, was in the *80's*. Which is quite a bit
> > AFTER we had already been bankrolling Israel. So your argument that
> > all of the aid was quid pro quo for sales to the Arabs appears to be
> > baseless.<
>
> ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began.
> In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s.
> I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided
> that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce
> its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided
> for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams
> M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs.

No, we don't use the Python AAM (and Python is not an "AMRAAM"). So
you are zero for two right there. And again, nothing you have said
disputes the fact that US aid to Israel predates the sale of advanced
US arms to the Arab nations.


>
> > > more or less. That is the real
> > > reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to
> > > Israel,
> >
> > No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions.<
>
> Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated
> out in the last 20 years.

Nope. But then again, this "rich Jew" bit is your construct, not mine.
I find it generally advisable to stay away from such pedantic
characterizations.

If anything, it would be the Christian Right
> that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided
> aid and arms embargo on Israel.

They would indeed be a problem in that regard--and this is the very
first uttering you have made which is close to being on-target and
correct. Congratulations--maybe you can now reword your earlier rants
and bring them back into the realm of the discussion at hand.

>
> > because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed
> > > into
> > > all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off
> > > aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab
> > > states
> >
> > Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it
> > would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off.<
>
> Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B
> to its enemies annually? That would be nuts.

This started as a case of an individual whining about Israel losing
potential sales due to its dependence upon US systems. If they want to
cut the apron strings, fine--all they have to do is say "no" to the
aid. But taking the aid and then whining about its repercussions is a
bit of the old "having your cake and eating it too".

Let the US embargo BOTH sides,
> and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber
> Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does.

Hard to do that, as Israel is a major foreign supplier of military
goods to the PRC. Israel turned its back on Taiwan in order to further
ingratiate itself with the PRC, and Israelis still periodically whine
over the US putting its foot down over their proposed sale of the
Phalcon radar system to the PLAAF for their AWACS program. The loudest
and most shrill scream you'd hear in response to your proposal would
be from the Israelis, who look upon the PRC as a serious potential
cash cow.

>
>
> > > which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14
> > > billion
> > > dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME,
> > > including
> > > Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others.
> > > >
> > > > > > From what
> > > > > > I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
> > > > > > increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
> > > > > > to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
> > > > > > agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
> > > > > > to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).<
> > > > >
> > > > > I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES
> > > >
> > > > You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile
> > > > Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? <
> > >
> > > And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it
> > > captured
> > > as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was
> > > arming
> > > and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev
> > > and
> > > murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards.
> >
> > Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and
> > had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise
> > is just plain wrong.<
>
> No it ain't!

Yes, it is.

Israel lost a helluva lot more people proportionately to its
> population in the 1950s then America lost in 9/11. Probably ten times as many
> proportionately. I lived in Israel and heard plenty about fedayeen terrorization
> of the Negev in the 1950s.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Israel coveted the
West Bank and the area around Jerusalem, and none of which disputes
the *fact* that they were indeed in cahoots with the Anglo-French plan
to repossess the Suez Canal, which would have left Israel with the
entire Sinai.

>
> >You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the
> > reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab
> > shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break...<
>
> No breaks, and I can PROVE everything I say if you wish.

Hell, you can't even prove that strange bit about the US using Pythion
AAM's to arm its aircraft, so just how the heck are you gonna do it
for this case?

>
> > Your
> > > assumption
> > > assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder
> > > civilians
> > > is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice
> > > (the
> > > 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with
> > > Afghanistan
> > > ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban
> > > gov't.
> >
> > Stretch much?<
>
> Hardly. I understate the case. Imagine if thousands of Americans in the
> Southwest were being murdered by Mexican terrorists. How long would it take
> for the US to invade Mexico? Think General Pershing in 1916.

We did not keep Vera Cruz (actually predating the 1916 bit, IIRC--my
granddaddy was there...), now did we?

> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >nd 67, of which no less a
> > > > figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to
> > > > face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial
> > > > gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)?<
>
>
> > > That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all.
> >
> > Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli
> > press at the time with that disagreement.<
>
> REFERENCE, please! Actual source text, in Hebrew or English, as you wish. I can
> read either.

Menachem Begin: "In June 1967 we...had a choice. The Egyptian army
concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982).

There is even more than that which he had to say, but that was the
result of a quick check--do a google and you can find more.

>
> >
> > > Try
> > > "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters.
> > > It is both a lie and totally libellous.
> >
> >
> > Israel did its utmost NOT to
> > > go
> > > into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come
> > > and
> > > conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab
> > > distortion
> > > of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no
> > > Marines
> > > in Baghdad.
> >
> > You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you
> > can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising.<
>
> Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas,
> and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies.
>
> > $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit:
> >
> > "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given
> > Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid
> > allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department
> > of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72
> > billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound
> > interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to
> > give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS
> > tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli
> > charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax
> > deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280
> > million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax
> > deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September
> > 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers
> > over $10 billion."
> >
> > Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer<
>
> Yeah, a totally honest Arab source.

Nope, a US source, with past members of the Board of Directors
including the likes of the old Senator Fullbright.

