Re: Should the US Government Stop Supporting Israel?

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-01-2011, 01:41 AM

Remember when the US routinely supported any banana republic dictator who saw communists under the bed? Doesn't the Egyptian situation seem hauntingly familiar? Are we about to suppress democracy in the name of stopping Iran's legions?

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-01-2011, 02:47 AM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...l-aid-1.339662

Can Israel not afford that $3 billion? Are we lending it or giving it away? If we're lending it, aren't we just a middleman with China? Then Israel should just borrow it directly from China.

Here's some numbers on Israel's economy:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nomy_of_Israel

Moreover, while Israel's total gross external debt is US$84 billion, or approximately 44% of GDP, since 2001 it has become a net lender nation in terms of net external debt (the total value of assets vs. liabilities in debt instruments owed abroad), which as of June 2009 stood at a significant surplus of US$54 billion.

**sordavie** · 02-01-2011, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

If we're lending it, aren't we just a middleman with China? Then Israel should just borrow it directly from China.

Huh? Often you write things that make little sense, like this. What kind of wacky reasoning led you to say this?

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-01-2011, 03:43 AM

We're borrowing from China (and other countries, but China is the name of the hour in lending) to pay for much of our government. If we're lending the money to Israel (not just giving it to them outright), then let them go and borrow it themselves.

**sordavie** · 02-01-2011, 04:03 AM

lol

What percent of government spending do you think comes from Chinese borrowed money?

**gunjunkie** · 02-01-2011, 04:07 AM

At this point, with the images coming out of Egypt RIGHT NOW. I wish my African brothers and sisters the greatest of luck with this. This is amazing.

**SharinganTH1422** · 02-01-2011, 08:28 AM

Oh man this is going to take a while

Originally Posted by Ytman

I'm not sure if you are intentionally not quoting the entire paragraph or if it slipped your mind. In anycase your source goes on to say:

I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring the other link that had the UN saying Israel were guilty of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, or if it slipped your mind. In any case here is the source, plus more links and quotes for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8257301.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8149464.stm

• Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers

• Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished as a precaution or to secure clear lines of fire for the future.

• Some of the troops had a generally aggressive, ill-disciplined attitude

• There was incidents of vandalism of property of Palestinians

• Soldiers fired at water tanks because they were bored, at a time of severe water shortages for Gazans

• White phosphorus was used in civilian areas in a way some soldiers saw as gratuitous and reckless

• Many of the soldiers said there had been very little direct engagement with Palestinian militants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7814192.stm

At least 30 people have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a United Nations-run school in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medical sources have said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7819492.stm

Israeli forces shelled a house in the Gaza Strip which they had moved around 110 Palestinians into 24 hours earlier, the UN quotes witnesses as saying.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called it "one of the gravest incidents" since the beginning of the offensive.

Seriously I've got like a whole bag of these.

Originally Posted by Ytman

At least you have 366 civillian casualties and worst you have 700.

Oh that's OK then.

/sarcasm (just in case you didn't notice)

Originally Posted by Ytman

Considering that Hamas was the provokee and was using human shields as a means to lure Israel into a close city fight to cause large Israeli casualties you must understand that this is hardly a massacre. War is terrible, no doubt, but why would you expose your troops to harm if you could obtain your objective at little cost to your own forces?

The shelling was in response to being herded into a box like animals with no human rights, with constant blockading and settlement building on their territory. And just so you know, more Israelis were killed in friendly fire incidents during this conflict than were killed by Hamas' shelling (somewhat counter-productive wouldn't you say?). Most of the bombs landed in empty fields as they were homemade and had no way of targeting them.

Originally Posted by Ytman

When the V2 was lobbed constantly from Germany to London was the United Kingdom in any real danger as you put it? When any nation assaults another nation's citizens and infrastructure no matter how 'small' it is in regards to the whole, it is the responsibility of the victim nation to attempt to defend itself. Pearl Harbor never really placed the continental United States at Real danger let alone Nazi Germany. Didn't stop war or thousands of civillian deaths.

Neither Japan, nor Nazi Germany were being occupied and controlled when they attacked. Further to that, Britain attempted to find a peaceful solution with Hitler before the war, but he continued occupying Europe and Britain had to take action, or risk being a lonely island fighting against a Nazi Europe.

Originally Posted by Ytman

What specific territories are you talking about? Give me regions, and they better not be areas aquired after the Six Days War or the Yom Kippur War.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ttlements.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20101213-...crossings-gaza

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3526791.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3526791.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-UN-envoy.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update3-.html

Enough?

Originally Posted by Ytman

Israel is fascist? Thats new. Evidence?

Combative I wouldn't disagree with though.

I was actually saying that about Hamas (apologies for lack of clarity), but reading what you said, I'd apply that description to the Israeli Government as well.

Originally Posted by Ytman

So who are we likening Nazi Germany to? Israel or the Gazans? I see alot more in parallel between Nazi Germany and Gazan than Israel.

Like before I was likening the Nazis to Hamas (did you think I liked Hamas or something?), and the situation (created by Israeli policy) which has allowed Hamas to come into power. If you were living in a USA that was occupied and blockaded by Mexico, wouldn't you vote for a Government that wanted to get rid of Mexico?

