|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Is this one of the reasons why Palestinians..... (2/27/2011 8:47:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
As usual Anax's post contains far too many wild claims and inaccuracies to respond to. So I shall deal with just a few of the more obvious ones.
I dare you to show me elsewhere that I have told untruths in the above post and I will kindly respond.
quote:
The $3 trillion figure is an estimate of direct costs - aid, subsidies, discounts and the like - and indirect costs. Indirect costs include such things as lost investment and trading opportunities.
That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. There can be no estimate for "lost investiment" and the like, especially because many factors can be involved. The US does have pretty strong economic dealings with the Middle-East already.
You made out in Post 15:
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
While we are on the subject some one might like to explain to me what the US gets from its massive subsidisation of Israel.
I keep asking this question and no one ever offers an answer.
This silence is even more surprising when one considers that the total cost (direct subsidy + indirect costs) of US support for Israel has been estimated at US $ 3 TRILLION.*
I really would like an answer if there is one. So, I am sure, would many American taxpayers
* http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/stauffer.html
You made out that the three trillion was a result of "direct subsidy + indirect costs". That is a deliberately misleading because Israel has got no more than a tiny fraction of that amount in aid. the other 90+% is mere guesswork, much of which is losses to the American economy due to the economic terrorism of OPEC after they lost the Yom Kippur War.
quote:
If this figure is disputed, people are quite free to offer an alternative figure (with credible sources please!) which they may feel more accurate but sadly this is not done. The figure is explained in detail and referenced at the link. Unless someone produces a more accurate one, it stands as the only credible one. To dismiss the $3 trillion figure, without any analysis or supporting evidence as "utter utter utter bullshit" is itself utter utter utter bullshit.
Firstly the article itself admits "The largest single element in the costs has been the series of six oil-supply crises since the end of World War II. To date these have cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion.". This is unfair since it is clearly in the context of blame on Israel. Secondly, the aid figures to Israel are very well known so there is no need to cite another article. Israel got on average two to three billion per annum since the tail end of the 1970's, less in the 1990's until a significant boost since 2004 with the war on terror. These figures which I cited is commonly available, such as in Wikipedia. Its also often cited by pro-Palestinians. For an article coming from a highly dubious source to be cited as proof is more of your pure demagogery.
quote:
Stauffer also estimates the number of American jobs lost due to this largesse for Israel. He estimates that the recurring annual cost to the American economy is 275, 000 jobs. With its current unemployment in the US at over 10%, those jobs are dearly needed in the US.
The article claims Israel is to blame for up to 1 trillion for America's efforts at independence from oil resources. That was an important policy around the world, not just in pro-Israeli America so it cannot be attributed to costs relating to Israel. He mentione 275,000 jobs lost in the US per annum but I can't see one jot of evidence after skimming the article. Jobs are dearly needed all over the world. I assume you're going to blame that on Israel also since you do so for everything else.
quote:
If the reason for US financial support is " to maintain its influence over [Israel]" as Anax argues, then whatever the actual amount, it is a total waste. Money straight down the drain.
Israel has a highly advanced military research industry which feeds the US and vice-versa. The US aims to have full spectrum advantage over other states with the possibility of conflict. When China came knocking on Israel's door, the country could have gained immense revenue in dealing with this emerging economy. The US said "no" and that was that.
quote:
Recently, Obama offered the Israelis a US $3 billion bribe to stop expanding the colonies/settlements temporarily so that peace talks could take place. The offer was contemptuously rejected and Israel successfully scuttled the peace talks. Not much use having a proxy army if it doesn't do as it's told is it? So much for influence ......
Obviously, a threat to withdraw all support would have forced the Israelis to see sense. In fact, such a threat could force the Israelis to the negotiating table and to conclude a meaningful peace treaty. It is difficult to see Israel surviving in the style it is accustomed to without Uncle Sam's support.
The offer was not "contemptiously rejected". Israel did not destroy the peace talks. The freezed the development for nine months and Abbas wouldn't come to the peace table. The Israeli's refused to do it any further unless Abbas recognised Israel's Jewish character. This was reasonable because he was pre-empting the content of the peace talks by involving the settlements, which made it legitimate for Israel to make a corresponding demand. He didn't so they were also responsible.
quote:
Of course, none of these figures includes a price for loss of influence elsewhere in the world, the cost of diplomatic protection for a terrorist State or a cost for the anti-Americanism this misguided support for Israel inspires.
How can anyone avoid the conclusion the US is being ripped off wholesale by its 'partner', being taken for the mother of all rides?
The stance here is that the most powerful state in the world is being "ripped off" by Jewish con-artists (Israel and Jewish lobbies). The reason being that if the US became hostile to Israel it will loose the sole nation that can give some protection. It should be noted that Europe switched sides after the OPEC oil crisis. This was the key point in the international community against Israel. Nations need oil and Israel was a potential impediment. For that the US should be applauded.
quote:
Edited to add extra truth! [:D]
Your comedic quips in your posts are utterly stupid. Similarly your mockery of any question of bias is used to delegitimise my views, which you did on the other Israel thread, even about "If Americans Knew" which only relates to the discussion on this thread. By contrats you actively promote people like Fisk who have knowingly spread untruths about the conflict.
If Americans Knew is not a credible source for impartial information and if they feature outlandish claims about the cost of Israeli support to the US then it needs to be backed up robustly. They do not care about the truth, rather to demonise Israel. They rewrite the most basic and well known truths about the conflict. To quote the Camera article I posted a link for
Weir claims: "In 1982, 1967 and 1956, Israel invaded its neighbors only after repeated cross border killings, threats and acts of war aimed at the country from those neighbors. Weir, like most propagandists, neglects to mention this context. On her Web site, she even absurdly refers to the 1967 war as a "Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack on Egypt," a laughable assertion that no sober-minded historian would take seriously. Her assertion ignores the fact that before Israel's preemptive strike, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers meant to separate the two sides, provocatively massed its troops on its border with Israel, threatened to destroy the country, and, in an act of war, illegally blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat. Cutting off access to Eilat by blockading the Gulf of Aqaba, an international waterway, was a casus belli under international law. In other words, even before the first shot was fired in 1967, Egypt had started the war.
But even more preposterous is Weir's assertion that Israel "attacked" and "invaded" surrounding countries in 1948. During the 1948 War of Independence, it was Israel that was illegally attacked and invaded by its neighbors, which sought to destroy the nascent Jewish state. This attack by the Arab countries and the Palestinians was a violation of United Nations Resolution 181 (the Partition Resolution) and the UN Charter. Israel managed to fight off the attackers, but did not "invade" the attacking countries." The idea that such a site could be relied upon in any way for the truth is preposterous.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marini
tweaky, I enjoy reading what you write.
You are well read, well spoken, and certainly intelligent.
I think one of the hallmarks of ignorance, has to be the inability to at least consider other points of view.
I am enjoy reading your views from down under, and you have given me a lot to think about.
Tweakabelle is an extremist, who defends Palestinian terrorism which she labelled "resistance", whilst continually demonising Israel which she refers to as a "terrorist state" as in thequoted post. Marini I would suggest this is a pot calling kettle black scenario regarding the views of others, for your other posts on here have been consistently pro-Palestinian.
|
|
|
|