>
> > > > Can you explain to me the rationale, or how
> > > > > Israel
> > > > > gained in that "bargain?"
>
> > > > They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care
> > > > to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to
> > > > Egypt?<
> > >
> > > But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you
> > > saying that
> > > they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical
> > > superiority
> > > over Israel as well???
> >
> > Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel.<
>
> I don't accept your figures as being factual. MOre fictional than factual.

Coming from someone who thinks we are using Pythons...

>
> > > > And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt
> > > > goes to non-military requirements as well?<
> > >
> > > It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean.
> >
> > I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other
> > day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/
> >
> >
> > > But
> > > I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it
> > > also
> > > cuts off all aid to Egypt
> >
> > But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such
> > a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid?
> >
> > and all arms sales to all sides in the
> > > Middle East.
> >
> > Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel
> > stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US
> > (like the PRC) in return?<
>
> If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would
> support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone
> else the US considers a mortal threat.
>
> > > If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of
> > > dollars worth
> > > of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime!
> >
> > Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard
> > to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long.<
>
> Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit
> from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it.

LOL! On a per capita basis, only to the tune of around $14 thousand
per year (that is per Israeli citizen).

>
> > Do you
> > > think that
> > > Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world
> > > wants
> > > to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the
> > > region!
> >
> > The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI.<
>
> Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better
> tank, the Merkava II.

The statement was they were living in M1 tanks--kind of hard to do
when they have none.

>
> > > > The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
> > > > > training
> > > > > and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
> > > > > tutelage.
> > > >
> > > > And is still no threat to Israel.<
> > >
> > > Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt,
> > > against which
> > > Israel has no defense,
> >
> > What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded
> > Arrow?<
>
> You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War
> which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans,

Get a grip, PAC 3 is NOT an Israeli modification.

or do
> you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but
> mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an
> Israeli project?

LOL! That's a hoot. And that is NOT the reason--try again.

>
> > could be a very serious threat, particularly if
> > > the
> > > Egyptians acquired nukes.
> >
> > If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE
> > nukes.<
>
> So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII.

Groannn....so you want to make this a racial/religious argument?

> >
> > ANd there are those in the Egyptian
> > > parliament
> > > calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army
> > > has
> > > never been a greater threat to Israel than today.
> >
> > Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put
> > out this kind of farcificial nonsense.<
>
> How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a
> MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much
> about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly.
> It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint.

It ain't a major threat. If you think it is, provide proof otherwise.

>
> >
> > Unlike the past,
> > > when it
> > > was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with
> > > F-16s,
> > > M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite
> > > good
> > > US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they
> > > pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael
> > > would have no
> > > alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could
> > > defeat
> > > the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past.
> > > As
> > > for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty
> > > of Sedan
> > > between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What
> > > counts
> > > is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be
> > > repudiated
> > > and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down
> > > in
> > > the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can
> > > count
> > > on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the
> > > ME
> > > would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch
> > > to
> > > survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows
> > > any
> > > relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars
> > > in
> > > the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the
> > > region.
> > > Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom.
> >
> > More pure BS.<
>
> Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the
> Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US
> was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to
> put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of
> Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing
> WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly
> arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid
> nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened.

You are drifting further and further off the line of discussion....

Brooks

[JGB]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message


> > Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks.
> > It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help.
> > It's been losing ground literally ever since.
>
> None of which has anything to do with the false claim that we only
> provided Israel with aid after deciding to sell advanced weapons to
> neighboring Arab nations. Stick with the subject at hand and control
> your rants.<

The first sale of modern weapons to Israel was with the Hawk sale by
Kennedy in 1962, BECAUSE (a) Egypt had gotten medium bombers from
the USSR, and (2) the Dimona reactor would have been threatened by
those bombers which would have forced Israel to attack Egypt. In
exchange,
Kennedy forced ISrael to receive US inspectors of the Dimona plant
annually,
which went on till the beginning of the Nixon administration. It was
cancelled because both sides got tired of the charade, where ISrael
hid
its bomb-making capabilities and the US knew it but couldn't prove it
despite the inspections. But afterwards Israel did practically beg the
US
to sell aircraft to ISrael, with no results except for a few old
Skyhawks.
Meanwhile, the USSR was stuffing Egypt and Syria full of its most
modern
arms, which fortunately were less capable than the French and British
arms
that Israel did manage to maintain. But after '67, the US did start to
arm
Israel with F-4 Phantoms, and the US began to coax the Saudis and
others to
buy US arms instead of British arms as had been the norm till then. As
the
US took over protection of the Persian Gulf from the Brits, US arms
sales
to the Saudis, the UAE and Jordan rose concomitantly. The US embargo
on
both sides was over. By the 1980s, the US was selling the Arabs much
more
than to Israel, and the understanding I spoke of became the defacto
rule
in order to stifle excessive AIPAC and other opposition to the US
selling
more arms in dollar terms than is sold to Israel. But the latter fact
is
never mentioned in the media, that the US sells more to the ARabs than
to Israel. I guess that's due to Jewish control of the media :)


> > ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began.
> > In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s.
> > I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided
> > that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce
> > its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided
> > for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams
> > M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs.
>
> No, we don't use the Python AAM (and Python is not an "AMRAAM").<

Sorry, I meant AAM. I had heard that the US does use the Python AAM.
Was
I misinformed?

