(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om...
(JGB) wrote in message om...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(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