February 1, 2011

The Deal

The deal struck at Camp David in 1978 was, very roughly, that, in return for no more war, the U.S. would give Israel $3 billion per year and Egypt $2 billion per year, or $50 per Egyptian per year. That wasn't bad money back then. 

But the payoff hasn't gone up since then. And the population of Egypt has doubled, so now rather than $50 per Egyptian per year in 1978 dollars, the bribe is now $25 per Egyptian per year in crummy 2011 dollars.

Meanwhile, the wealth of the American wing of the Israel Fan Club has skyrocketed. This is not a secret in Cairo: they can go to the Forbes 400 website and do the math.

This doesn't mean that a new Egyptian government would want war with Israel. War is stupid; it kills people and breaks stuff. War doesn't pay. 

On the other hand, perhaps under a new regime, the Egyptian border guards who currently keep the Egypt-Gaza Strip border locked down pretty tight might get, say, a little sleepy. And maybe a few shipments of longer range missiles might get through to the hotheads in Gaza, with unfortunate but predictable incidents to follow. 

War doesn't pay, but maybe, ambitious younger men in Egypt might be thinking: Peace can pay. And a lot better than a stinking $25 per head. Mubaruk just wanted to die in luxury and hand his throne over to his son. Younger men might have more to prove.

If peace was worth $2 billion per year in the 1970s, they might reason, what would it be worth in the 2010s? $20 billion? Younger, more energetic Egyptian politicians with less to lose might  have some strong opinions on this subject.

But how could the Egyptians intimidate Israel? Perhaps they could co-opt the Jewish State. After all, if Egypt were to demand an order of magnitude cost of living adjustment up to $20 billion, then it would only be right and fitting for Israel to get $30 billion from the U.S. taxpayers. 

148 comments:

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"If peace was worth $2 billion per year in the 1970s, what would it be worth in the 2010s?"

It's worth nothing, to me.

So why do I have to pay to keep Israel and Egypt from fighting?

Whatever happens in Egypt, the upside may be that the deal gets cancelled. I doubt it. But it'd be nice. I see no reason why we're sending $5 billion to those two countries while the United States is busy going broke.

dearieme said...

That's a mighty fine dam you've got there at Aswan, son; it'd be a pity if anything happened to it.

Whiskey said...

Steve, this is where you fall apart. As a middle class man like me, you don't understand that most of the Third World and nearly all of the Muslim world wants War. War by their terms is very, very good.

War allows minor figures to advance, significantly, in ways they cannot in peace. War allows conquering the Infidel, both a sacred duty for Muslims and something Allah wants. War allows booty, captives, an outlet for sadism and aggression, and domination of those conquered and thus, Wives in a polygamous society.

The Muslim brotherhood has already called for Egypt to prepare for War against Israel. They are Muslim. They are not like you and me. They don't have the same nuclear family structure, polygamy is heavy upon them, the abject poverty (with no way to climb out) is different, and their entire views are radically different from Westerners like ourselves.

The Pew Surveys show 90% of Egyptians support "freedom of religion" and 84% the death penalty for leaving Islam (that is how they define "freedom of religion" ... freedom to kill for Allah). A full 82% support stoning to death for adultery.

Muslims are pre-modern people. Utterly unsuited to adapt to the requirements of Modernity: cooperation, education, moderation, secularism, rule of law, suppressing Religion as the arbiter of society.

Of course there will be War. Muslims WANT IT. For them, it is a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Why should America have to give these jokers 5 billion bucks not to fight each other? What chumps we are!

Whiskey said...

Israel is likely to be annihilated, with most Jews simply killed in various brutal ways. I doubt that Israelis, being fundamentally Western, profoundly feminized, and (not very good anymore at War) will be able to fight off Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran. Iran has boasted that Israel is a "one bomb state" and in the final analysis I doubt Israelis are made of cultural and emotional stuff to be Samson in the Temple. Western Society produces lots of material wealth but at the cost of being fairly useless in fighting current non-Western actors with equalizing technology. There just is not the will. Not even to use Nukes (required) to break Aswan.

I doubt any amount of money would persuade Egyptians and the Brotherhood to avoid War. War is the only way out for them, it offers social climbing for the able and Allah-favored, excitement, and "Allah's will" to kill and conquer the infidel. The casual anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories believed by the ordinary Muslim (Israel sent "killer sharks" to attack Sharm el-Sheik) cannot be believed.

The Israeli military is very bad, unable to even defeat in military terms dug in Hezbollah in Lebanon. Egypt alone can likely conquer them, against Syria and Jordan and Hezbollah, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. Egypt almost won in the Yom Kippur War, bogged down only by logistical mistakes (they are unlikely to make that same mistake). And that was with a buffer zone in the Sinai.

Israel is doomed, and its destruction will of course only encourage more "conquering" actions by Muslims to take from the West by force what they cannot produce themselves.

Aubrey -- $5 billion was cheap for the price when it was useful in keeping the Canal open. Its beside the point now, and the real cost to the US is social spending on illegal aliens, not a "trivial" $5 billion which is not even a line item in the Federal Budget.

Anonymous said...

Of course, as long as America continues to run a massive balance of payments deficit, it's really a rather academic exercise to state that America actually 'donates' anything to anyone.
China is the USA's main creditor.In reality America is just acting as a conduit for Chinese cash (with interest going to China)going to Egypt.

Anonymous said...

New Jersey needs that money more.

DanJ said...

Not fair! Over here in Finland we haven´t fought a war since 1944 and you have sent us no money at all. And neighbouring Sweden hasn´t fought since 1809!

We´ve stupidly kept the peace for free, not knowing there was money to be had. No more, I say. Starting next week, for only 2000 dollars, no wait, Euros, per citizen per year, you can avert the unspeakable horrors of Fenno-Swedish War. It´s a bargain, really.

PV van der Byl said...

The $2 billion per annum starting in 1978 also acquired Egypt as a client state for the US. In addition to displacing the Soviet Union from the largest Arab country, the US got to use Egypt as a base of operations.

Egypt can fight a conventional war against Israel only if it has a major power backing it. The Soviet Union is defunct and China has still not reached the point where it can assume the role the US has performed till now.

If the US were to stop funding both Egypt and Israel, repeats of either the 1967 or 1973 wars would be unlikely.

Terrorism would likely continue at current or higher levels, as you suggest.

There would still be some chance of a nuclear exchange if Egypt were to acquire nuclear weapons.

South Africa showed that could be done on the cheap with 1980s technology.

Thripshaw's disease said...

With the American government so outrageously in debt and in need of immediate budget cuts, this would seem to be an auspicious time to put an end to "the deal" and slash foreign aid in general. The public would approve.
Unfortunately, the globalist CFR loonies and members of the Israel Fan Club who run things would probably rather cut just about anything else. If Mubarak goes, we probably will see an increase in aid to Egypt - and, just to be fair, to our wonderful Israeli "allies." All in the name of stability.

Anonymous said...

If the Aswan Dam were bombed, the ensuing flood would wash everything living near the banks of the Nile River to the Mediterranean. In short, it would kill most of the population of Egypt. No more Malthusian problems after that catastrophe.

Svigor said...

That's a mighty fine dam you've got there at Aswan, son; it'd be a pity if anything happened to it.

Like what? Oops, my bad on the pinpoint nuclear strike?

Svigor said...

polygamy is heavy upon them

What does that mean? What percentage of the Muslim populations in question actually live polygynous lives?

Anonymous said...

The '73 war was fun. I'd like to see it again.

JSM said...

not a "trivial" $5 billion which is not even a line item in the Federal Budget.

I don't think you meant the sarcasm quotes. I think you're trying to convince us all that $5 billion IS trivial.
Which is funny. If it's so trivial in actuality, why do you feel compelled to post, urging us not to get worked up about it enough to get it canceled?

Anonymous said...

Another antisemitic article from Steve. Wow, what a surprise.

Anonymous said...

Don't bomb Aswan in May, there's no more rain until November. Even as far up the Nile as lush Kampala, Uganda, the summer dries up. You would kill over 100 million people - more than a Nuke ever could.

ATBOTL said...

Just when Whiskey was sounding more reasonable as of late, this had to happen.

Do you really think that "The Israeli military is very bad" or are you consciously parodying yourself?