> you are zero for two right there. And again, nothing you have said
> disputes the fact that US aid to Israel predates the sale of advanced
> US arms to the Arab nations.<

If that's the case, let the US and its allies stop selling arms to the
Arabs,
and see if I object to our cutting off aid to Israel. Indeed, I AM
FOR A
CUTOFF OF AID TO ISRAEL, provided that all aid and arms sales to the
ARabs
and hostile Muslim states is also cut off by the US and all other
major powers.
I'm as sick of Israel having to be a "schnorrer" state as anyone. But
as long
as the major powers, particularly the US, arms its enemies to the
teeth,
and they outnumber ISrael 100 to 1, and have all that cheap oil under
their
feet to pay for them without having to work for a living, I have to
reluctantly
accept that ISrael will need aid to offset all of that. I'll make you
a bet.
Let's start a major campaign to have aid to Israel cut off completely,
PROVIDED it is linked to a cut off of arms sales to the Arabs and
let's see
who objects louder, the ISraelis or the US defense contractors! My
money
says that it will be the US defense contractors that will leap to the
defense of aid to Israel with much greater fervor than the Israeli
government.
Wanna bet?


> > > > more or less. That is the real
> > > > reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to
> > > > Israel,
> > >
> > > No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions.<
> >
> > Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated
> > out in the last 20 years.
>
> Nope. But then again, this "rich Jew" bit is your construct, not mine.
> I find it generally advisable to stay away from such pedantic
> characterizations.<

Your characterization that the entire Congress is held captive by a
tiny
number of rich JEws operating through AIPAC is equally ludicrous. Most
of
Congress takes the position it does because of the defense industries
in
their districts, most of which have very few JEws living in them.

> If anything, it would be the Christian Right
> > that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided
> > aid and arms embargo on Israel.
>
> They would indeed be a problem in that regard--and this is the very
> first uttering you have made which is close to being on-target and
> correct. Congratulations--maybe you can now reword your earlier rants
> and bring them back into the realm of the discussion at hand.<

If there wasn't a single JEw left in America, and no AIPAC, there
wouldn't
be much of a difference. Millions of Bible-believing Christians will
not
allow us to sell the Arabs all the arms they can pay for with the oil
under
their feet, while cutting off all aid to ISrael to help pay for its
own
defense against 100 to 1 numerical superiority. Even if it wasn't
Israel; even
it was Taiwan instead, the fairness of the American give anybody in a
similar posture a fighting chance. Whatever one may say about the
American people, they are innately fair by nature.

>
> >
> > > because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed
> > > > into
> > > > all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off
> > > > aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab
> > > > states
> > >
> > > Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it
> > > would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off.<
> >
> > Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B
> > to its enemies annually? That would be nuts.
>
> This started as a case of an individual whining about Israel losing
> potential sales due to its dependence upon US systems. If they want to
> cut the apron strings, fine--all they have to do is say "no" to the
> aid. But taking the aid and then whining about its repercussions is a
> bit of the old "having your cake and eating it too".<

Alas you are not aware of what is going on inside ISrael. US companies
are
buying up Israeli defense companies and spiriting their engineers away
to California! From the Israeli perspective, it is big America
limiting their
defense industry and cherry picking off the cream of their brainpower!
Raytheon, Boeing, TRW, et. al, are gutting ISrael companies that have
recently
been privatized, luring their best people away, or forcing those who
are
trying to remain independent to relocate as US companies in California
(and elsewhere) thereby moving their corporate headquarters, with all
the
jobs that corporate headquarters usually generate, "offshore" TO THE
US!!!
The US is NOT a sucker country! When it gives with one hand, it
eventually
takes back with the other! I'm not being critical of American
generosity, but
when it comes to business, Americans are not the patsies as some would
want
to believe. The US did not go into business 227 years ago to make a
loss!
Happy Fourth of July.


