Could Israel exist without US aid?

[Skeptic]

Well, perhaps it could, perhaps it could not. I don't get the motivation for the question, though. Even if Israel could not exist without US aid, I fail to see how this would negate or minimize its right to exist; Poland, Chechoslovakia and Austria, to name a few, could not survive without the USA and Britian's aid, but that hardly means they had no right to exist. For that matter, babies cannot survive without their parents, but that is hardly evidence of them being disposable.

This, by the way, is the reason why -- on a totally different subject -- I think the "viability outside the womb" criterion for when abortion is allowed is a bad one. The motivation for it is quite reasonable -- trying to decide when a fetus is similar enough to a fully-grown newborn to have rights, and viability is one possible rule of thumb -- but I think it fails since, after all, a newborn is not really viable for more than a few days without constant adult care, either.

(That said, the degree of viability might be relevant to what kind of effort one is required, ethically, to perform to try and save a premature baby. The difference between a five-month birth and a nine-month birth is that the latter baby will usually be viable without extraordinary efforts on the caretakers' part, while the former requires intensive and extraordinary effort which might not have much chance of saving it anyway. Therefore, it might be that one is in a different ethical situation if one fails to save one than to save the other.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, perhaps it could, perhaps it could not. I don't get the motivation for the question, though. Even if Israel could not exist without US aid, I fail to see how this would negate or minimize its right to exist;

I explained my motivation in post #18 (a spin off of the healthcare debate). I'm not making any argument or statement about Israel's right to exist.

I'm questioning the wisdom of the U.S. giving such huge amounts of aid to Israel.

 

[TriskettheKid]

I explained my motivation in post #18 (a spin off of the healthcare debate). I'm not making any argument or statement about Israel's right to exist.

I'm questioning the wisdom of the U.S. giving such huge amounts of aid to Israel.

It's a fair point. After all, the $2.3 billion Israel got in 2007 could pay for a lot of stuff we should be getting here in the US. And Israel could survive without that aid.

Maybe we should discuss how much is being given to Afghanistan (over $6 billion) and Iraq (over $7 billion).

 

[GreNME]

It's a fair point. After all, the $2.3 billion Israel got in 2007 could pay for a lot of stuff we should be getting here in the US. And Israel could survive without that aid.

Maybe we should discuss how much is being given to Afghanistan (over $6 billion) and Iraq (over $7 billion).

 

[TriskettheKid]

I'm just saying:

The extra $2-3 billion a year could fund some great things here in the US. Add another $13 billion or so, and think what you could do. I'd vote for more NASA funding.

 

[Skeptic]

Somehow I find it unlikely that the saving of USA aid money is the main issue here.

How much was the stimulus again, to name the obvious? Not to mention the fact that those who want to save this money already have plans to spend it on things that are oh-so-much-more essential, like another moon shot.

It's just the hope that without USA aid, the evil zionist entity will finally collapse and get what's coming to it.

 

[DC]

Somehow I find it unlikely that the saving of USA aid money is the main issue here.

How much was the stimulus again, to name the obvious? Not to mention the fact that those who want to save this money already have plans to spend it on things that are oh-so-much-more essential, like another moon shot.

It's just the hope that without USA aid, the evil zionist entity will finally collapse and get what's coming to it.

 

[DC]

Israel has a Budget of around 100 Billion $, 16-20 billions for defence.
in contrast to this. the US aid isnt that much, and when the US stopps supporting Israel AND Egypt etc. i see no real problem for Israel. they can save on other parts of the budget, they can rise taxation (they are below OECD Average) they can expect alot provate donations form Jews and others from around the world.

Yes Israel can do it without US Money.

 

[Darth Rotor]

By the way, I'm curious why you refer to U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt as a "bribe". What does the U.S. get in return for the bribe?

They stop fighting each other, the core of what the what Camp David agreements embody. Peace through bribery, which is related to protection rackets and extortion rackets.

DR

 

[Oliver]

I believe Israel would do just fine without $3 billion a year in US military aid.

That may be true, but what about the weapon deals in general? Aren't they some kind of aid as well?