Anonymous said...

Whiskey: The Pew Surveys show 90% of Egyptians support "freedom of religion" and 84% the death penalty for leaving Islam (that is how they define "freedom of religion" ... freedom to kill for Allah). A full 82% support stoning to death for adultery.

I know that the Scots-Irish point of view is not always the most popular one at iSteve, but just take a look at the pictures assembled by Scots-Irishwoman Phllis Chesler [Page One and Page Two] to get some sense of how seriously the situation has deteriorated in Egypt since Sadat's era.

And now we've got the Obama Administration dropping hints that maybe the Muslim Brotherhood isn't so bad after all.

BTW, somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi Christians were purged when Dubya replaced the secular government of Saddam Hussein with the Sunni-Shiite mess which is in place now.


Anonymous: If the Aswan Dam were bombed, the ensuing flood would wash everything living near the banks of the Nile River to the Mediterranean. In short, it would kill most of the population of Egypt. No more Malthusian problems after that catastrophe.

The CIA Factobook says that Egypt has a population of 80,471,869, of whom about 9% are Copts and 1% are "other" Christians.

So that's about 8.5 million human beings whom you would be murdering if you were to take out the Aswan [assuming that the Muslim Brotherhood hadn't murdered them for you already].

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much Pakistan is getting now?

They've certainly hit the sweet spot in making sure the US maintains the status quo.

Paul Mendez said...

Whiskey sez, "Israel is likely to be annihilated, with most Jews simply killed in various brutal ways."

Wrong. If Israel falls, the entire population of Israel will be airlifted to the United States. And America's Ruling Class Elites will finally learn what it's like to be a high school dropout in a city with lots of illegal aliens.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Of course there will be War. Muslims WANT IT. For them, it is a good thing.

Actually it's not because they make such shitty warriors. Other than the fanatical and the ones with sub-average IQ, Muslims in their homelands are more concerned with making a living than anything else. Like most people, they tend to resent when foreign armies come along and blow up their places of employment. Watching fat, corrupt oligarchs get escorted around by American mercs sticks in their craws as well.

All we really need to worry about is keeping THEM over THERE.

Anonymous said...

Amazingly, Israel isn't even obligated to purchase US hardware with its US military aid and plays US producers against foreign ones in gaining low prices and reciprocal trade agreements...

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000583788&fid=1725

Contemplationist said...

Heh its not as if Israel relinquished Sinai which was historically not Egyptian, where it had developed oilfields and airports and tourist resorts. So a victor returns territory for a claim of no further hostilities.

wmhde said...

Steve neglects to mention that Israel's population has increased too since '78......therefore, in order to maintain the ratio of dole payments b/t Israel and Egypt, 30 billion would not be sufficient.

Chief Seattle said...

Steve, this is a very smart observation. The U.S. continues to pay countries like North Korea for peace - why wouldn't it anti up a little more for Egypt. Maybe it stays as direct aid, maybe it's a better deal for keeping the Canal open.

And they've seen the consequences for angering the U.S. - a half-baked war followed by a half-baked "occupation" where any local "expert" with a little gumption can make millions by promising to keep their people in line. Not much downside there.

Anonymous said...

, you don't understand that most of the Third World and nearly all of the Muslim world wants War.
if by muslims you mean 'jewish neocons' i think you're right, sweetheart...

Anonymous said...

Looks like Jordan is anticipating the revolution and dismissing cabinet... Let's say Egypt falls, goes back into the league with the other arab nations.

Most jewish supporters of israel and israel itself, are already high strung and paranoid enough.. will they pre-bomb someone? Nuke someone? Will the neocons, wall street etc here, despite the deficit try to buy off egypt and put the US taxpayer more in debt? (debt they don't care about because they are so myopic and selfish).

Well its' going to be interesting, sweethearts.

Anonymous said...

If the Aswan Dam were bombed, the ensuing flood would wash everything living near the banks of the Nile River to the Mediterranean i could easily see israel doing this, and the neocons defending it, without a second thought.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

If the Aswan Dam were bombed, the ensuing flood would wash everything living near the banks of the Nile River to the Mediterranean. In short, it would kill most of the population of Egypt. No more Malthusian problems after that catastrophe."

"Malthusian problems"? Wow, how inhuman can you be to think of genocide as a good thing and a prescription for having a large population? Hopefully you will die childless so that you do not contribute to the "Malthusian Problems" of mankind. Better yet, somebody should just end your miseries for you!!!

Anonymous said...

Just who is going to supply the logistics for these Egyptian wars, Mr. Whiskey?

Lugash said...

I am Lugash.

In the same vein of collapsing totalitarian regimes and American payoffs, once North Korea implodes America shouldn't pay one fucking cent of the reconstruction costs. Let that bill be born by China and Russia, who propped up the midget madmen for years.

I am Lugash.

Eric said...

On the other hand, perhaps under a new regime, the Egyptian border guards who currently keep the Egypt-Gaza Strip border locked down pretty tight might get, say, a little sleepy.

That already happens on a regular basis. The homemade rockets aren't very reliable, and nobody wants to die launching a rocket that may not go off.

The reason the Egyptians don't want to open the border has nothing to do with US money. They simply don't want the problems associated with the Palestinians, and that's still going to be true post-Mubarak.

Anonymous said...

Report: U.S. 'Held Secret Meeting with Muslim Brotherhood'
By Aaron Klein
February 01, 2011
nation.foxnews.com

The Egyptian government has information a diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Cairo secretly met yesterday with a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the nation's major Islamist opposition group, WND has learned.

The topic of the meeting was the future of Egypt following the "fall" of President Hosni Mubarak, an Egyptian intelligence official told WND.

The claim comes amid charges from Cairo that the Obama administration has been encouraging the protests rocking Egypt and targeting the rule of Mubarak, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Average Joe said...

So why do I have to pay to keep Israel and Egypt from fighting?

Simple. Because the people who control America want it to be paid.

That's a mighty fine dam you've got there at Aswan, son; it'd be a pity if anything happened to it.

I'm sure that will reduce Islamic terrorism against the United States and Israel. Why not nuke Mecca while they are at it?

The $2 billion per annum starting in 1978 also acquired Egypt as a client state for the US.

Why do we need Egypt as a client state?

Chicago said...

Egypt got the Sinai back so they had no further incentive, and plenty of disincentive, to continue seeking armed conflict. The country is at the very center of the Arab world and we garnered it for ourselves as our client, steering it away from Nasserism and the USSR, having them also suppress muslim extremists in the region. Two billion is dirt cheap in today's world. The deal may be coming to an end now and we can't predict how things will shake out over there. It'd be a major blow to us if the Islamists were to gain a share of power there, something we would live to regret.

ironrailsironweights said...

Hey Whiskey,

Wal-Mart pharmacy is offering a discount on paranoid schizophrenia pills this month.

Peter

John Craig said...

Back in 1978, the population of Israel was approximately 6 million, so while the Egyptians were getting roughly $50 per person, the Israelis were getting $500. Wonder who negotiated that deal.

anony-mouse said...

But Steve, what happens when those Arabs take time off from going to the Forbes 400 website and go to the Forbes Billionaires website and find out that the world's richest man is this guy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

who's ancestry and family is 100%, er, um...

Anonymous said...

Much foreign aid goes straight to Switzerland. Do we hand it out as guilt-offerings or as bribes?
I would eliminate most of it (except the part that clearly does some humanitarian good) but that is politically impossible.
I don't think anyone will make war on Israel any time soon given how they have lost badly on every occasion.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey is like a Stormfronter's idea of what Jewish people are like.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that was David Duke pounding those keys.

Anonymous said...

I wish there was an ignore button somewhere so I could hide Whiskey's comments. Reading his stuff can cause brain damage.

none of the above said...

I'm no big fan of sending billions overseas in aid, but right now, that $2 billion a year bribe is buying us some influence.

Whoever succeeds Mubarrak will have it in their mind that $2 billion a year is riding on managing not to p-ss off the US too much. Open hostility and saber rattling with Israel will cost the next president of Egypt a lot of money he could otherwise spread around among the powerful to keep them content with his rule, or among the poor and p-ssed off, in hopes that they'll sooner or later forget what it felt like to show up en masse and send their president packing. I rather suspect that this will make him less likely to engage in too much saber rattling with Israel.