>
> Let the US embargo BOTH sides,
> > and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber
> > Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does.
>
> Hard to do that, as Israel is a major foreign supplier of military
> goods to the PRC. Israel turned its back on Taiwan in order to further
> ingratiate itself with the PRC, and Israelis still periodically whine
> over the US putting its foot down over their proposed sale of the
> Phalcon radar system to the PLAAF for their AWACS program. The loudest
> and most shrill scream you'd hear in response to your proposal would
> be from the Israelis, who look upon the PRC as a serious potential
> cash cow.
>
> >
> >
> > > > which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14
> > > > billion
> > > > dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME,
> > > > including
> > > > Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > From what
> > > > > > > I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid
> > > > > > > increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases
> > > > > > > to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would
> > > > > > > agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing
> > > > > > > to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory).<
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES
> > > > >
> > > > > You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile
> > > > > Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? <
> > > >
> > > > And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it
> > > > captured
> > > > as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was
> > > > arming
> > > > and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev
> > > > and
> > > > murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards.
> > >
> > > Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and
> > > had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise
> > > is just plain wrong.<
> >
> > No it ain't!
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> Israel lost a helluva lot more people proportionately to its
> > population in the 1950s then America lost in 9/11. Probably ten times as many
> > proportionately. I lived in Israel and heard plenty about fedayeen terrorization
> > of the Negev in the 1950s.
>
> None of which has anything to do with the fact that Israel coveted the
> West Bank and the area around Jerusalem, and none of which disputes
> the *fact* that they were indeed in cahoots with the Anglo-French plan
> to repossess the Suez Canal, which would have left Israel with the
> entire Sinai.
>
> >
> > >You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the
> > > reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab
> > > shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break...<
> >
> > No breaks, and I can PROVE everything I say if you wish.
>
> Hell, you can't even prove that strange bit about the US using Pythion
> AAM's to arm its aircraft, so just how the heck are you gonna do it
> for this case?
>
> >
> > > Your
> > > > assumption
> > > > assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder
> > > > civilians
> > > > is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice
> > > > (the
> > > > 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with
> > > > Afghanistan
> > > > ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban
> > > > gov't.
> > >
> > > Stretch much?<
> >
> > Hardly. I understate the case. Imagine if thousands of Americans in the
> > Southwest were being murdered by Mexican terrorists. How long would it take
> > for the US to invade Mexico? Think General Pershing in 1916.
>
> We did not keep Vera Cruz (actually predating the 1916 bit, IIRC--my
> granddaddy was there...), now did we?
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >nd 67, of which no less a
> > > > > figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to
> > > > > face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial
> > > > > gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)?<
> >
> >
> > > > That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all.
> > >
> > > Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli
> > > press at the time with that disagreement.<
> >
> > REFERENCE, please! Actual source text, in Hebrew or English, as you wish. I can
> > read either.
>
> Menachem Begin: "In June 1967 we...had a choice. The Egyptian army
> concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
> really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
> decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982).
>
> There is even more than that which he had to say, but that was the
> result of a quick check--do a google and you can find more.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Try
> > > > "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters.
> > > > It is both a lie and totally libellous.
> > >
> > >
> > > Israel did its utmost NOT to
> > > > go
> > > > into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come
> > > > and
> > > > conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab
> > > > distortion
> > > > of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no
> > > > Marines
> > > > in Baghdad.
> > >
> > > You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you
> > > can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising.<
> >
> > Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas,
> > and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies.
> >
> > > $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit:
> > >
> > > "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given
> > > Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid
> > > allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department
> > > of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72
> > > billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound
> > > interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to
> > > give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS
> > > tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli
> > > charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax
> > > deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280
> > > million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax
> > > deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September
> > > 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers
> > > over $10 billion."
> > >
> > > Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer<
> >
> > Yeah, a totally honest Arab source.
>
> Nope, a US source, with past members of the Board of Directors
> including the likes of the old Senator Fullbright.
>
> >
> > > > > Can you explain to me the rationale, or how
> > > > > > Israel
> > > > > > gained in that "bargain?"
>
> > > > > They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care
> > > > > to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to
> > > > > Egypt?<
> > > >
> > > > But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you
> > > > saying that
> > > > they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical
> > > > superiority
> > > > over Israel as well???
> > >
> > > Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel.<
> >
> > I don't accept your figures as being factual. MOre fictional than factual.
>
> Coming from someone who thinks we are using Pythons...
>
> >
> > > > > And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt
> > > > > goes to non-military requirements as well?<
> > > >
> > > > It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean.
> > >
> > > I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other
> > > day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > > But
> > > > I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it
> > > > also
> > > > cuts off all aid to Egypt
> > >
> > > But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such
> > > a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid?
> > >
> > > and all arms sales to all sides in the
> > > > Middle East.
> > >
> > > Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel
> > > stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US
> > > (like the PRC) in return?<
> >
> > If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would
> > support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone
> > else the US considers a mortal threat.
> >
> > > > If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of
> > > > dollars worth
> > > > of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime!
> > >
> > > Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard
> > > to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long.<
> >
> > Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit
> > from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it.
>
> LOL! On a per capita basis, only to the tune of around $14 thousand
> per year (that is per Israeli citizen).
>
> >
> > > Do you
> > > > think that
> > > > Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world
> > > > wants
> > > > to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the
> > > > region!
> > >
> > > The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI.<
> >
> > Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better
> > tank, the Merkava II.
>
> The statement was they were living in M1 tanks--kind of hard to do
> when they have none.
>
> >
> > > > > The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
> > > > > > training
> > > > > > and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
> > > > > > tutelage.
> > > > >
> > > > > And is still no threat to Israel.<
> > > >
> > > > Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt,
> > > > against which
> > > > Israel has no defense,
> > >
> > > What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded
> > > Arrow?<
> >
> > You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War
> > which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans,
>
> Get a grip, PAC 3 is NOT an Israeli modification.
>
> or do
> > you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but
> > mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an
> > Israeli project?
>
> LOL! That's a hoot. And that is NOT the reason--try again.
>
> >
> > > could be a very serious threat, particularly if
> > > > the
> > > > Egyptians acquired nukes.
> > >
> > > If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE
> > > nukes.<
> >
> > So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII.
>
> Groannn....so you want to make this a racial/religious argument?
>
> > >
> > > ANd there are those in the Egyptian
> > > > parliament
> > > > calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army
> > > > has
> > > > never been a greater threat to Israel than today.
> > >
> > > Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put
> > > out this kind of farcificial nonsense.<
> >
> > How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a
> > MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much
> > about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly.
> > It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint.
>
> It ain't a major threat. If you think it is, provide proof otherwise.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Unlike the past,
> > > > when it
> > > > was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with
> > > > F-16s,
> > > > M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite
> > > > good
> > > > US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they
> > > > pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael
> > > > would have no
> > > > alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could
> > > > defeat
> > > > the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past.
> > > > As
> > > > for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty
> > > > of Sedan
> > > > between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What
> > > > counts
> > > > is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be
> > > > repudiated
> > > > and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down
> > > > in
> > > > the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can
> > > > count
> > > > on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the
> > > > ME
> > > > would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch
> > > > to
> > > > survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows
> > > > any
> > > > relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars
> > > > in
> > > > the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the
> > > > region.
> > > > Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom.
> > >
> > > More pure BS.<
> >
> > Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the
> > Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US
> > was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to
> > put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of
> > Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing
> > WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly
> > arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid
> > nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened.
>
> You are drifting further and further off the line of discussion....
>
> Brooks

