What does the US have to gain by supporting Israel?

[Pangloss]

wow. what an intelligent reply. Right up there with George W. Bush

 

Relax, I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating a counterpoint. There's no need to lash out.

 

It's pretty obvious that if your airplanes don't have spare parts, they simply aren't going to fly for very long. IMO this is a valid refutation of your statement that Israel does not need the US for survival.

 

I welcome any response to that point you may have.

[geoguy]

Perhaps they also need it to maintain Western values. Even now they're a highly militarized society, criss-crossed with defended walls and dotted with army checkpoints. They are a tiny nation surrounded by larger... if not enemies, then not really not enemies, either. The threat of violence is everywhere and at all times, and it makes them quite understandably paranoid and often brutal. What would they become if they had to stand alone, forced to carry the whole burden themselves and with no allies to moderate their actions?

 

Being in most of Israel wasn't much different from being in a European city. Western values are as strong as in London or Detroit. Parts of Jeruselum and a few other places were the exception where there were large visible Aab populations. There is no sense of threat (cetainly no paranoia) on a daily basis. The amount of violence in Tel Aviv or Haifa would be much less than in a same size American city. The difference was that the Israelis were prepared at a drop of a hat to mobilize and deal first hand with any situation. Adults everywhere carried weapons and would immediately shoot anyone that threatened the civilian population. There's no internal threat that couldn't be handled swiftly and effectively. The Israelis wern't paranoid because they had confidence in their own capability and in the utter bumbling incompetency of surrounding Arab militaries.

 

Any external threat will be dealt with on Israel's terms. Israel can escalate to the necessary miliary level of their choice. They an shoot a few Palestinian militants... shell sites well into Lebann or Syria or launch a devastating and total strike. Their choice. They are in the driver's seat and will control their destiny.

[CDarwin]

Any external threat will be dealt with on Israel's terms. Israel can escalate to the necessary miliary level of their choice. They an shoot a few Palestinian militants... shell sites well into Lebann or Syria or launch a devastating and total strike. Their choice. They are in the driver's seat and will control their destiny.

 

For now and in the past, but you can't ignore the fact that Israel is on the wrong end of a massive population equality and unfriendly states that are rapidly advancing in military and technological prowess and that aren't likely to get friendlier. It's also a nation with zero natural resources and whose largest economic sectors (construction and manufacturing) depend on de facto subsidizing by the United States. You add to all that the fact that every time Isreal acts to defend itself it ends up making more enemies out of all the civilians it inevitably affects. You can't help by see how precarious such a set-up is.

 

I think the fact that Israel is so willing to be hemmed in by the feelings of the US and EU is ample testament to how much Israel realizes it needs Western support.

[bascule]

Cop-out.

 

I prefer not to respond to questions phrased in the form of a logical fallacy.

 

To answer what you're getting at, precisely the point is to leverage the negative consequences of withdrawing US support in order to encourage the Israelis to move past the present state of apartheid / genocide towards a peaceful resolution.

 

Right now for all intents and purposes we are economically supporting those actions, providing the Palestinians nothing as they're massacred by the Israelis, and doing nothing to encourage a peaceful resolution.

 

The optimal scenario rests precisely in the middle of the dichotomy you presented.

[CDarwin]

I prefer not to respond to questions phrased in the form of a logical fallacy.

 

To answer what you're getting at, precisely the point is to leverage the negative consequences of withdrawing US support in order to encourage the Israelis to move past the present state of apartheid / genocide towards a peaceful resolution.

 

Right now for all intents and purposes we are economically supporting those actions, providing the Palestinians nothing as they're massacred by the Israelis, and doing nothing to encourage a peaceful resolution.

 

The optimal scenario rests precisely in the middle of the dichotomy you presented.

 

Nothing you say? Palestine receives $1.14 billion in aid each year. Israel receives $240 million.

 

The Palestinians don't need more money they need a viable economy, which is pretty hard to develop when the Israelis are taking land to build settlements and blowing up houses, which they are doing because there are militants running all over the place, which wouldn't be running around if Palestine had a viable economy and they weren't living in refugee camps. My point is that neither side has a clear-cut moral superiority here. The Israelis aren't evil genociders any more than the Palestinians.

[bascule]

Nothing you say? Palestine receives $1.14 billion in aid each year. Israel receives $240 million.