Now, long-term, I don't see how we can cut our deficit, with all kinds of unpopular and painful measures needed, and still keep sending billions overseas in aid. So this kind of aid is doomed, sooner or later. But for now, it may buy us fewer headaches in the middle east.

Eric said...

Most jewish supporters of israel and israel itself, are already high strung and paranoid enough.. will they pre-bomb someone? Nuke someone?

That's kind of a flight of fancy, don't you think? If Israel was going to "pre-bomb" anyone it would be the Iranian midget.

The Israelis have nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on their subs. They're not worried about a first strike taking out their ability to respond. I doubt they'll do much of anyhthing.

Black Sea said...

"What percentage of the Muslim populations in question actually live polygynous lives?"

Some quick Googling seems to indicate that in Eygpt it's around 3%.

Anonymous said...

What Captain Jack said.

Michael said...

Maybe we should spend the cash to convince N Korea to bitch slap Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood to nut punch Al-qaeda. War is not a problem, it can be a great solution when two of your enemies duke it out instead...

Let Israel deal with its own problems...

Anonymous said...

"What does that mean? What percentage of the Muslim populations in question actually live polygynous lives?"

About 1 percent I believe. Muslim men aren't really big on it, it's a waste of money.

Luke Lea said...

The best thing that could happen for peace in the Middle East would be for this unrest to spread to Jordan, resulting in constitutional monarchy based on majority rule. For then there would be room for a two-state solution with something amounting to a right-of-return for the Palestinian people.

The European Community should prepare itself to finance such a return if and when the occasion arises. They owe it to the Palestinians, and German youth ought to start agitating for it now.

Has to be said...

"The deal struck at Camp David in 1978 was, very roughly, that, in return for no more war, the U.S. would give Israel $3 billion per year and Egypt $2 billion per year."

No. Egypt got the money because it switched sides in the Cold War. This was a major coup and a rare American victory in the decade that began with the defeat in Vietnam and ended with the loss of Iran.

Israel started receiving serious aid decade earlier when it proved itself a valuable ally in the proxy wars against USSR. In 1978 the aid was increased as a sweetener. Because the peace deal was a bad deal for Israel: it had to give up land in exchange for promise (from people not exactly known for sticking to promises.) But America really needed that victory in the Cold War, so sticks and carrots had been applied...

rob said...

I agree with Whiskey. Israel is the giant panda of nations: unwilling and incapable of surviving on its own. In the long run, it is not possible to help those who cannot help themselves. The most humane thing to do cut off aid and let nature take its course as quickly as possible. That's much kinder than keeping them on life support, living in terror of the inevitable.

Anonymous said...

Baroness Ashton in political correctness row over word 'Christian'
By Bruno Waterfield
Brussels 5:05PM GMT 01 Feb 2011
telegraph.co.uk

A meeting of EU foreign ministers failed to agree on a condemnation of sectarian attacks over the Christmas period that targeted Christians in Egypt and Iraq.

Talks ended angrily when Italy accused Lady Ashton, the EU's foreign minister, of "excessive" political correctness because she refused to name any specific religious group as a victim of attacks.

Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, demanded an EU response on the persecution of Christians after a New Year suicide bombing at a Coptic church in northern Egypt in which 23 people were killed.

The Egyptian bombing followed attacks in Baghdad and fears, expressed by the Vatican, of persecution leading to a Christian exodus from the Middle East.

Mr Frattini, backed by France, said it pointless to issue statements defending religious tolerance without any references to the specific minority, Christians, that was under attack

"This position is an excess of secularism, which is damaging the credibility of Europe," he said on Monday night. "The final text didn't include any mention of Christians, as if we were talking of something else, so I asked the text to be withdrawn."

Diplomats have accused Lady Ashton of appeasing Muslim sensibilities to avoid a "clash of civilisations" after Egypt reacted furiously to a request from Pope Benedict XVI for better protection for the country's Christian minority...

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, the Ayatollahs of Iran have proven relatively sane in recent times. For example, they've kept their country out of war (Iraq-Iran war was Saddam's fault) and brought down the fertility rate considerably. Why not try engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood instead of assuming their going to be some type of Taliban government?

I personally don't agree with all their ideas, but the Brotherhood is supposed to be one of the more moderate Islamic parties.
It might also be said that the Brotherhood does not have majority support in the country and would likely govern in a coalition.

War on Israel makes no sense, as Israel has a "vibrant" economy and military-industrial base.... and Israel has nuclear weapons, courtesy of Uncle Sam and Uncle Shlomo.....

Simon in London said...

I noticed from the TV coverage that Egypt seems to have lots of US M1 Abrams main battle tanks now. Those things are practically unkillable, even by other modern tanks.

So Egypt does have a 'major power' backing it - the US - and is probably a bigger military threat to Israel now than in 1973.

Simon in London said...

This article says Egypt has 1005 M1s:

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

Built under license though, and might be missing stuff? Article claims they're at full M1A2 standard though.

Anonymous said...

"Whiskey is like a Stormfronter's idea of what Jewish people are like.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that was David Duke pounding those keys."


You don't know any better. In fact, David Duke has some clue about Jews, as does Kevin MacDonald, which are based on the actual behavior of actual Jews throughout history. No need to rely on clueless anonymous internet posters like Whiskey when you've got millions of real life examples out and walking about, who aren't anonymous strawmen. But, you're going to focus on Whiskey and pretend that real life Jews who actually exist, don't exist. It's all just an anti-semitic fiction.

I have no idea who Whiskey really is, but there's no reason to believe he's either a Jew or someone pretending to be a Jew. The USA is stuffed to the gills with philo-semitic Christian Zionists with viewpoints easily as extreme and crazy as Whiskey's. There's no need to invoke the Jew card when discussing Whiskey when there are millions of crazy, often Scotch-Irish, neo-conized white gentile Americans out there, either of the conservative political persuasion, or the religiously motivated Rapture Bunny type.

Jews wouldn't be nearly as powerful as they are if they didn't having millions of gentile "willing executioners" doing their work and supporting their causes, on both sides of the political spectrum. David Duke knows that, and says so, and you would know that David Duke knows that, if you actually knew anything about David Duke that wasn't sourced from a MSM hit piece.

As to Whiskey...reading Whiskey's posts here often reminds me of a line from the movie Buckaroo Banzai:

"Lithium is no longer available on credit."

sabril said...

Israel did pretty well (even though outnumbered) in 1948, 1967, and even 1973. So I don't think that Israel will inevitably fall.

Also, Israel is probably a lot stronger now because of various technological advances in warfare over the last 50 years.

I'm not a military expert, but I would guess that Israel could roll into Cairo, Anman, Damascus, and Beirut next week if it wanted to. And lose very few men in the process.

spacehabitats said...

How about an adjustment to, say, $0 for Egypt and $0 for Israel?

Oops,I forgot. NOT spending ourselves into bankruptcy meddling in other nations' affairs is "isolationist".

Camlost said...

Israel started receiving serious aid decade earlier when it proved itself a valuable ally in the proxy wars against USSR.

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up... glad to hear that the power of the Jewish lobby in the US was not a factor at all.

Mr. Anon said...

"Aubrey -- $5 billion was cheap for the price when it was useful in keeping the Canal open. Its beside the point now, and the real cost to the US is social spending on illegal aliens, not a "trivial" $5 billion which is not even a line item in the Federal Budget."

A dime is worth less than a dollar. Do you therefore throw away every dime you get?

So what is $5 billion? It's roughly the amount spent on research in 2010 by the National Science Foundation. Cut off Egypt and Israel, and you can significantly increase the amount of scientific research conducted in this country. Add in a few of the other countries to whom we pay standing bribes, like for example, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, etc., and we're talking an amount equal to the budget of NASA.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

I have nothing against Israel's survival. I'm quite for it, in fact. But Israel is quite capable of defending itself. It has nukes. So I see no reason to send it ~$3 billion a year that it doesn't need to protect itself, and I see no reason to send Egypt ~$2 billion to keep it from committing suicide.

Mind your pennies and your dollars will look after themselves.

Member of the Israel Fan Club said...

"Meanwhile, the wealth of the American wing of the Israel Fan Club has skyrocketed. This is not a secret in Cairo: they can go to the Forbes 400 website and do the math."