[JGB]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message

> Menachem Begin: "In June 1967 we...had a choice. The Egyptian army
> concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
> really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
> decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982).<

PLEASE read Oren's recent book "Six Days of War" to update yourself
on the realities. While it is true that Nasser would have wanted to
gain a huge political victory without a war if you could get away with
it, reimposing a blockade on Eilat and placing the Egyptian army
into Sinai, the fact is that a plan to attack Israel on May 27th was
derailed by a fluke! Had it gone through as Amer had intended, the
entire thing might have ended very differently indeed.

Look, Khruschev might not have intended war when he placed
missiles and nukes into Cuba either, but things might have ended very
differently if he had decided to call Kennedy's bluff and pushed
through the blockade.

> There is even more than that which he had to say, but that was the
> result of a quick check--do a google and you can find more.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Try
> > > > "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters.
> > > > It is both a lie and totally libellous.
> > >
> > >
> > > Israel did its utmost NOT to
> > > > go
> > > > into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come
> > > > and
> > > > conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab
> > > > distortion
> > > > of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no
> > > > Marines
> > > > in Baghdad.
> > >
> > > You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you
> > > can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising.<
> >
> > Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas,
> > and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies.
> >
> > > $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit:
> > >
> > > "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given
> > > Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid
> > > allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department
> > > of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72
> > > billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound
> > > interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to
> > > give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS
> > > tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli
> > > charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax
> > > deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280
> > > million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax
> > > deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September
> > > 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers
> > > over $10 billion."
> > >
> > > Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer<
> >
> > Yeah, a totally honest Arab source.
>
> Nope, a US source, with past members of the Board of Directors
> including the likes of the old Senator Fullbright.<

Fullbright is as much full of **** as Saddam Hussein.

> > > > But
> > > > I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it
> > > > also
> > > > cuts off all aid to Egypt

> > > But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such
> > > a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid?<

Their aid has no rationale at all. They have numerical superiority. THeir
army is stronger now thanks to US aid than ever in history. They have
the Sinai back and ISrael's strategic depth has been totally negated.
They pay no price for their aid; Israel does. Why should Egypt complain.
Israel's aid comes at a heavy price to ISrael.

> > > and all arms sales to all sides in the
> > > > Middle East.
> > >
> > > Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel
> > > stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US
> > > (like the PRC) in return?<
> >
> > If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would
> > support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone
> > else the US considers a mortal threat.
> >
> > > > If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of
> > > > dollars worth
> > > > of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime!
> > >
> > > Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard
> > > to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long.<
> >
> > Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit
> > from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it.
>
> LOL! On a per capita basis, only to the tune of around $14 thousand
> per year (that is per Israeli citizen).<

IT MOSTLY GOES STRAIGHT FROM THE US TREASURY TO Boeing and other
defense contractors and THEIR WORKERS!!! Your figures and conclusions
are BOTH bogus!


> > > Do you
> > > > think that
> > > > Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world
> > > > wants
> > > > to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the
> > > > region!
> > >
> > > The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI.<
> >
> > Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better
> > tank, the Merkava II.
>
> The statement was they were living in M1 tanks--kind of hard to do
> when they have none.<

Okay, Apaches and F-16's. Those make very comfortable living rooms for
the men who almost all serve 30 or more days a year inhabiting them.
Some luxury.

> > > > > The Egyptian army today, thanks to US
> > > > > > training
> > > > > > and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet
> > > > > > tutelage.
> > > > >
> > > > > And is still no threat to Israel.<
> > > >
> > > > Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt,
> > > > against which
> > > > Israel has no defense,
> > >
> > > What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded
> > > Arrow?<
> >
> > You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War
> > which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans,
>

>Get a grip, PAC 3 is NOT an Israeli modification.<

And you know this how?

> or do
> > you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but
> > mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an
> > Israeli project?
>
> LOL! That's a hoot. And that is NOT the reason--try again.<

Ha! The simple fact is that Israel has the only working theater ABM
system in the world at the moment, that has passed all of its tests
with flying colors. And it was designed by Israelis and not by Americans.
The US put up most of the money and got control over its sale and full
access to the design and technology. A bargain if there ever was one.