 

[GreNME]

I'm just saying:

The extra $2-3 billion a year could fund some great things here in the US. Add another $13 billion or so, and think what you could do. I'd vote for more NASA funding.

No, I totally understand what you're saying, and to a point I can even agree. I also think that there's not a snowball's chance of any reasonable politician ever floating the idea of using funding like that, whether based on the war efforts/rebuilding or the money we send to countries like Egypt and Israel. Sure, there are the nutballs like Ron Paul who would take such an idea to a ridiculous extreme, but the probability of any politician with any credibility and influence even trying to do something like that may as well commit hari kiri in public (televized, baby!).

For all the crap these pseudo-patriots complaining about "socialized medicine" and "government bailouts" tend to spew, the number of people who have some level of (at least) emotional stake in our shipping boatloads of money to other nations is simply overwhelming to the point of being practically unstoppable. Most people in the country have no problem with tax money spent to subsidize their own emotional or social (or even business) attachments, and there are enough people with different (and sometimes conflicting) interests in these attachments that there is no way the money we ship off to other countries is going to stop. No way, no how.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Somehow I find it unlikely that the saving of USA aid money is the main issue here.

How much was the stimulus again, to name the obvious? Not to mention the fact that those who want to save this money already have plans to spend it on things that are oh-so-much-more essential, like another moon shot.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Are you saying that spending money domestically somehow means we don't object to spending money internationally that could be otherwise used domestically?

Or are you just arguing that in the scale of things, $3 billion doesn't matter?

It's just the hope that without USA aid, the evil zionist entity will finally collapse and get what's coming to it.

Not true. I spelled out my motives for this thread very clearly.

Stop trying to make this about an intention to see Israel collapse. That's not something anyone here is arguing for--certainly not me anyway.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Israel has a Budget of around 100 Billion $, 16-20 billions for defence.
in contrast to this. the US aid isnt that much,

It's about $3 billion per year. It's 3% of their budget. I'm not sure what you mean by not that much.

and when the US stopps supporting Israel AND Egypt etc. i see no real problem for Israel. they can save on other parts of the budget, they can rise taxation (they are below OECD Average) they can expect alot provate donations form Jews and others from around the world.

Yes Israel can do it without US Money.

I'm inclined to agree.

So why do we do it? What do we get for our $3 billion? If Israel would do just fine, then arguments that we're spending this money to stabilize the region don't really wash.

 

[TriskettheKid]

It's about $3 billion per year. It's 3% of their budget. I'm not sure what you mean by not that much.


I'm inclined to agree.

So why do we do it? What do we get for our $3 billion? If Israel would do just fine, then arguments that we're spending this money to stabilize the region don't really wash.

Why do we do anything, really?

I mean, we're already spending hundreds of billions to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we're STILL giving them a combined $13 billion (as of last year of data, 2007) in foreign aid grants.

However, to answer your question, I suspect the answer is simple:

Egypt.

In 2007, Israel got about $2.3 billion. Egypt got $1.7 billion. This is, I believe, part of that peace process a while back. Now, I'm not sure, but I assume that money will go to Israel so long as Egypt gets money.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They stop fighting each other, the core of what the what Camp David agreements embody. Peace through bribery, which is related to protection rackets and extortion rackets.

So you're in the camp that says Israel wouldn't do just fine without this aid? (Or Egypt--that if we cut off money to both of them, they'd go to war.)

I don't think it's wise to "bribe" two hostile nations not to fight one another by pumping arms into the region. (This method, BTW, is one we've been using elsewhere in the world too. The U.S. accounts for about 38% of all arms exports worldwide. We arm both sides of many conflicts, and to me that sounds like a Cold War strategy, at best. At worst, it's just ammoral corporate profit seeking.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, to answer your question, I suspect the answer is simple:

Egypt.

In 2007, Israel got about $2.3 billion. Egypt got $1.7 billion. This is, I believe, part of that peace process a while back. Now, I'm not sure, but I assume that money will go to Israel so long as Egypt gets money.

I'm not sure this answer is any better than, "Why do we do anything?"

It only raises the question (that I did raise in the OP), "Why do we give this aid to Egypt?" and the answer is simple: Israel.