Really? Can you actually provide us a list of the specific members of the Forbes 400 who are members of the Israeli Fan Club and what they did to earn their membership? Or do you just think that some sort of Jewish heritage makes one a member of that club?

Anonymous said...

Just read a brief article on JPost. There were three quotes from young men on the street. Each had the following in common...

1. college educated (Software Developer, Law School)
2. working in low level jobs (or jobs they considered beneath their level of eduation)
3. claimed that they did not make enough to "get married"


The others thought that the Camp David accords were a humiliation and getting rid of Mubarek (they felt) woudl help rid Egypt of that humiliation.

Seems like a fairly typical pattern we have seen in other times and places.

Duncan

Anonymous said...

I'm not a military expert, but I would guess that Israel could roll into Cairo, Anman, Damascus, and Beirut next week if it wanted to. And lose very few men in the process.

Israel is strong enough to defeat any conventional Arab attack on its soil. It is also technologically sophisticated enough to launch small preemptive strikes like the type they did against Iraq in 1981.

However, Israel is not strong enough to roll into Cairo. Their military is not designed to fight that far from home. They wouldn't be able to supply their troops. The big advantage the US has is that it was able to provide food and fuel for our hungry tanks thousands of miles from home. The Israelis don't have this capability, nor do they need it since their goal is to defend home soil.

And even if they managed to send a armored column into Cairo, they wouldn't stay for long. They don't have the numbers to occupy a nation of 80 million.

So what is $5 billion? It's roughly the amount spent on research in 2010 by the National Science Foundation. Cut off Egypt and Israel, and you can significantly increase the amount of scientific research conducted in this country.

$5 billion is at least half of what it would cost to build a real, not virtual, barrier along our entire Mexican border. Something similar to the one India is building along its 2.5K mile border with Bangladesh.

Difference Maker said...

The Muslim world cannot possibly challenge the West.

I haven't seen Whiskey deny his Jewish heritage.

Difference Maker said...

Another antisemitic article from Steve. Wow, what a surprise.

Yes as citizens of the US how dare our interests not align with that of the Jews.

Israel is just some far away middle eastern country. Full of whacky foreigners

Bill said...

Whisky said . . .
Israel is likely to be annihilated,

Absurd. The Israeli armed forces suck by American standards. But, so what? The Arab armed forces don't even exist by American standards. For example, in Gulf War I, we killed bunches of dug in Iraqi soldiers by driving up to them in their trenches in bulldozers and pushing dirt over them.

The Israeli military is very bad, unable to even defeat in military terms dug in Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Israeli loss in Lebanon was primarily because of politics. The Israeli government misjudged the world's reaction to their indiscriminate bombing campaign. Had they just fought Hezbollah instead of bombing the whole country, they would have been able to continue the war long enough to win. They incorrectly believed that because the world was OK with Clinton enthusiastically killing Serbian civilians from the air, the world would be OK with Olmert enthusiastically killing Lebanese civilians from the air. It surprised them (and me) that it didn't work out that way.

Anonymous said...

I don't want to sound like Paul Erlich here but Egypt is beginning to look a lot like Soylent Green.

About 80% of Egypt's corn imports have come from the US - at least before we decided to use it for ethanol. Egypt is the largest wheat importer on earth but last year Russia had a drought.

A lot of those billions we give to Egypt allows them to subsidize the price of "baladi" bread- the staple of the masses.

Egypt is not a usual country. It has a thin strip of fertile land and a lot of completely barren desert. The tricks that worked the "Green Revolution" elsewhere just won't work on completely dry land. Their population is already well past any chance of independent self sufficiency from their own land. This means that they are doomed to be a client of some other more fortunate state.

The most likely arrangement looks to be that the oil states give them the money to buy grain from the US, Australia, and Russia. I very much doubt if US internal politics will allow us to unilaterally just give our grain to the Muslim Brotherhood. That might be Obama's preference but such a policy would get little support from even liberal Democrats.

Israel's prospects are dire. They will be on the border of a whole lot of hungry anti-Semites controlled politically by Wahhabi's and Qubtists.

Albertosaurus

airtommy said...

Israel did pretty well (even though outnumbered) in 1948, 1967, and even 1973. So I don't think that Israel will inevitably fall.

Israel was allied with Jordan in 1948. Those countries secretly agreed to conquer Palestine together. They significantly outnumbered the opposition (and were better armed and organized).

In 1967, the US convinced Egypt to ground their Air Force for a few days so there could be peace talks. Israel immediately attacked and sliced through the paralyzed Egyptian defenses. So, Israel's military proved nothing. We did learn a lot about Lyndon Johnson, though, when he called off the US Sixth Fleet that was on its way to rescue the USS Liberty.

Simon in London said...

sabril:
"I'm not a military expert, but I would guess that Israel could roll into Cairo, Anman, Damascus, and Beirut next week if it wanted to. And lose very few men in the process."

They failed against Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war, so I doubt this.

Almost certainly the Israeli air force can quickly gain air superiority over Arab air forces, and if about to be overrun they can always incinerate a good chunk of the ME in nuclear fire, but they do not have overwhelming superiority in ground forces. 1973 was a tough fight for Israel, and thanks to the USA, Egypt is now much better equipped than then.

ATBOTL said...

"But Steve, what happens when those Arabs take time off from going to the Forbes 400 website and go to the Forbes Billionaires website and find out that the world's richest man is this guy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

who's ancestry and family is 100%, er, um..."

Am I the only one who thinks that Carlos Slim is a front man and doesn't really control the fortune that's attributed to him? We're talking about a telecom monopoly in Mexico here.

ATBOTL said...

"I noticed from the TV coverage that Egypt seems to have lots of US M1 Abrams main battle tanks now. Those things are practically unkillable, even by other modern tanks."

Not even close to unkillable. Remember that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting with homemade bombs and obsolete 60's era Soviet light weapons.

Svigor said...

Whiskey's gonzo post about the Israeli Apocalypse was awesome, btw. Sounds like the next blockbuster.

Me, I think we should double down and give Israel 10 billion a year. Hell, 15. Hell, let's just invade Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Iran immediately. And send the North Koreans a nice fruit basket.

I'm kidding, but it wouldn't exactly ruin my year. I don't know why anyone but a leftist gets all worked up over how far we're willing to go for Israel. The whole 3 billion to a white ethnostate thing is working for me.

Svigor said...

Raise your hand if you think the US would just sit there while Egypt or Syria or whoever invaded Israel.

*Snicker*

Svigor said...

I haven't seen Whiskey deny his Jewish heritage.

I have, once or twice.

pst314 said...

If a newly democratic Egypt were to start a popularly supported war to destroy Israel, what moral reason would there be for Israel to not nuke Aswan? Surely not mere arithmetic: If ten thugs try to kill me, I am just as justified in killing them all as if only one thug has attacked.

TGGP said...

When was the last time Egypt or Iran was in a war? Now how about the U.S and Israel? I'm not saying Muslim countries are peaceful, they certainly weren't in the mid-90s, but these days it is kind of funny for an American to go on about how warlike Those Other Guys are.

Israel is doomed because of demographics. Reverse aliyah will remove those with opportunities elsewhere, and then there will be no one left to pay for welfare or serve in the army.

Anonymous said...

"We did learn a lot about Lyndon Johnson, though, when he called off the US Sixth Fleet that was on its way to rescue the USS Liberty."

I suspect the Mossad helped the CIA in getting Mr. Johnson into power, so he owed them a favor.

Eric said...

I noticed from the TV coverage that Egypt seems to have lots of US M1 Abrams main battle tanks now. Those things are practically unkillable, even by other modern tanks.

You're a sitting duck in any tank. The fact that we've only had a handful destroyed in Iraq is a result of absolute air superiority, the suitability of the terrain for armored warfare. Also, if your goal is to kill Americans until they get depressed and leave a softer target (like a truck or an unmounted patrol) is preferable.

You can destroy any tank in the world with a few artillery shells buried under a road.

But the real danger comes during conventional combat from the air. You could disable out a few dozen M1A1s in one pass with a couple of these.

Anonymous said...

"Israel is doomed because of demographics. Reverse aliyah will remove those with opportunities elsewhere, and then there will be no one left to pay for welfare or serve in the army."

