Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Another theory is that we give them money so that we DO have sway with them, and without it they would have nothing to lose and no reason not to wage massive war on the entire area - a war they would win quickly and easily.
The right thing to do would be to wean them off of support over about a decade.
|
We have sway? The president ordered a withdraw how many times over 11 days? What happened? Where is this sway? Instead, Isreal demonstrated how a US President has no backbone - will not back up his demands. Is that sway? That is arrogance because they know we cannot stop the money flow. This, which is really common knowledge, is from The Economist of 6 Apr 2002:
Quote:
|
Forget about infirmity of purpose. The most troubling criticism of America's Middle East policy is that it is driven not by national interest but by a domestic lobby ...
|
Israel is addicted to that $3billion that we all but cannot stop giving them. Israel has even rechanneled US donations into military projects in direct violation (see the exposed history of their jet fighter and who was really paying for much of its developement). That 'sway' exists only in theory.
Having said that, weaning Israel off the money is the worst thing. It is a card to keep Israel in line with a responsible world community. The card can only played once - if we could only figure out how to play it. It should be played digitally - massive cutoffs or no cutoffs. Furthermore threats of using the card also have political value. But notice on 'Face the Nation' et al, blunt questions, with followup blunt questions, about playing the card are immediately quashed and sidestepped. Politicians have too many back room deals to even let a reduction in that money be discussed.
The real problem is not the money. AIPAC is a lobby easily as and probably more powerful than the NRA. It has power well beyond the less than 2% that it represents. It is an example of why so many elite in Washington want unlimited campaign bribery.
Sycamore has honestly exampled what most of the world is saying. If one has a problem with some of his points, then one should be questioning his own news sources and personal biases. We should all be very upset that the Israelis cannot even trust world news reporters into Jenin (or any other Palestinian town), or even to the Powel / Arafat conference. The latter example so characterizes Israeli fear of world knowldege that the world should be questioning everything that Israeli mainstream (extermist right wing) government says. Isreali later backed down on that Powel / Arafat restriction only because it makes routine Israeli censorship too obvious.
Isreal is so dishonest that Sharon even promised to withdraw when first orderd to by George Jr. Watch. There will never be a Sharon withdraw from the occupied territories. Sharon lies are normal. We know simply because of everything Sharon has done previously. Sharon openly lies to everyone. Why has he changed this last month?
Just from the coverup, it becomes obvious that Jenin was a massive civilian massacre. Isreal even refuses to let any of the hundreds (maybe thousand) of Palestinian bodies be returned to their relatives. Israel says it is to keep the Palestinians from having those funerals. Reality is what forensic science calls "Best Evidence". The best evidence of an Isreali massacre would be those bodies. Just like in Bosnia. Best not to let you know the truth about Jenin - as was always Sharon's history.
This is the same man who arranged the massacre of 5,000 women and children only 20 years ago in Lebanon. Massacres are routine for this man as also may have been the massacre of hundreds of captured Egyptian soldiers in 1967 - and the resulting 1.5 hour attack on the US Navy ship USS Liberty. Only one person here even suggests taking Sharon to The Hague for crimes against humanity. It raises serious questions as to how knowledgeable the American public is about this man.
Why does Israel fear the world press? Why was the greatest danger to reporters the Israeli soldier? These are disturbing questions about a democracy that has so changed - that was once an American ally - that now acts just like the man who leads it. Even Hilter was democratically elected.