> > > could be a very serious threat, particularly if
> > > > the
> > > > Egyptians acquired nukes.
> > >
> > > If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE
> > > nukes.<
> >
> > So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII.
>
> Groannn....so you want to make this a racial/religious argument?<

The JEwish nation-in-exile was THE major contributor to the creation
and development of nuclear power, period!!! Israel has a thousand times
more RIGHT to nuclear WMD than the US or the UK. Indeed, the US and UK
absconded the patents from Leo Szilard.


> > > ANd there are those in the Egyptian
> > > > parliament
> > > > calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army
> > > > has
> > > > never been a greater threat to Israel than today.
> > >
> > > Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put
> > > out this kind of farcificial nonsense.<
> >
> > How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a
> > MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much
> > about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly.
> > It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint.
>
> It ain't a major threat. If you think it is, provide proof otherwise.<

Israel doesn't accept your word for it. Go read the Israeli military
press.

> > Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the
> > Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US
> > was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to
> > put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of
> > Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing
> > WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly
> > arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid
> > nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened.
>
> You are drifting further and further off the line of discussion....
>
> Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
>
> > Menachem Begin: "In June 1967 we...had a choice. The Egyptian army
> > concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
> > really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
> > decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982).<
>
> PLEASE read Oren's recent book "Six Days of War" to update yourself
> on the realities. While it is true that Nasser would have wanted to
<snip further wandering rant>

Uhmmm...you DO have a problem staying on subject, don't you? YOU said
that Begin never uttered such comments--here is the proof. Now are you
gonna claim those were not his words?

<snip>

> > > >
> > > > Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer<
> > >
> > > Yeah, a totally honest Arab source.
> >
> > Nope, a US source, with past members of the Board of Directors
> > including the likes of the old Senator Fullbright.<
>
> Fullbright is as much full of **** as Saddam Hussein.

Suuure....now, you said it was an *Arab* source...and you were (again)
wrong.

>
> > > > > But
> > > > > I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it
> > > > > also
> > > > > cuts off all aid to Egypt
>
> > > > But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such
> > > > a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid?<
>
> Their aid has no rationale at all. They have numerical superiority.

LOL! Have you been sleeping for the last fifty years? Since when does
numerical superiority guarantee anything? Did it guarantee the Arabs
success in 48, 56, 67, or 73? No? So much for "numerical superiority"
in this argument...

THeir
> army is stronger now thanks to US aid than ever in history. They have
> the Sinai back and ISrael's strategic depth has been totally negated.
> They pay no price for their aid; Israel does. Why should Egypt complain.
> Israel's aid comes at a heavy price to ISrael.

They pay no price? Have you missed the condemnation from the more
radical Arab leaders/government since Sadat went to the peace treaty
table?

<snip>

> >
> > LOL! On a per capita basis, only to the tune of around $14 thousand
> > per year (that is per Israeli citizen).<
>
> IT MOSTLY GOES STRAIGHT FROM THE US TREASURY TO Boeing and other
> defense contractors and THEIR WORKERS!!! Your figures and conclusions
> are BOTH bogus!

Then provide some proof; the fact is that we are paying out mucho
bucks and watching the goods head to Israel, for the most part. Then
there is the 25% or so that we allow the Israelis to spend *in Israel*
that we never see *any* return from, not to mention the other
non-military aid that goes to Israel. $14K per Israeli per year and
growing....

>
>
> > > > Do you
> > > > > think that
> > > > > Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world
> > > > > wants
> > > > > to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the
> > > > > region!
> > > >
> > > > The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI.<
> > >
> > > Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better
> > > tank, the Merkava II.
> >
> > The statement was they were living in M1 tanks--kind of hard to do
> > when they have none.<
>
> Okay, Apaches and F-16's. Those make very comfortable living rooms for
> the men who almost all serve 30 or more days a year inhabiting them.
> Some luxury.

More cheese, please? They would probably spend a bit less time in
those vehicles if they pulled out of the West Bank and negotiated a
return of the Golan to Syria.

<snip>

>
> >Get a grip, PAC 3 is NOT an Israeli modification.<
>
> And you know this how?

www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/patriot.htm

www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pac-3.html (this one from a
regular RAM participant, Andreas Parsch)

Do you need more, or do you think this may be enough to give you a
clue?

>
> > or do
> > > you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but
> > > mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an
> > > Israeli project?
> >
> > LOL! That's a hoot. And that is NOT the reason--try again.<
>
> Ha! The simple fact is that Israel has the only working theater ABM
> system in the world at the moment, that has passed all of its tests
> with flying colors. And it was designed by Israelis and not by Americans.
> The US put up most of the money and got control over its sale and full
> access to the design and technology. A bargain if there ever was one.

Uhmmm...the only combat tested TBM system currently fielded is
Patriot; you know, the ones the Israelis also have (though not as
advanced as the later US versions, IIRC)?

>
> > > > could be a very serious threat, particularly if
> > > > > the
> > > > > Egyptians acquired nukes.
> > > >
> > > > If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE
> > > > nukes.<
> > >
> > > So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII.
> >
> > Groannn....so you want to make this a racial/religious argument?<
>
> The JEwish nation-in-exile was THE major contributor to the creation
> and development of nuclear power, period!!! Israel has a thousand times
> more RIGHT to nuclear WMD than the US or the UK. Indeed, the US and UK
> absconded the patents from Leo Szilard.