I predict that most Israelis will end up in the United States. I'd certainly rather live in Scarsdale than Tel Aviv.

Anonymous said...

"Raise your hand if you think the US would just sit there while Egypt or Syria or whoever invaded Israel."

Raising hand.

Gues there's one way to find out.

sabril said...

"They failed against Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war, so I doubt this. "

Exactly how did Israel fail? And was it due to its military not being strong enough?

"Israel was allied with Jordan in 1948. Those countries secretly agreed to conquer Palestine together."

Could I have a cite and link for this? TIA.

"In 1967, the US convinced Egypt to ground their Air Force for a few days so there could be peace talks. Israel immediately attacked and sliced through the paralyzed Egyptian defenses."

What about Syria? What about Jordan? What about Egypt's ground forces?

Oh, and cite please. TIA.

"However, Israel is not strong enough to roll into Cairo. Their military is not designed to fight that far from home."

Beirut is within 50 miles of Israel; Damascus is within 25 miles; Anman is within 25 miles; Cairo less than 200 miles.

In 1967, the Israelis made it 2/3 of the way to Cairo with no problem and held the entire Sinai until they voluntarily returned it 10 years later.

Anonymous said...

"Exactly how did Israel fail? And was it due to its military not being strong enough?"

With all its firepower Israel lost over 100 soldiers and managed to kill 500 Hezzies. That's a miserable failure. It's military made a weak showing.

Anonymous said...

Israel is good at conventional warfare. The problem is that occupying a piece of territory (Palestine, Lebanon, etc.) means getting into decades long guerilla wars with the locals. If Israel took down Egypt and Syria, they'd get stuck just like we're stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe they learned their lesson when they tried to eradicate Hezbollah.

Israel is pretty safe right now, due to their conventional military/technology superiority and their posession of nuclear weapons. The Arabs, having been whipped several times before, are not going to mess with them. Even the Palestinians have been effectively fenced off.

The biggest threat to Israel is demographic: Orthodox Jews, Sephardics, and Arabs have too many kids. That'll eventually bring down the country. Marty Peretz knows this.

Anonymous said...

Rand Paul wants to cut off aid to Israel.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/60710/rand-paul-wants-to-halt-foreign-aid-including-to-israel/

Personally, I'll make a compromise with the neconservatives, AIPAC, Marty Peretz, Abe Foxman, Slate, and the New York Times..... We give Israel a guarantee of inflation-adjusted aid for the next 100 years.... but we get an immigration moratorium for an equal period of time.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"Can you actually provide us a list of the specific members of the Forbes 400 who are members of the Israeli Fan Club and what they did to earn their membership? Or do you just think that some sort of Jewish heritage makes one a member of that club?"

Sheldon Adelson: $14.7 billion
Edgar Bronfman: $2.6 billion, and former head of the World Jewish Congress
Haim Saban: $3.3 billion

I could go on. But if you don't understand the influence of AIPAC and other Jewish contributors on the foreign policy of both parties then likely you don't want to.

Mr. Anon said...

"That might be Obama's preference but such a policy would get little support from even liberal Democrats.

Albertosaurus"

Even? Especially. From some liberal Democrats.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Another antisemitic article from Steve. Wow, what a surprise."

If it is anti-semitic to think that we should keep our own money and not give it away to foreign countries, then I have to wonder just what anti-semitism is, what you deem it to be, and why is it that it is considered such a bad thing.

Descartes said...

The most likely position of the New Egypt is that Israel succumbs to the demands given by the Arab League, the Saudi Plan, various security protocols and UN proposals and Hamas and the PLO.

Simply to stop demolishing Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, stop conducting its own lebensraum and withdraw to Greenline(1967) borders, which Israel and the US has routinely rejected.

Israel has more or less been accepted as not going away by the majority of mainstream Arab organizations.

Descartes said...

Whiskey may just about be the most hardline parrot of the most ignorant views in international relations.

His idea of an instinctive Muslim desire for war is simply absurd.

It seems like the most common approach to foreign policy. Establish axioms in your own paragraph, base reasoning off them.

Descartes said...

Captain Aubrey incidentally forgets the vested American desire for bases everywhere.

The corporate/military elite is incidentally more important than everyone else(for obvious reasons), and having a presence in what Brzenski and many others have called the most important source of energy in the world exemplifies this.

Noam Chomsky debated former Reagan adviser Perle, and which he stated that Israel and Iran were according to Nixon, to be cops on the beat for US power. Of course Perle had no able reaction.

Israel of course willingly accepts it as a matter of national survival, and various oppressive regimes were put in place in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia among others.

Simon in London said...

Me:
"I noticed from the TV coverage that Egypt seems to have lots of US M1 Abrams main battle tanks now. Those things are practically unkillable, even by other modern tanks."

ATBOTL:
"Not even close to unkillable. Remember that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting with homemade bombs and obsolete 60's era Soviet light weapons."

I was thinking about Gulf War 1. Not only were M1s immune to T72 fire (except possibly from the rear, which never happened), but I recall an account when an M1 broke down, the crew evacuated and the rest of the M1 platoon fired on it repeatedly to destroy it so the Iraqis wouldn't get it. Not only did it not blow up; there was a small electrical fire but when later recovered it was found to be intact and easily put back into service. And AIR in Gulf War 1 they were using depleted-uranium penetrator rounds, AFAIK Israel doesn't have those.

I don't know about M1 resistance to air-to-surface missiles like Hellfires striking their top plating though; the data I've seen indicates they'd be destroyed, but you don't really know until it happens in action.

Simon in London said...

Descartes:
"His idea of an instinctive Muslim desire for war is simply absurd."

I'd say the instinctive Muslim/Islamic desire for war was about his most reasonable position! Arguably Islam is not as aggressive as American Democratic Universalism, but that's like asking whether Hitler or Stalin was worse.

But Whiskey misunderstands the Islamic way of war, and misunderstands that Arab conventional military attacks on Israel have been primarily motivated by pan-Arab nationalism, not Islam.

Simon in London said...

BTW I think the split in reaction to the Egyptian uprising between US neocons (most strongly supportive) and real Israelis (freaking out) proves what I've believed for a long time, that neocons care a lot more about Democratic Universalism than they do about Israel's rational self interests. I saw on Auster's site that he's been arguing this too.

sabril said...

"With all its firepower Israel lost over 100 soldiers and managed to kill 500 Hezzies. That's a miserable failure"

Well how many soldiers would Israel have had to lose for you to say that Israel won the war?

sabril said...

"If it is anti-semitic to think that we should keep our own money and not give it away to foreign countries, then I have to wonder just what anti-semitism is"

Of the people who whine incessantly about US military aid to Israel, I don't see many complaints about the money spent by the US to defend Italy, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Instead, I see excuses and artificial distinctions.

The most reasonable explanation for this attitude is that the complainer is an anti-Semite.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"Captain Aubrey incidentally forgets the vested American desire for bases everywhere."

"Of the people who whine incessantly about US military aid to Israel, I don't see many complaints about the money spent by the US to defend Italy, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Instead, I see excuses and artificial distinctions. "

In certain cases you'd be right. However one major distinction is that the ~$3 billion to Israel is direct aid, whereas the money spent defending Europe, Korea, etc. is spent on American military forces. A direct military force can serve American interests and do as we want it to do.

But for my own part I am entirely in favor of reducing military spending, including indirect military aid to all of these countries. It has allowed them to grow lazy and complacent in their own defense. The latest year DoD budget is, iirc, $689 billion. It is something we absolutely can no longer afford, if ever we could. I would wager a large percentage of the commenters here agree with me, as neocons tend to get little respect in these parts. Mostly we are, as John Derbyshire would call us, "'To Hell With Them' Hawks."

It's funny how people assume that someone is for something because they didn't say they were against it. I didn't inveigh against slavery or female genital mutilation, either. Do you therefore assume I am for both?

To take a more relevant case, do not assume that because we are opposed to President Obama that we therefore supported George W. Bush. Very few commenters here did.

Svigor said...

Of the people who whine incessantly about US military aid to Israel, I don't see many complaints about the money spent by the US to defend Italy, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Instead, I see excuses and artificial distinctions.