P.S. You seem to use Gazans and Hamas interchangably. I'd be careful with that.

Originally Posted by Ytman

Israel is more secure now than before, most definately, but the looming threat of Iran and the fact that Hamas shows no sign of allowing Israel to exist in peace... I'd say they are far from UK 'safe'.

Could you expand on this whole Iran thing? You keep talking about "the looming threat of Iran" etc. and yet not explaining anything about it.

Originally Posted by Ytman

That is an article about surfing in Gazza and how the IDF allowed the shipment of 15 surfboards into Gazza. (?purpose of link?)

From the article:

Mr Caberetti says a lot of them are unemployed and have time on their hands.

The United Nations say unemployment is more than 40% in Gaza

Gaza has been under a tightened Israeli and Egyptian blockade for almost three years, with only limited humanitarian aid allowed in.

Mohammed Abu Jayab says he has not left Gaza since 1996 because of Israeli restrictions on travelling.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring the other link that had more details on the blockade, or if it slipped your mind. In any case you can go back and check it, or you can continue to ignore my valid points and not qualify any of your statements.

Originally Posted by Ytman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre

Palestine, since before the creation of Israel, has fought against Jews no matter what. They started the conflict and they continue the conlfict. I blame Gazan government for wanting to harm Israel and would rather adopt a policy of war than a policy of peace. Hamas gained authority when Israel left, Hamas' only key to power is it constant hatred and scapegoating of Israel. They are attempting to blame everything on Israel and only use Israel's excellent war planning against it.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Ytman

Japan and Germany still feel the sting of WWII; nationalism is thuroughly detested in Germany, and Japan still is not allowed much by means of an army.

Detesting nationalism is not a sting, and no none wouls stop Japan building an amy if they wanted to, they've just isolated themselves from the rest of the world's problems (pretty much). Undoubtedly WWII will have an effect on every country, but there are no "stings" or any sort of strained relations between them or any other Axis powers, against the old Allies.

Originally Posted by Ytman

The US is not the world police, we have little say over that region.

If you don't count Iraq, Israel or Afghanistan and the fact that without US support they'd quite possibly be facing all-out conflict.

Originally Posted by Ytman

Placing all the blame of conflict on Israel's shoulders is unjustified and wrong. Israel doesn't start the conflicts, they respond to them. Albeit with a degree of efficiency that makes it easy to point the finger at them.

I'm not placing all the blame on their shoulders for the conflict, but I am placing the blame on them for continuing their aggression against Palestine, thereby only increasing the hatred in the region, hatred which allowed Hamas into power. And this is my underlying point, taking away all of the point-by-point bullcrap earlier on that will go absolutely nowhere. Israel has the backing of the USA, which means it can do practically whatever it wants to. Instead of using that power to try and diffuse tensions, it uses that power to walk all over Palestine for the sake of its own ego and anti-Muslim sentiments, thereby creating an environment where an organisation like Hamas will be welcomed into power by the people. The only way the USA can get change in the region is by putting Israel under pressure to stop their aggressive policy (because they refuse to do it themselves), so that the Palestinian people stop seeing Israel as an enemy. Palestine requires three things for peace, a democracy, a party that promotes peace, and a population that will vote the peaceful party into power. They already have the first two, a democratic system and the Fatah party, but going in and killing a bunch of Hamas soldiers (along with anyone else you see), is not going to help bring the third ingredient. Deradicalising the population through giving them peace, freedom and human rights, will.

(Bolded because it's the overriding point that I'm making that's being lost in this point-by-point BS)

Originally Posted by Ytman

Trust me when I say this: if Iran ever undergoes a 180 degree spin the middle east will know peace. Until then the flames of turmoil will be stocked by Iran as it only gains as long as their is conflict.

While I obviously have complete and utter faith in your word, could you please expand?

**gunjunkie** · 02-01-2011, 11:56 AM

And now, Jordan.

**Grunt 70** · 02-01-2011, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

lol

What percent of government spending do you think comes from Chinese borrowed money?

40%? (courtesy of an NPR report I heard a day or two ago)

**sordavie** · 02-01-2011, 03:33 PM

Really?

Well, let's take a look at some numbers. The US federal budget for the year 2010 was $3.55 trillion. China held $.8956 trillion in US debt in 2010. That's total Chinese treasury securities holding - not the amount gained in 2010.

Do you still think 40% of US government spending comes from Chinese borrowed money is a good estimate?

Statistics and percentages are pretty confounding for people I guess.

[edit] How about some more numbers. Total US debt was estimated at $13.56 trillion by 2010. Again, China held $.8956 trillion. That's 20% of the US's foreign debt. But only 32% of total US debt is in the hands of foreign governments. So China holds 20% of the foreign held debt, which is 32% of the total debt. So China held about 6 and a half percent of our total debt by 2010. In any case, these numbers don't tell us how much borrowing goes toward government spending without know how much we spend.