(By the way, I thought the reason we don't bother Israel about their "covert" nuclear weapons program was so they could deter Egypt--and that's why we oppose Egypt--or anyone else in the region--getting nukes.)

 

[TriskettheKid]

I'm not sure this answer is any better than, "Why do we do anything?"

It only raises the question (that I did raise in the OP), "Why do we give this aid to Egypt?" and the answer is simple: Israel.

Well, yes, but not because Israel gets/got money. I think Egypt got the aid as a means of accepting peace and halting their attacks on Israel. THere were, what, 4 separate wars in 25 years that involved the Suez area with fighting between Egypt and Israel? They chose to bribe Egypt, by giving them an amount comparable to Israel.

Truth be told, what stats do we have on Egypt? What is the impact of the aid we give Egypt?

(By the way, I thought the reason we don't bother Israel about their "covert" nuclear weapons program was so they could deter Egypt--and that's why we oppose Egypt--or anyone else in the region--getting nukes.)

Different can of worms.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So you're in the camp that says Israel wouldn't do just fine without this aid? (Or Egypt--that if we cut off money to both of them, they'd go to war.)

Joe, please don't try to put words in my mouth, and don't fabricate a position you attribute to me that I don't take. You question remains flawed as I stated earlier, and NO, Egypt isn't Israel's only security problem. Indeed, with the bribery as a lubricant, they have found ways to dislike one another but still work together where they have common interest.

In some ways, I don't think the bribery serves any purpose today, to Israel. Egypt is in great need of help/assistance which we might be wise in continuing, but not necessarily due to being at odds with Israel.

Again, if the gifts of aid to Israel stopped today, I have to consider all other aid (from all sources) to all other nations and parties who are at odds with Israel before I could consider how Israel would fare.

One scenario is that Israel has to tighten the belt, cut new deals with new partners, and proceed on via their strong survival instinct all the while crying, bitching, and moaning about America abandoning Israel, via the usual suspects in this country.

Whatever.

I don't think it's wise to "bribe" two hostile nations not to fight one another by pumping arms into the region.

What you think looks pretty silly, since that policy has more or less worked with those two for thirty years. What it hasn't necessarily done is made their neighbors happy as clams.

DR

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, please don't try to put words in my mouth, and don't fabricate a position you attribute to me that I don't take.

I'm certainly not putting words in your mouth. You said the purpose of the aid was a bribe to prevent war. My question in the OP asked whether Israel could exist as recognizably the same nation if we didn't give them the aid. Following your logic, if we give aid to them and Egypt to prevent war, then cutting off the aid would result in war that would mean things would be very very different.

ETA: I concede that things being very very different isn't the same as Israel not existing as recognizably the same nation. I guess what I'm after is that if you think we're giving the aid to stabilize the region (i.e. prevent war), doesn't it follow that you believe if we cut off the aid, it would destabilize the region?

You question remains flawed as I stated earlier, and NO, Egypt isn't Israel's only security problem.

You're allowed to take that into consideration. (I certainly never said you couldn't.) The question is not flawed. It is legitimate.

Several people said that if we cut off the aid, it wouldn't change much of anything. You seem to disagree. If you think I'm putting words in your mouth, do you then agree?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, yes, but not because Israel gets/got money. I think Egypt got the aid as a means of accepting peace and halting their attacks on Israel. THere were, what, 4 separate wars in 25 years that involved the Suez area with fighting between Egypt and Israel? They chose to bribe Egypt, by giving them an amount comparable to Israel.

How are the two statements I bolded not in contradiction?

I still see this explanation as a vicious circle--we give aid to Israel for one reason: Egypt; and we give aid to Egypt for one reason: Israel.

Truth be told, what stats do we have on Egypt? What is the impact of the aid we give Egypt?

Good question. I suspect it's a similar percentage of their budget. While the population of Egypt is about 10 times that of Israel, their GDP is a little bit smaller.

Different can of worms.

I don't see how. If our aid to Israel is meant to deter war (the term I always hear is "stabilize the region"), then mentioning the "covert" nuke program (our ignoring of it can surely be seen as non-monetary aid) whose purpose is also to deter war seems legitimate.