5 ms·

>Israel will be an attractive place to continue funding with US taxpayers Hopefully not, US taxpayers should see this aid spent on themselves in their own nati

by PKop 5y ago

>Israel will be an attractive place to continue funding with US taxpayers Hopefully not, US taxpayers should see this aid spent on themselves in their own nation.

vmception 5y ago
Right. But as this is a constant across all US administrations' heads of state, as well as super majority of representatives in Congress it is currently useless to debate that and acknowledge the reality: it will be less objectionable to much of US population if Israel is able to implement due process to all of its citizens that more closely matches what occurs in the US.
- oogabooga123 5y ago
  > Useless to debate It seems like you just outlined why it is necessary to debate. Think of how many positions used to have overwhelming majority in Congress, only to be overturned after citizens pushed the issue, by publicly debating it when it was unpopular.
- Alex3917 5y ago
  > But as this is a constant across all US administrations' heads of state, as well as super majority of representatives in Congress it is currently useless to debate that Just wait 10 years until most new cars are electric, and we’ll see whether or not that still holds.
- Method-X 5y ago
  I would argue that it's supported across all governments in the US because there isn't must debate or awareness surrounding it.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I have my doubts about that one, but that could be because my own filter bubble includes general awareness of it. I usually skip the stages of grief and go straight to acceptance, and looking at how to make it more tenable.
- rebelos 5y ago
  There are some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger (and there are millions of them at this very moment).
  - kergonath 5y ago
    That's a bit short sighted, though. Foreign aid is an investment, and a tool to solidify your soft power.It is worth it even without considering any humanitarian aspect (which you should, but not everybody does). Running a slightly less ridiculous military-industrial complex would free plenty of funds to fix just about any issue there might be in the US (except of course the big one, climate change). Second is having a slightly less ridiculous tax system.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war.
    - rebelos 5y ago
      > Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war. I think this is exactly what politicians would like you to believe. You should take a look at how the foreign aid budget gets spent in reality.
- salawat 5y ago
  >Its not so absurd to imagine getting a court order to seize a property and prosecute individuals that are using military grade munitions. Right now it might seem to be, but it isn't. Ah hem. The Second Amendment would like a word... There is nothing in theory keeping anyone in the United States from owning or even using military grade munitions. Just paperwork. And all too much at that. If you're going to be seizing property, due process. Your due process you seem to be espousing reads "have use military grade munitions -> seize and prosecute". Those of us that like to safely own and have things that go boom or have military applications would appreciate it if you'd describe due process as it should be, "prosecute, secure beyond reasonable doubt conviction -> seize property", though even that is open to question as the property to be seized should reflect the crime committed. If felony theft is committed, property should transfer to next of kin, or liquidated with proceeds going to next-of-kin. Order matters. Besides which, what is the big deal with Israel anyway? Besides people who read way too much Revelations, and think entirely too much of the United States as a lynchpin in that, I've seen very little to recommend keeping up a military industrial pipeline coffer lining exercise in that part of the world. The U.S. is quite literally being the mother of all enablers in that regard.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Owning and using arms are very different. The ownership typically has an avenue available in all parts of the US. If the avenue isn't broad enough or too restrictive then the courts re-broaden it on 2nd amendment grounds. Using is much more tightly restricted and illegal in most areas of the US, there is no area of the US where you can shoot mortars off of somebody else's building, at someone else's property, without consequence from the state itself. But the primary difference between areas within the US borders and areas within Israel's borders is how the consequence materializes. In the US the expected response would be an investigation, finding the munitions, taking the munition as evidence, finding the owner or user, interviewing people, indicting and convicting the owner, seizing the owners assets or finding the building somehow culpable too, only for the purpose of temporary ownership by the state, not destruction. If something occurred during the investigation or the presence of a law enforcement, the law enforcement may shoot back on the spot. In Israel, right now the expected response is lobbing a missile at the building and gaslighting everyone that questions that particular approach.
yosefk 5y ago
...and then Israel can build its own fighter jets? Count us in! It's not "aid." It's fiscal transfer to vassal states (though 75% of it really goes to US corporations' pockets - aid isn't dollars but vouchers to spend on US products at 4x the market price) within the US empire. Just ask any non-voting subject of the empire. BTW in numbers it's $4B/year - $3B to US firms, $1B to Israel. Our GDP is about $400B. Would we buy our independence for $1B per year, if the US was selling/if the world worked that way? You bet! (And don't get me wrong, it might be the best empire to be the vassal of for Israel which is too small to be independent. Just let's call it what it is.)
- 29athrowaway 5y ago
  Israel is known for selling arms to regimes that abuse human rights. Like Myanmar.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Israel is known for selling arms to regimes that abuse human rights. Also, for being such a regime.
  - redisman 5y ago
    This is absurdly selective. Are there any arms manufacturing countries, including the Saints in EU and US who haven’t sold arms to repressive regimes? You don’t even have to scratch the surface. Is Saudi Arabia a freedom loving democracy?
    - 29athrowaway 5y ago
      1. Is this discussion about the Saudi Arabian government or the Israeli government? I also have stuff to say about Saudis too but that's not the topic right now. 2. "Oh but, what about <X>"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism And by the way I am not anti-semitic, if that is what you were trying to imply with "absurdly selective". Israel has many high value products to export besides weapons. Israel can enjoy prosperity without having to resort to trading weapons with such regimes.
throwntoday 5y ago
The israel lobby is too powerful to ever have their funding cut. Very few in Washington are critical of israel and those that are will be labled anti-semetic because no distinction can ever exist between criticism of israel and anti-semitism apparently. It's truly pathetic how openly American polticians will kowtow to israel and even china these days. Whatever they are getting in return must be worth it.
- smolder 5y ago
  Compliant politicians don't necessarily have to get anything in return. Punishment and the threat of it can motivate behavior, just like positive reinforcement. Anyway, I wouldn't personify these countries and assign them motivations. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are many people pulling strings across many nations, complete with complicated rivalries and partnerships. The support for a modern Israeli state in the first place started outside of what is now Israel. So, you can't assume pressure to support Israel all comes from Israel itself, purely in its self-interest.
baq 5y ago
Every thousand spent abroad in an unstable country is ten thousand saved ten years later when a military operation is needed or humanitarian aid is sent.
pmoriarty 5y ago
"Hopefully not, US taxpayers should see this aid spent on themselves in their own nation." Are you against the US giving aid to any other country, or just to Israel?
- tmule 5y ago
  That’s a weird binary - maybe it’s okay to give aid to some countries (that are poor, don’t have half their population espousing racist AF views, that haven’t undermined the US itself)?