Oh, boy...you actually believe all of this tripe, don't you?

>
>
> > > > ANd there are those in the Egyptian
> > > > > parliament
> > > > > calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army
> > > > > has
> > > > > never been a greater threat to Israel than today.
> > > >
> > > > Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put
> > > > out this kind of farcificial nonsense.<
> > >
> > > How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a
> > > MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much
> > > about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly.
> > > It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint.
> >
> > It ain't a major threat. If you think it is, provide proof otherwise.<
>
> Israel doesn't accept your word for it. Go read the Israeli military
> press.

Come on, provide some proof; if it is such a prevalent attitude among
the Israeli government as you claim, you should find that easy to do.
Time for you to put up, or shut up.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
>
>
> > > Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks.
> > > It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help.
> > > It's been losing ground literally ever since.
> >
> > None of which has anything to do with the false claim that we only
> > provided Israel with aid after deciding to sell advanced weapons to
> > neighboring Arab nations. Stick with the subject at hand and control
> > your rants.<
>
> The first sale of modern weapons to Israel was with the Hawk sale by
> Kennedy in 1962, <snip further off-topic ranting>

Again, show where the US started providing aid to israel merely in
order to make weapons sales to the Arab nations...or admit that
statement was instead wrong in the first place.


> > > ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began.
> > > In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s.
> > > I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided
> > > that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce
> > > its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided
> > > for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams
> > > M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs.
> >
> > No, we don't use the Python AAM (and Python is not an "AMRAAM").<
>
> Sorry, I meant AAM. I had heard that the US does use the Python AAM.
> Was
> I misinformed?

Badly. We use the AIM-9 Sidewinder family.

>
> > you are zero for two right there. And again, nothing you have said
> > disputes the fact that US aid to Israel predates the sale of advanced
> > US arms to the Arab nations.<
>
> If that's the case, let the US and its allies stop selling arms to the
> Arabs,

That *is* the case. We were providing major aid to Israel LONG before
we engaged in selling advanced weapons to any neighboring Arab
nations, and even then we provided generally less capable systems to
them than we were providing to Israel. And your "if-then" construct
does not make sense--why should we have to tie our policies regarding
Israel to those we use in dealing with other nations? That should be
OUR choice, not that of Israel, or AIPAC, etc.

<snip related and illogical diatribe>

>
>
> > > > > more or less. That is the real
> > > > > reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to
> > > > > Israel,
> > > >
> > > > No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions.<
> > >
> > > Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated
> > > out in the last 20 years.
> >
> > Nope. But then again, this "rich Jew" bit is your construct, not mine.
> > I find it generally advisable to stay away from such pedantic
> > characterizations.<
>
> Your characterization that the entire Congress is held captive by a
> tiny
> number of rich JEws operating through AIPAC is equally ludicrous.

That was NOT my claim--go back and READ the posts. Nowhere have I used
the rather contemptable phrase "rich Jews"--that is YOUR choice of
wording. I am one of those folks who feels it is possible to oppose
some Israeli policies, and many aspects of US aid to Israel, without
it being based upon such inflammatory and bordering-on-racist views as
engendered by that "rich Jew" phrase. My claim IS that AIPAC has more
to do with the lack of Congressional debate on this matter than does
the alleged impact on US defense industry.

<snip>

>
> > If anything, it would be the Christian Right
> > > that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided
> > > aid and arms embargo on Israel.
> >
> > They would indeed be a problem in that regard--and this is the very
> > first uttering you have made which is close to being on-target and
> > correct. Congratulations--maybe you can now reword your earlier rants
> > and bring them back into the realm of the discussion at hand.<
>
> If there wasn't a single JEw left in America, and no AIPAC, there
> wouldn't
> be much of a difference. Millions of Bible-believing Christians will
> not
> allow us to sell the Arabs all the arms they can pay for with the oil
> under
> their feet, while cutting off all aid to ISrael to help pay for its
> own
> defense against 100 to 1 numerical superiority. Even if it wasn't
> Israel; even
> it was Taiwan instead, the fairness of the American give anybody in a
> similar posture a fighting chance. Whatever one may say about the
> American people, they are innately fair by nature.

LOL! We danged near came close to doing exactly that to Taiwan a
couple of times. The fact is that AIPAC *is* a powerful PAC; sorry,
but that is the case.

<snip>

> > > > Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it
> > > > would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off.<
> > >
> > > Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B
> > > to its enemies annually? That would be nuts.
> >
> > This started as a case of an individual whining about Israel losing
> > potential sales due to its dependence upon US systems. If they want to
> > cut the apron strings, fine--all they have to do is say "no" to the
> > aid. But taking the aid and then whining about its repercussions is a
> > bit of the old "having your cake and eating it too".<
>
> Alas you are not aware of what is going on inside ISrael. US companies
> are
> buying up Israeli defense companies and spiriting their engineers away
> to California! From the Israeli perspective, it is big America
> limiting their
> defense industry and cherry picking off the cream of their brainpower!
> Raytheon, Boeing, TRW, et. al, are gutting ISrael companies that have
> recently
> been privatized, luring their best people away, or forcing those who
> are
> trying to remain independent to relocate as US companies in California
> (and elsewhere) thereby moving their corporate headquarters, with all
> the
> jobs that corporate headquarters usually generate, "offshore" TO THE
> US!!!
> The US is NOT a sucker country! When it gives with one hand, it
> eventually
> takes back with the other! I'm not being critical of American
> generosity, but
> when it comes to business, Americans are not the patsies as some would
> want
> to believe. The US did not go into business 227 years ago to make a
> loss!
> Happy Fourth of July.