First of all, you should put some figures up if you're going to compare aid to these countries. And they should include per capita figures. I doubt any country gets anything near what Israel gets, per capita. Second, it sounds like you're comparing apples and oranges. We don't have any bases in Israel, but we do in Germany and Japan. So we're getting something in return. Kazakhstan gives us more than Israel does.

The most reasonable explanation for this attitude is that the complainer is an anti-Semite.

Nah, that doesn't work, because this anti-Semite wants to keep the money to the Jewish ethnostate flowing.

Maybe I should be arguing that the favoritism the US shows Israel is anti-Gentilism? It's the only reasonable explanation, right?

Svigor said...

Of the people who whine incessantly about US military aid to Israel, I don't see many complaints about the money spent by the US to defend Italy, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

The people who defend Israel (or perhaps more accurately, American Jewry) incessantly don't seem to worry much about logic, forthrightness, or honesty. Italy, Germany, Turkey, Japan, and Saudi Arabia aren't doing the sorts of things Israel is doing. The whole list should be thrown out and replaced with Apartheid South Africa. How much aid did we give them?

Mr. Anon said...

"Captain Jack Aubrey said...

It's funny how people assume that someone is for something because they didn't say they were against it. I didn't inveigh against slavery or female genital mutilation, either. Do you therefore assume I am for both?"

You're wasting your time arguing with people like Sabril. They throw around the term "anti-semite" the way that Al Sharpton or Charley Rangel throw around the word "racist". In the mouths of people who are perpetually agrieved, the meaning of a term like "anti-semite" just becomes "neener, neener, neener", or "you're a poopy-head".

David said...

Stirring up the animals again, eh, Steve?

Whiskey (formerly "evil neocon") said:

>Steve, this is where you fall apart.<

Right on schedule!

The usual opening line "Steve, you're all wet," "Steve, don't discuss subjects on which you are ignorant," "Steve, this has to be your worst post ever" ... followed by a classic rant of LaRouchian-level looniness ... the sound of a Scots-Irish gasket blowing ... Thatz our Whiskey!

Those A-rabs sure do love war! It's because of their crazy religion. Crazy religions do that. They lead all kinds of people to do all kinds of crazy things. Including supporting crazy people.

JSM said...

"Of the people who whine incessantly about US military aid to Israel, I don't see many complaints about the money spent by the US to defend Italy, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc."

You see mine. I said before, cut off all foreign aid. All of it. To everybody.

Israel IS worth complaining about especially, though, because they get the LARGEST CHUNK of foreign aid.

Plus the mealy-mouthed pandering about how we and Israel have "a speeeeeeshullll relationship." Gag me. As George Washington said, foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

You're wasting your time arguing with people like Sabril. They throw around the term "anti-semite" the way that Al Sharpton or Charley Rangel throw around the word "racist".

I think he had a small point. Some here are too quick to pin the blame for everything on Jews, which is bigoted and absurd. Others pretend that Jews are politically as inconsequential as Jehovah's Witnesses - or worse, "oppressed." I'm neither philosemitic nor antisemitic, but rather asemitic, nonsemitic, neutrosemitic, whatever.

The absurdist antisemites who see a Jew behind everything are making it very difficult for those of us who'd prefer a serious discussion about Jewish influence.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I don't see many complaints about the money spent by the US to defend Italy, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc...

Are you asking me? I'll complain plenty.

What do you think about this: all the elite (and overwhelmingly white) US troops are kept far, far away in overseas deployments.

In the meantime, the US southern border deteriorates. Local police and National Guard units are likely already infiltrated by Mexican paramilitary and criminal gangs.

Why are all the top military units (again, overwhelmingly white, Midwest and Southern) kept thousands of miles away?

It's deliberate.

Anonymous said...

Re overpopulation:
"Ruanda in vasectomy drive to stem population growth"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12354464

Svigor said...

Wrong. If Israel falls, the entire population of Israel will be airlifted to the United States. And America's Ruling Class Elites will finally learn what it's like to be a high school dropout in a city with lots of illegal aliens.

If you're saying what I think you're saying...

Israeli mean IQ is what, 95? Ashkenazi Israeli IQ is around 103.

The smart ones are all in America already. Judeo-philes should stop talking up Jews, who have mediocre IQs. They should stop talking up Ashkenazis, who aren't anything special. They should stick to talking up what they know: Ashkenazi Americans.

Anonymous said...

Why does the USA maintain troops all around the world AND -AND - give Israel 3 billion a year? End it all.

none of the above said...

I'm pretty convinced that the whole American buy off/invade/intervene in the world set of policies is in its last years. Perhaps this is wishful thinking--I don't think we've covered ourselves in glory with this stuff, though I imagine the world is broadly a better place thanks to our cold-war pushback on the Soviets than it would have been without it. (I don't think that about the war on terror, but I'll admit I could certainly be wrong.)

But we're not as rich or as young as we once were. For internal political reasons, we can't seem to get our budget under control. There's little stomach in the US for any kind of hard choices, even stuff like raising the retirement age a year or cutting farm subsidies or raising taxes a bit.

We are running a massive and ever-growing deficit, borrowing extensively from China, who in turn is selling us a large fraction of the stuff we use day to day. This is obviously unsustainable in the long run.

When the crunch comes, we're going to find ourselves unable to keep funding overseas adventures. And then, all kinds of things that were previously sacred--like big military contracts, foreign aid, keeping those bases overseas--will turn out to be entirely up for negotiation.

We will do a better job of this if we start before we're in a debt crisis. Inform our client states that their aid is going to be phased out over the next few years. Inform our allies who have military based on their territory that we're planning to close them in the next few years, and recommend they consider how best to defend their own territory.

In 15 years, we're not going to be sending billions of dollars in aid to Israel or Egypt or anyone else. Things will go better for everyone if that aid goes away with some time to plan for the recipients, rather than in crisis mode as the Congress tries to hash out what to do about the sudden doubling of interest rates on treasuries and the widespread talk of default.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should keep the "whine incessantly" bromide out of (hopefully) serious discussions of foreign policy. I mean, come on, can't you type "grouse interminably" or "natter negatively" or something a little less cliched?

Felix M said...

There's been a brief discussion of how many Muslims actually are polynous.

Black Sea says it seems to be about 3% in Eygpt. (And I'd add that mathematically it has to be less than 50% of the male population.)

A woman psychologist friend of mine argues that polygamy affects all marriages in Muslim society, as it's always - theoretically at least - open for the husband to get some additional wives.

(A bit like people in menial jobs who are nourished by the American dream of becoming millionaires.)

Anonymous said...

Of the people who whine incessantly about US military aid to Israel, I don't see many complaints about the money spent by the US to defend Italy, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

According to this report, in the late 90s US was spending $15-20 billion a year to defend South Korea. More importantly, unlike in Israel, in Korea the lives of American servicemen are actually on the line. And yet this doesn't generate even 1% of the whining.

The people who defend Israel (or perhaps more accurately, American Jewry) incessantly don't seem to worry much about logic, forthrightness, or honesty. Italy, Germany, Turkey, Japan, and Saudi Arabia aren't doing the sorts of things Israel is doing.

Just out of curiosity, what does Israel do that Turkey doesn't?

sabril said...

"In certain cases you'd be right. However one major distinction is that the ~$3 billion to Israel is direct aid, whereas the money spent defending Europe, Korea, etc. is spent on American military forces."

I am skeptical that this is an important distinction. It seems to me that sending actual troops is a bigger commitment, particularly if it is coupled with a mutual defense treaty.

Suppose it were announced that the US would start phasing out military aid to Israel and instead would start building bases there and make a public commitment to defend Israel in case of attack. Would that be a-ok?

"It's funny how people assume that someone is for something because they didn't say they were against it. I didn't inveigh against slavery or female genital mutilation, either. Do you therefore assume I am for both?"

It would depend on the context. Let's suppose that you complained regularly about white on black slavery but hardly ever about black on black or arab on black slavery. What should I infer?

sabril said...

"We don't have any bases in Israel, but we do in Germany and Japan. So we're getting something in return."

Again I am skeptical. If the US announced that it was going to phase out aid to Israel and instead build bases there to defend Israel, would the Israel-bashers stop complaining? I kinda doubt it.

"Nah, that doesn't work, because this anti-Semite wants to keep the money to the Jewish ethnostate flowing."