by PKop 5y ago

>Israel will be an attractive place to continue funding with US taxpayers Hopefully not, US taxpayers should see this aid spent on themselves in their own nation.

vmception 5y ago

Right. But as this is a constant across all US administrations' heads of state, as well as super majority of representatives in Congress it is currently useless to debate that and acknowledge the reality: it will be less objectionable to much of US population if Israel is able to implement due process to all of its citizens that more closely matches what occurs in the US.

oogabooga123 5y ago
> Useless to debate It seems like you just outlined why it is necessary to debate. Think of how many positions used to have overwhelming majority in Congress, only to be overturned after citizens pushed the issue, by publicly debating it when it was unpopular.
Alex3917 5y ago
> But as this is a constant across all US administrations' heads of state, as well as super majority of representatives in Congress it is currently useless to debate that Just wait 10 years until most new cars are electric, and we’ll see whether or not that still holds.
Method-X 5y ago
I would argue that it's supported across all governments in the US because there isn't must debate or awareness surrounding it.
- vmception 5y ago
  I have my doubts about that one, but that could be because my own filter bubble includes general awareness of it. I usually skip the stages of grief and go straight to acceptance, and looking at how to make it more tenable.
rebelos 5y ago
There are some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger (and there are millions of them at this very moment).
- kergonath 5y ago
  That's a bit short sighted, though. Foreign aid is an investment, and a tool to solidify your soft power.It is worth it even without considering any humanitarian aspect (which you should, but not everybody does). Running a slightly less ridiculous military-industrial complex would free plenty of funds to fix just about any issue there might be in the US (except of course the big one, climate change). Second is having a slightly less ridiculous tax system.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war.
  - rebelos 5y ago
    > Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war. I think this is exactly what politicians would like you to believe. You should take a look at how the foreign aid budget gets spent in reality.
salawat 5y ago
>Its not so absurd to imagine getting a court order to seize a property and prosecute individuals that are using military grade munitions. Right now it might seem to be, but it isn't. Ah hem. The Second Amendment would like a word... There is nothing in theory keeping anyone in the United States from owning or even using military grade munitions. Just paperwork. And all too much at that. If you're going to be seizing property, due process. Your due process you seem to be espousing reads "have use military grade munitions -> seize and prosecute". Those of us that like to safely own and have things that go boom or have military applications would appreciate it if you'd describe due process as it should be, "prosecute, secure beyond reasonable doubt conviction -> seize property", though even that is open to question as the property to be seized should reflect the crime committed. If felony theft is committed, property should transfer to next of kin, or liquidated with proceeds going to next-of-kin. Order matters. Besides which, what is the big deal with Israel anyway? Besides people who read way too much Revelations, and think entirely too much of the United States as a lynchpin in that, I've seen very little to recommend keeping up a military industrial pipeline coffer lining exercise in that part of the world. The U.S. is quite literally being the mother of all enablers in that regard.
- vmception 5y ago
  Owning and using arms are very different. The ownership typically has an avenue available in all parts of the US. If the avenue isn't broad enough or too restrictive then the courts re-broaden it on 2nd amendment grounds. Using is much more tightly restricted and illegal in most areas of the US, there is no area of the US where you can shoot mortars off of somebody else's building, at someone else's property, without consequence from the state itself. But the primary difference between areas within the US borders and areas within Israel's borders is how the consequence materializes. In the US the expected response would be an investigation, finding the munitions, taking the munition as evidence, finding the owner or user, interviewing people, indicting and convicting the owner, seizing the owners assets or finding the building somehow culpable too, only for the purpose of temporary ownership by the state, not destruction. If something occurred during the investigation or the presence of a law enforcement, the law enforcement may shoot back on the spot. In Israel, right now the expected response is lobbing a missile at the building and gaslighting everyone that questions that particular approach.

