TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum - View Single Post

sabang · 07-06-2008, 02:49 AM

"Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons."

LRB · John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: The Israel Lobby

Tha above comes from an article (linked above), and subsequent book published by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called the Israel Lobby. It is critical of the power of the Lobby, of which AIPAC is at the core, and argues that the net result is often contrary to the interests of US foreign policy. Unsurprisingly, the book has attracted a fair bit of controversy.

AIPAC is at the very core of the US political administration, the article will leave you in no doubt about that, and the 'neo-cons' are not just pro-Zionist as I am wont to say- they Are Zionist.

An interesting snippet-

We also traced the lobby’s impact on recent U.S. policies, including the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Neoconservatives inside and outside the Bush administration, as well as leaders of a number of prominent pro-Israel organizations, played key roles in making the case for war. We believe the United States would not have attacked Iraq without their efforts. That said, these groups and individuals did not operate in a vacuum, and they did not lead the country to war by themselves. For instance, the war would probably not have occurred absent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which helped convince President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to support it.

John Mearsheimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a letter published in the London Review of Books in response to criticism of their book, I reckon Walt and Mearsheimer pretty much sum it up with this statement-

"We agree that there is strong public support for Israel in America, in part because it is seen as compatible with America's Judaeo-Christian culture. But we believe this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savoury actions. Diplomats and military officers are also affected by this distorted public discourse, but many of them can see through the rhetoric. They keep silent, however, because they fear that groups like AIPAC will damage their careers if they speak out. The fact is that if there were no AIPAC, Americans would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the Middle East would look different."

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: Storm Over "the Israel Lobby"

The title of the article is-
Is It Possible to Have a Civilized Discussion About the Role of Israel in American Foreign Policy?
The Storm over "the Israel Lobby"

Damn good question.

07-06-2008, 02:49 AM	#24 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 09:57 PM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: where the streets have no name Posts: 11,567	"Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain. Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons." LRB · John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: The Israel Lobby Tha above comes from an article (linked above), and subsequent book published by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called the Israel Lobby. It is critical of the power of the Lobby, of which AIPAC is at the core, and argues that the net result is often contrary to the interests of US foreign policy. Unsurprisingly, the book has attracted a fair bit of controversy. AIPAC is at the very core of the US political administration, the article will leave you in no doubt about that, and the 'neo-cons' are not just pro-Zionist as I am wont to say- they Are Zionist. An interesting snippet- We also traced the lobby’s impact on recent U.S. policies, including the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Neoconservatives inside and outside the Bush administration, as well as leaders of a number of prominent pro-Israel organizations, played key roles in making the case for war. We believe the United States would not have attacked Iraq without their efforts. That said, these groups and individuals did not operate in a vacuum, and they did not lead the country to war by themselves. For instance, the war would probably not have occurred absent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which helped convince President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to support it. John Mearsheimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In a letter published in the London Review of Books in response to criticism of their book, I reckon Walt and Mearsheimer pretty much sum it up with this statement- "We agree that there is strong public support for Israel in America, in part because it is seen as compatible with America's Judaeo-Christian culture. But we believe this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savoury actions. Diplomats and military officers are also affected by this distorted public discourse, but many of them can see through the rhetoric. They keep silent, however, because they fear that groups like AIPAC will damage their careers if they speak out. The fact is that if there were no AIPAC, Americans would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the Middle East would look different." John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: Storm Over "the Israel Lobby" The title of the article is- Is It Possible to Have a Civilized Discussion About the Role of Israel in American Foreign Policy? The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" Damn good question. __________________ Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.