Well then my observation doesn't apply to you.

" It's the only reasonable explanation, right?"

No, there are plenty of reasonable explanations. Depending of course on what you mean by "favoritism."

sabril said...

" Italy, Germany, Turkey, Japan, and Saudi Arabia aren't doing the sorts of things Israel is doing. "

What exactly is Israel "doing"?

Christopher said...

"What exactly is Israel "doing"?"

- According to the MSM reverse logic accounting of things, they are our dear friends who are paying the price for our friendship by being on the receiving end of the anger of their Middle East neighbors who are actually angry at the US. So giving them a few billion a year is the least we can do for them, right?

Eric said...

In the meantime, the US southern border deteriorates. Local police and National Guard units are likely already infiltrated by Mexican paramilitary and criminal gangs.

Which has nothing to do with resources. That's a problem of will. We could secure the border without a noticeable impact on the budget. But we haven't and we won't.

ATBOTL said...

Sabril is using a variation of a classic Jewish fallacy here: that one cannot criticize or punish Jews for anything unless every other person/group who ever did the same thing is punished first. Like other Jewish demands, this one is nonreciprocal.

Watching Sabril is like a primer on how the Jewish mind works: endlessly churning out arguments in favor of self interest while always denying that self-interest is the motive.

Mr. Anon said...

"Captain Jack Aubrey said...

""You're wasting your time arguing with people like Sabril. They throw around the term "anti-semite" the way that Al Sharpton or Charley Rangel throw around the word "racist".""

I think he had a small point. Some here are too quick to pin the blame for everything on Jews, which is bigoted and absurd. Others pretend that Jews are politically as inconsequential as Jehovah's Witnesses - or worse, "oppressed." I'm neither philosemitic nor antisemitic, but rather asemitic, nonsemitic, neutrosemitic, whatever.

The absurdist antisemites who see a Jew behind everything are making it very difficult for those of us who'd prefer a serious discussion about Jewish influence."

I agree with you save your contention that he had a valid point. Sure, some people see the hand of "ZOG" behind every obscure event. Just as some see anti-semitism in any discussion of foreign policy as it concerns the mid-east. Given that the title of this post is "The Deal", namely the tripartite deal between the U.S., Egypt, and Israel, someone expressing their opinion that foreign aid to both countries should be eliminated is not "whining incessantly" - he is discussing the topic at hand.

Sabril said "The most reasonable explanation for this attitude is that the complainer is an anti-Semite.". For him, that is always the most reasonable explanation.

Silver said...

Just out of curiosity, what does Israel do that Turkey doesn't?

That's a good point. If those countries were held to the same standards as Serbia their capitals would have long ago been reduced to rubble.

Of course, within the context of the discussion here, Turks are just as much the "oppressors" as Israelis are yet receive similarly favorable treatment. For all the talk of an all-powerful Jewish lobby it doesn't seem to have gotten them a much better deal than what Turkey gets without half the effort.

Sabril is using a variation of a classic Jewish fallacy here: that one cannot criticize or punish Jews for anything unless every other person/group who ever did the same thing is punished first.

ATBOTL is using a variation of the classic antisemitic fallacy here: one should ignore or excuse the same behavior in other groups or countries and focus solely on what the Jews/Israelis are doing.

Silver said...

You don't know any better. In fact, David Duke has some clue about Jews, as does Kevin MacDonald, which are based on the actual behavior of actual Jews throughout history.

What the hell does David Duke really know? He knows that Jews have been an obstacle to his efforts to unify his race in a way that it has never really been unified before, okay. (A fairly reasonable when you consider what the David Dukes of the world insist that such unity implies for Jews.) But beyond that, what the hell does he really know? Not all that much, as far as I can tell. If they want to discredit him they should just give him free rein to babble on, because he can be counted on to put his foot in it time and again.

sabril said...

"For him, that is always the most reasonable explanation."

Nonsense. But let me put the question to you: Suppose an individual regularly criticizes something about Israel or the Jews while ignoring similar things about other countries or groups. Suppose it happens far more than you would expect from chance. Suppose the person has no personal connection to the Arab/Israeli conflict. For you, what reasonable explanations are there?

"Sabril is using a variation of a classic Jewish fallacy here: that one cannot criticize or punish Jews for anything unless every other person/group who ever did the same thing is punished first"

More nonsense. I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot do. I'm simply drawing a reasonable inference about peoples' motivations based on what they say and do.

Same question for you:

Suppose an individual regularly criticizes something about Israel or the Jews while ignoring similar things about other countries or groups. Suppose it happens far more than you would expect from chance. Suppose the person has no personal connection to the Arab/Israeli conflict. For you, what reasonable explanations are there?

Udolpho.com said...

"one should ignore or excuse the same behavior in other groups or countries and focus solely on what the Jews/Israelis are doing"

well you know the famous Turkish hold on American foreign policy...face it, Jews have invited our scrutiny by redirecting our foreign policy, immigration policy, waging cultural war on the majority, and so on...it's a little late to sob about all this unwarranted interest in whether the Jews have any morality beyond "what's good for the Jews"

Anonymous said...

Another antisemitic article from Steve. Wow, what a surprise.

Another witless oaf who thinks that any comment which is in any way critical of Jews and/or Israel is thereby automatically "antisemitic". Wow, what a surprise.

Severn said...

sabril : Let's suppose that you complained regularly about white on black slavery but hardly ever about black on black or arab on black slavery. What should I infer?

Let's suppose that you constantly leap to the defense of Israel from any and all criticism, but hardly ever do the same for any other countries. What should I infer?

Svigor said...

Just out of curiosity, what does Israel do that Turkey doesn't?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

Accept 3-7 billion a year while running an Apartheid ethno-state while their diaspora & co. call it "first world" and "our closest ally" and the like?

Svigor said...

I am skeptical that this is an important distinction. It seems to me that sending actual troops is a bigger commitment, particularly if it is coupled with a mutual defense treaty.

Ahahahaha! I'm sure the Israelis are all moping about, feeling sorry for themselves that they don't "qualify" for this "bigger commitment." *Snicker*

As if the Israelis would tolerate an American presence on their soil. The Lobby types are "incessantly whining" about how Israel's doomed, but you can bet your ass few of them want American bases in Israel. I wonder how many have called for these things as prominently as they beat certain other pro-Israeli drums? Or called for them at all, for that matter. It would seem like the logical thing to do, if Israel's doom is so fearful and close. You can bet your ass our pols would jump to it when told.

none of the above said...

Eric has it right. Massive illegal immigration is not remotely a military problem. It's a problem with willingness to impose serious penalties on businesses that employ them in large numbers. Make it uneconomic to employ illegal immigrants, and the inflow will stop, and we can work out some humane way to deal with the families where the kids are citizens, refugees fleeing genuine persecution, etc.

sabril said...

"Let's suppose that you constantly leap to the defense of Israel from any and all criticism, but hardly ever do the same for any other countries. What should I infer?"

Umm, that I'm a Zionist?

Now how about answering my question.

sabril said...

"As if the Israelis would tolerate an American presence on their soil"

Lol, there already is an American presence there, the Dimona Radar Facility.

"an Apartheid ethno-state"

Lol, more nonsense. Arab citizens of Israel can vote, hold office, etc.

Severn said...

Umm, that I'm a Zionist?

Isn't "Zionist" just another word for the sort of person who, in a different context, you'd call "racist" or "bigoted"? Or to put it another way, what's the non-Jewish and non-pejorative equivalent of "Zionist"?

Simon in London said...

none of the above:
"and we can work out some humane way to deal with the families where the kids are citizens"

You're talking about the children illegal aliens have on US soil? You Americans are crazy.

sabril said...

"Isn't 'Zionist' just another word for the sort of person who, in a different context, you'd call 'racist' or 'bigoted'? "

It depends what you mean by "racist" or "bigoted." It seems that pretty much anyone who believes that a First World country should exclude potential citizens on the basis of race is branded a "racist." By that definition, the answer is "yes."

Now please answer my question:

Let's suppose that you complained regularly about white on black slavery but hardly ever about black on black or arab on black slavery. What should I infer?

Thank you.

Silver said...

well you know the famous Turkish hold on American foreign policy...

