Great question but I think a better one would be, would the rest of the world be better off without the USA giving aid to Israel? I think cutting funding to Israel would damage their military, but not by a noticeable amount. It could have the effect of radicalizing the Government and military, which could have very negative consiquences. And DUDEDUDE4, really, do some reading. Pick an author who isn't American or Israeli. You're either a troll or uneducated
Well, if we remove the American controls and foreign aid to Israel's enemies at the same time as the American aid, Israel would be better off. One good excuse and they'd be able to pull off another Six Day War not only do they have nukes, they also have the singular most effective military force in the area. they don't NEED to nuke a neighbor. they can simply run them into the ground. besides, they have tacnukes too, and the ability to sub-launch those puppies from the Dolphins they picked up from the Germans. tacnukes are the perfect little clean area denial weapon, useful for when you want to kill an important installation but want the area to be liveable later can you say dial-a-yield?
So is it safe to say most people in this thread feel that if the U.S. ended all foreign aid we'd be better off and it'd be best for other countries to handle their own problems on their own? Nations will pursue a war when they have support from other nations. Think of it the same as individuals, people are much more inclined to fight someone if there are 5-10 friends ready to jump in and mug the person.
I honestly have no idea, I've got only the narrowest and shallowest of understandings of what the Israeli's have been requesting of their government, and of America for that matter... it certainly wouldn't surprise me if there was a fair old faction of Israeli people who have been pushing for an end to the aid, and all the slimy, nasty sorts of obligations that it brings. Good on 'em, I says And aye Mr Hankey (it's high time we had a piece of poo offering insights and contributions to the politics board, the presence of a lump of shit as an equal and valid contributor to discussion probably has a way of making everyone a bit more humble about themselves ), I'd say you're right on both points... the numbers of nukes that you put across in Israel's possession coupled with the fraction of weapons funding that actually comes from the US that dudedude put across seems to quite over-run the "Israel will be over-run argument." And if the aid isn't a neccesity to keep Israeli people safe (a notion that I, if I were Israeli, would probably feel quite insulted about, needing America to feel safe; I'm Australian and we constantly snivel about not being safe without the military support of America, and it makes me feel pissed off for a fair bunch of reasons...), then what is there that it could actually be NECESSARY for? It seems like it's just a nice way of giving America 'mates rates' as far as it concerns Israeli innovations in technology and other productions, as well as the broader fact (that scarcely needs stating...) that the close American connection to Israel through all this aid gives America a kind of 'Western frontier' in the Middle East. And of course, neither of these two things are actually a good turn for Israel, it's only America who benefits... which really shows the 'aid' for what it is, an investment. Crony-capitalist America, investing in other countries like putting money into stocks... tip your hats for humanitarianism folks, raise your glasses for good old globalisation, bringing great benefit to all parties equally, consentually and hollistically!
kinda. Israel's neighbors would probably still try to mug her (that whole having a group of friends at your back thing), but they'd get the everliving shit stomped out of them when (not if) they tried.
Sorry if I've misunderstood you First off your first post in this thread made a lot of sense, apart from the idea that a foreign country providing up to a 1/4 of the military budget being of minor concern. Second, I don't understand your Haifa incident thing? which one? the incident in 1948? I've lived with Palestinians, and travelled with Israeli's. I've studied International Relations and Politics at uni and I'm confident that I still don't have a firm grip on the situation over there! do you? All I know is, from what I've seen the current situation is untenable, and the 'Arab spring' will probably be followed by some pretty fierce fighting at some point soon. Muslim Arabs are pretty fed up with the terror inflicted upon them by the Israeli Government for the past few decades.
In that instance my point was that it is ridiculous to insinuate that Israel would be overrun without 1/4 of its military spending. Merely correcting whoever said that. I am talking about Haifa, as an example, in the present time. Some fool said Israel puts Palestinians in ghettos, and I asked for him to explain how the fuck Haifa exists (A mixed Israeli arab city, among many others) if that was the case. Likewise, Israelis are also tired of having Sbarros and teen nightclubs blown up by those same Muslim arabs. Both sides need to learn how to live in peace.
the aid indeed isn't to keep people safe - it's to make money on US defense firms - all the loans to Israel MUST be spent on US defense contracts. In a way they are simply monopolizing Israel's foreign military spending. By selling weapons to Israel as well as all of the countries that wish it didn't exist, we are quite arguably making everyone a lot LESS safe