Oh, please. Other nations have erected protections against foreign
majority ownership of their critical defense industries, and israel
could as well. But Israel does not want to turn off the tap of US aid
dollars, plain and simple. Fine, but don't then come back and whine
about alleged repercussions. As to those alleged cases of Israeli
brain-drain, that is the peril of maintaining open immigration
policies that allow individuals to migrate in search of better
opportunities for themselves. Is that a crime?

> >
> > Let the US embargo BOTH sides,
> > > and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber
> > > Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does.
> >
> > Hard to do that, as Israel is a major foreign supplier of military
> > goods to the PRC. Israel turned its back on Taiwan in order to further
> > ingratiate itself with the PRC, and Israelis still periodically whine
> > over the US putting its foot down over their proposed sale of the
> > Phalcon radar system to the PLAAF for their AWACS program. The loudest
> > and most shrill scream you'd hear in response to your proposal would
> > be from the Israelis, who look upon the PRC as a serious potential
> > cash cow.

So you agree with the above?

Brooks

<snip>

On 3 Jul 2003 18:09:06 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

>"Close" to each other? Ever heard of Pollard?

Pollard never caused any harm to the US.

>Selling every weapon you can to the PRC?

And that would be bad how ? China enjoys a Most Favored Nation status
in the USA.

[Quant]

> wrote in message >...
> On 3 Jul 2003 18:09:06 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> wrote:
>
> >"Close" to each other? Ever heard of Pollard?
>
> Pollard never caused any harm to the US.
>
> >Selling every weapon you can to the PRC?
>
> And that would be bad how ? China enjoys a Most Favored Nation status
> in the USA.


It's tiring to argue with him because he posts fact he knows are
false.
For example, he knows well that Israel don't sell its most advanced
technology to China. Nonetheless it doesn't stop him from posting this
lie again and again. On every second post of him there are false or
distorted arguments.

He will tell you that China has python 3 missiles, but even Chile
already have Python 4's. He will tell you about the phalcon Israel
wanted to sell to China eventhough he knows that Israel Assured the
Americans that the Chinese phalcon didn't contained the latest
generation of the Israeli technologies. Etc.

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message >...
> On 3 Jul 2003 18:09:06 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> wrote:
>
> >"Close" to each other? Ever heard of Pollard?
>
> Pollard never caused any harm to the US.

How do you know that? He was convicted of espionage on behalf of a
nation that has engaged in providing its most advnaced weapons to a
nation that we have to maintain an eye on as a potential
threat--doesn't sound all that innocuous to me.

>
> >Selling every weapon you can to the PRC?
>
> And that would be bad how ?

Because they reside at the top of the list of potential state threats
to the US.

China enjoys a Most Favored Nation status
> in the USA.

And how many advanced *weapons* do we export to them, or do our firms
even try to? There is a difference between civil trade and military
exports--the same rules do not apply.

Brooks

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:02:46 +0200, > wrote:

>On 3 Jul 2003 18:09:06 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
>wrote:
>
>>"Close" to each other? Ever heard of Pollard?
>
>Pollard never caused any harm to the US.

BS, Pollard is a traitor who sold his Countries secrets. He caused
both military and moral damage to the US.
>
>>Selling every weapon you can to the PRC?
>
>And that would be bad how ? China enjoys a Most Favored Nation status
>in the USA.
>
MFN no longer exists. China is a nation that we trade with. That does
not make them a friendly, or even neutral, country.

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > wrote in message
> > >...

<snip>

> > > > American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > Israeli defense contractors will be (very happy).
> > > Friendship between US and Israel is a two way street.
> >
> > Yes, America will not hate Israel, like "old Europe".
>
>
> I'm not sure what you intended to say, but I recognize the fact that
> America (as contrary to Europe) is dealing with Israel fairly and
> without prejudice or hate.

You seem to got it.

> I am thankful for that and I think that the
> existence of the American nation is the best gift Israel and the world
> could get.

We hope to continue to receive the blessing.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Richard Conway" > wrote in message
om...
> (JGB) wrote in message
>...
> > Steph > wrote in message
>...
> > > Tarver Engineering nous disait :
> > >
> > > > Israeli pilots were making jokes about nuking Paris not so many
> > > > weeks ago. I think AI has made an enemy.
> > >
> > > If they have nukes, it's much thanks to France ...<
> >
> > If the US and France have nukes, it's thanks to the Jews. The atomic
> > bomb is a Jewish invention.
>
> The atomic bomb was conceptualized by a Jewish individual - the
> Manhatten project was not.

The Jews in Chicago made the bomb real.