yosefk 5y ago

...and then Israel can build its own fighter jets? Count us in! It's not "aid." It's fiscal transfer to vassal states (though 75% of it really goes to US corporations' pockets - aid isn't dollars but vouchers to spend on US products at 4x the market price) within the US empire. Just ask any non-voting subject of the empire. BTW in numbers it's $4B/year - $3B to US firms, $1B to Israel. Our GDP is about $400B. Would we buy our independence for $1B per year, if the US was selling/if the world worked that way? You bet! (And don't get me wrong, it might be the best empire to be the vassal of for Israel which is too small to be independent. Just let's call it what it is.)

29athrowaway 5y ago
Israel is known for selling arms to regimes that abuse human rights. Like Myanmar.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Israel is known for selling arms to regimes that abuse human rights. Also, for being such a regime.
- redisman 5y ago
  This is absurdly selective. Are there any arms manufacturing countries, including the Saints in EU and US who haven’t sold arms to repressive regimes? You don’t even have to scratch the surface. Is Saudi Arabia a freedom loving democracy?
  - 29athrowaway 5y ago
    1. Is this discussion about the Saudi Arabian government or the Israeli government? I also have stuff to say about Saudis too but that's not the topic right now. 2. "Oh but, what about <X>"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism And by the way I am not anti-semitic, if that is what you were trying to imply with "absurdly selective". Israel has many high value products to export besides weapons. Israel can enjoy prosperity without having to resort to trading weapons with such regimes.

throwntoday 5y ago

The israel lobby is too powerful to ever have their funding cut. Very few in Washington are critical of israel and those that are will be labled anti-semetic because no distinction can ever exist between criticism of israel and anti-semitism apparently. It's truly pathetic how openly American polticians will kowtow to israel and even china these days. Whatever they are getting in return must be worth it.

smolder 5y ago
Compliant politicians don't necessarily have to get anything in return. Punishment and the threat of it can motivate behavior, just like positive reinforcement. Anyway, I wouldn't personify these countries and assign them motivations. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are many people pulling strings across many nations, complete with complicated rivalries and partnerships. The support for a modern Israeli state in the first place started outside of what is now Israel. So, you can't assume pressure to support Israel all comes from Israel itself, purely in its self-interest.

baq 5y ago

Every thousand spent abroad in an unstable country is ten thousand saved ten years later when a military operation is needed or humanitarian aid is sent.

pmoriarty 5y ago

"Hopefully not, US taxpayers should see this aid spent on themselves in their own nation." Are you against the US giving aid to any other country, or just to Israel?

tmule 5y ago
That’s a weird binary - maybe it’s okay to give aid to some countries (that are poor, don’t have half their population espousing racist AF views, that haven’t undermined the US itself)?