Udolopho, that's my point. There isn't any such hold. And yet if you compare the foreign policy of the U.S. towards Israel to that towards Turkey there really isn't any substantial sort of difference.

Both countries are less than fully democratic; both hold hotly contested territory; both "oppress" -- at least according to modern liberal standards -- minority populations; both are nationalistic to a degree found in no western country -- while both hypocritically fret about nationalism in western countries.

However, at the same time, both countries display traits that are pleasing to modern westerners: they're not fully democratic but they are democratic; they don't extend full minority rights but they have made observable accommodations; they're nationalistic but they make efforts to rein in nationalistic sentiment (eg Israel banning Kach -- "Ah, but they only did that because it's in their interests!" Well, nah, they're going to do it because it's in Tahiti's interests:rolleyes).

All this goes to make my point that the more strident type of, well...can I call them antisemites without incurring your wrath?...are simply wrong when they insist that the only reason Israel gets favorable treatment is the Jewish stranglehold on foreign policy (since the Turk get pretty much the same deal without it).

face it, Jews have invited our scrutiny by redirecting our foreign policy, immigration policy, waging cultural war on the majority, and so on...

Scrutinize away, my good fellow. You've got the wrong man if you think I'm trying to ward you off doing that.

it's a little late to sob about all this unwarranted interest in whether the Jews have any morality beyond "what's good for the Jews"

Hey, I'm not sobbing. But I will say this: There's an overwhelming tendency on the part of said scrutinizers to conclude, on the basis of rather scanty evidence (when you think about it), that there is no such morality and for this conclusion to warp their every subsequent policy assessment. ("It's 'the Jews,' doncha know?"-sort of thing.) Come on, if you've seen it once you've seen it a million times. It takes over their entire being.

Silver said...

Make it uneconomic to employ illegal immigrants, and the inflow will stop, and we can work out some humane way to deal with the families where the kids are citizens, refugees fleeing genuine persecution, etc.

Not that you'd want to concede the debate or anything.

Geezus.

The kids aren't citizens.

The families can easily go home.

America borders only two countries, so there are million other places these alleged refugees can take refuge. I mean, seriously, why the hell should there be one, single, solitary African political refugee in America or Europe? If actual refuge where their priority they could find it in a thousand other countries closer to home. No, they want the goodies and the eternally gullible like none-of-the-above are only too willing to give it to them.

Silver said...

Let's suppose that you constantly leap to the defense of Israel from any and all criticism, but hardly ever do the same for any other countries. What should I infer?

That one knows something about Israel and is competent to defend her, while not necessarily possessing the same degree of knowledge about other countries thus lacking the competence to make a credible defense? Just a guess.

Look, your retort isn't analogous. Blacks complaining bitterly about only the slavery practised by whites while ignoring, downplaying or excusing the slavery practised by non-whites (such as Arabs or their African bretheren) suggests that they have more of a problem with whites they do with slavery per se.

Mr. Anon said...

"sabril said...

""For him, that is always the most reasonable explanation."

Nonsense. But let me put the question to you:"

Sabril's questions are rhetorical devices. They are not intended to elicit information. He is not interested in the answers to his questions, and I am not interested in answering him.

By the way, my complaining about my government giving away money to other nations is not "incessant whining". It is a reasonable objection to a policy which is not in my interest.

Capain Jack.....you were saying?

sabril said...

"Sabril's questions are rhetorical devices. They are not intended to elicit information. He is not interested in the answers to his questions, and I am not interested in answering him."

That's incorrect. I really am interested in the answer. But also the fact that you are unable to answer the question -- and instead must make excuses -- demonstrates that my position is correct.

The fact is that it IS reasonable to infer anti-semitism under the circumstances I described.

Svigor said...

"As if the Israelis would tolerate an American presence on their soil"

Lol, there already is an American presence there, the Dimona Radar Facility.


Great, let's talk about it. It's news to me. How many men? How big is the base?

"an Apartheid ethno-state"

Lol, more nonsense. Arab citizens of Israel can vote, hold office, etc.


It's a "Jewish state." Arabs are second-class citizens. And Israeli immigration policy is obviously ethnocentric. Of course, the Apartheid is much more subtle than that of SA.

But sure, let's fire up the lawyerly hair-splitting, discovery wrangling, semantics, etc. That always makes Zionists look good.

Mr. Anon said...

"sabril said...

That's incorrect. I really am interested in the answer. But also the fact that you are unable to answer the question -- and instead must make excuses -- demonstrates that my position is correct."

Wrong. My not answering you - a completely useless gesture anyway - demonstrates nothing. If you believe as much then you subscribe to a standard of evidence that would be the envy of a medieval witch-finder (which, come to think of it, you sort of are). Your question has been answered several times within the confines of this post. Most people who want to cut off aid to Israel want to cut it off to other countries as well. But this is insufficient for you. You need to sniff out anti-semitism where it does not exist, so you throw out that charge at almost everyone. Maybe there isn't so much anti-semitism as you surmise. You may think that a lot of people dislike you because you're a jew, and in some cases, you are probably right. However, a lot of people probably just dislike you because you're a dick.

By the way: I am "Martin B" from Mangan's website, so you can stop answering me, given that I have been "banned". It would suit me fine, as it's really tiresome and pointless to discuss anything with you anyway.

sabril said...

"By the way: I am "Martin B" from Mangan's website,"

I wasn't aware of that. And yes, I do not engage with Martin B the liar, apparently also known as "Mr. Anon."

If anyone else wishes, I am happy to provide links and quotes to Mr. Anon's lies.

sabril said...

"It's news to me. How many men? How big is the base?"

120 military personnel, according to Wikipedia.

" And Israeli immigration policy is obviously ethnocentric."

Do you agree that Japanese immigration policy is ethnocentric? What about German immigration policy? Polish policy? Turkish policy? British policy? Greek immigration policy?

Truth said...

"If anyone else wishes, I am happy to provide links and quotes to Mr. Anon's lies."

That won't be necessary, he does plenty of lying here.



LMAO, just kidding grasshopper, you know I love you...apparently more than white people do!

Descartes said...

When people refer to apartheid in Israel, nobody refers to the Arab citizens, who are for the most part supportive of the Israeli state's existence.

They refer to the ones on the other side of the security wall. The ones inside the containment areas that Jimmy Carter among others have called as looking like bantustans.

Many of these areas within the West Bank actually have conditions worst than Gaza, primarily due to the blockade of resources.

I'd also like to add that Israel is absolutely not the worst ally. There are countless many more the US likes to support. The worst in the last twenty years were the contras. Not even a real guerilla movement, as it was basically mercenaries hired to terrorize civilians.

The worst in American history was the murder of millions of South East Asians by US bombs and etc. and installation of a puppet South Vietnamese government.

ATBOTL said...

"Lol, more nonsense. Arab citizens of Israel can vote, hold office, etc."

What about the huge number of Arabs who are not citizens, but who Israel rules over oppressively?

sabril said...

"What about the huge number of Arabs who are not citizens, but who Israel rules over oppressively?"

Are you saying that whenever country A occupies territory B, it's "apartheid" not to extend the full rights of citizenship to the inhabitants of territory B?

And what exactly is this oppression you refer to?

Mr. Anon said...

"sabril said...

I wasn't aware of that. And yes, I do not engage with Martin B the liar, apparently also known as "Mr. Anon."

If anyone else wishes, I am happy to provide links and quotes to Mr. Anon's lies.""

For those of you who are interested - and I can't imagine why anyone would be interested in indulging Sabril's personal 12-step plan of petty grudges - but if you are, go to Mangan's and peruse the discussion of Jonathan Pollard. There you will find ample evidence of my foul deceipt, as ferretted out by Sabril's peerless prosecutorial zeal.

Hey, and BTW Sabril, looks like your propaganda on behalf of the zionist cause is starting to pay dividends - you got "Truth" to put in a good word for you. Way to go. With allies like that, you are really on your way.

sabril said...

"Many of these areas within the West Bank actually have conditions worst than Gaza, primarily due to the blockade of resources. "

Can you give me 3 examples, please? And how exactly are conditions in Gaza so bad?

TIA.

Svigor said...

The worst in American history was the murder of millions of South East Asians by US bombs and etc. and installation of a puppet South Vietnamese government.

I think Uncle Joe was easily our worst ally.