**Ytman** · 02-01-2011, 03:57 PM

On the matter of 300-700 civillian casualties; of course its not 'okay' but it is hardly a massacre. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6166362.stm Since at least 2006 Gaza has adopted a policy of human shield, or civillian martyrdom, to protect its militants. All considered, civillian casualties are impossible to avoid now. Is it good? No. But no war is good.

On the subject of warcrimes; I definately will put a lot more thought to this, and dig deeper for sources. The US camp Abu Graab?, the massacre (and hell it was a massacre) at this one Iraqi city (F something....) was definately terrible, but it does not speak for the whole of the force actions.

On the subject of Nazi Germany and Gaza; Not all germans were nazi's but they were under the control and influence of them. The state was called Nazi Germany. The same goes for Gaza. Not trying to call all Gazan's Hamas personel, but they are under the control and influence.

On the subject of 'illegal building' the links you mention show an effort of Israel showing that it is of strong will and must definitively have the word of Palestine and Hamas to stop building. Nothing is stoping a nation to build on land that it aquired in conflict, those are the spoils of war, this specific link you showed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ttlements.html) shows to me that Israel is waiting until the day Hamas will directly talk with them and mediators. If they want peace and want that land why should not they appear personally with action behind words?

On the subject of the blockade; perhaps an ease on it would allow Gaza to return to self sustainability, I ask you though, if (more likely when) the blockade falls and Hamas proves to gain arms and weapons and actively attack Israel, what should Israel do? I most certainly do not disagree with your assessment of Gaza and pre-war Nazi Germany. The economic woes are terrible indeed and such woes only go to maintain that current strong man scapegoating regime. I would though bring mention of Facist Italy who, despite partaking in the war, was brought down in part due to its own mismanaging government. Had the economy of Facist Italy grown during WWII I doubt Mussollini would have been beat and hung by his own citizens.

On your core arguement:

I see your point clearly and in a perfect world such a position change for Israel would undoubtedly bring a similiar change within Palestine. I will only argue that as long as conflict exists between Israel and Palestine Hamas maintains its power. Hamas has everything to lose if peace is brought between it an Israel, and should Israel let up I believe it would only open itself to more cold-blooded slaughter if only to purpetuate conflict. From here I will fully explain my take on Iran; as Iran will soon become a nuclear power and is itself an economic and military might in the middle east they have much influence. Iran's current take on Israel is one that threatens its complete erradication.

Israel and Iran are like the US and USSR on a smaller scale, in a smaller region, right next to each other, and one has expressedly stated "we seek to kill them, no negotiation".

Hamas staying in power offers a way to maintain war on Israel without directly delcaring it. The moment Iran gains nuclear capabilities their will be a moment where Syria, Hamas, and Iran (at the least) will have a renewed hope of their goals.

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-01-2011, 07:23 PM

Ok, my bad. Investing is good, borrowing is bad, so if we're lending money to Israel with an interest rate higher than inflation, we're making money on the deal, so that's a Good Thing.

**sordavie** · 02-01-2011, 07:35 PM

Didn't something tip your sense of skepticism when someone claims that a huge portion of US government spending comes from borrowed Chinese money? Did you really accept without a blink of an eye that China can maintain a budget for their own country while also paying for 40% of the US's budget? hahaha

Borrowing is not always bad. Investing is not always good. Aside from questions about whether we ought be military and economic allies with Israel, helping our allies is generally a good thing. Not all questions about what's good and bad are cashed out in terms of whether they make the US government money or not.

That's some more wacky reasoning. lol

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-01-2011, 10:16 PM

Ok, I've got this friend living in the worst part of town, and I'm gonna go deeper into debt so he can buy heavy armament to keep the gangsters living there from toasting him. I guess it makes sense if I'm financially incompetent and am already deep, deep in debt. Especially when I can just stick the bill to someone else's grandkids.

**sordavie** · 02-01-2011, 10:36 PM

Alright, let's assume you do have a friend living in the worst part of town. You can send her roughly .1% (one tenth of a percent) of your annual budget so she can protect himself. You know you're going in to a certain amount of debt anyway. In fact the amount that send him these funds would add only .2% (two tenths of a percent) to the amount of debt you will accumulate this year. Wouldn't you do it? She is your friend. It seems like a small price to pay to help a friend. That amount isn't going to get you out of debt. It's not even going to make any noticeable dent in paying down, reducing, or adding to your debt. What would a decent friend do?

In case you're having trouble with percentages again. .1% of an annual budget of $20,000 (let's imagine that's how much you plan to spend this year) is $20. Even if you've got $8,000 of credit card debt, wouldn't you spend $20 if you knew that might help save your friend's life? I would.

$3 billion is less than .1% of the US federal budget for the fiscal year of 2010. The whole way the federal government works needs an overhaul if we're to fix the debt issue. You would be financially incompetent if you think that worrying about these small spendings matter when it comes to the US federal budget. If you've got $8,000 in credit card debt and you only make $20,000 a year, no financial consultant is going to tell you that you shouldn't have eaten out at that steak house that one time. Your problems run much deeper. Worrying about eating out at that steak house that one time is inconsequential. And overall that event had minuscule impact on your debt.