 

A substantive argument is a nice change of pace. However the US is giving Israel $3 billion in military aid per year. This affords Israel nearly the highest per capita military spending in the world.

 

The Palestinians don't need more money they need a viable economy, which is pretty hard to develop when the Israelis are taking land to build settlements and blowing up houses, which they are doing because there are militants running all over the place, which wouldn't be running around if Palestine had a viable economy and they weren't living in refugee camps. My point is that neither side has a clear-cut moral superiority here. The Israelis aren't evil genociders any more than the Palestinians.

 

Yes, true enough, it cuts both ways... but regardless, the US is pumping money into Israel military which is in turn being used against the Palestinians. Why shouldn't there be strings attached to move Israel towards a peaceful resolution?

[Pangloss]

I prefer not to respond to questions phrased in the form of a logical fallacy.

 

It wasn't a question, it was a statement, and it was an accurate one, not a logical fallacy. And my suggestion to you is that if you don't like logical fallacies, then help me continue to set precedent here by joining me in not using them.

[CDarwin]

A substantive argument is a nice change of pace. However the US is giving Israel $3 billion in military aid per year. This affords Israel nearly the highest per capita military spending in the world.

 

The CIA lies? Maybe it was just talking about aid for... things other than what the 3 billion is for. O.o

[Pangloss]

CDarwin, can you clarify what you're suggesting, please? How does the CIA enter into this?

[CDarwin]

CDarwin, can you clarify what you're suggesting, please? How does the CIA enter into this?

 

Tsk, tsk, you didn't follow my links. They were from the CIA Factbook.

[Pangloss]

Pardon me, I thought you were talking about bascule's link. I understand you now, thanks.

[bascule]

It wasn't a question, it was a statement, and it was an accurate one, not a logical fallacy.

 

This is pretty much a textbook example of a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy:

 

Would you continue to sell them arms?

 

If you answer "yes", then they could possibly continue to exist under those circumstances, but the Osama types would still be just as angry with us as they are right now.

 

If you answer "no", then Israel dies, and it dies specifically due to your decision not to support them. Congratulations, says The World, you've selected one race over another. Nice job.

 

And my suggestion to you is that if you don't like logical fallacies, then help me continue to set precedent here by joining me in not using them.

 

Excellent! Committing to avoid logical fallacies is a great way to improve your argumentation style.

[Pangloss]

In order to be a "false dichotomy", it has to actually be false. It hasn't been demonstrated yet that if we withdraw support Israel won't necessarily die. You copped out and ignored the reply. Mind you, it doesn't even require proof, it merely requires any sort of reasonably demonstrative position to the contrary -- surely there are other possibilities? If you can't argue something like that, then it's not a logical fallacy. It is, until demonstrated otherwise, a reasonable opinion.

 

Geoguy posted a promising counter-argument, but it was rebutted. He chose to ignore that reply, therefore the pointer in this little array remains solidly fixed on "No US military sales = Israel dies". I'm still waiting for a valid counter-argument. And I'm not going anywhere. Please feel free to take your time.

 

When someone has demonstrated it to be a false dichotomy, I recommend you observe what I do about that. I think you'll find it instructional. It's called "apologizing", and it's what sincere people do. Hint, hint.

 

 

Excellent! Committing to avoid logical fallacies is a great way to improve your argumentation style.

 

I'm glad you feel that way, because while I haven't committed any logical fallacies (yet), you've committed several in recent threads, and I've yet to see you apologize for them or commit to end them.

[CDarwin]

Uhm... Bascule and Pangloss, if we can look past the the little hissing match you two seem to be having, you both seem to be right.

 

Pangloss's premise: Israel needs the US.

Bascule's Premise: The US should use that fact to leverage the Israelis into helping along the peace process.

 

Can we find common ground there?

[bascule]

In order to be a "false dichotomy", it has to actually be false. It hasn't been demonstrated yet that if we withdraw support Israel won't necessarily die.

 

So you're seriously contending that the two possibilities you enumerated are the only ones that exist?

 

You copped out and ignored the reply. Mind you, it doesn't even require proof, it merely requires any sort of reasonably demonstrative position to the contrary -- surely there are other possibilities? If you can't argue something like that, then it's not a logical fallacy.

 

I argued a third possibility (fund Israel's military with conditions that result in a peaceful resolution with Palestine)

 

Another is we cut military funding and Israel does fine without it

[ecoli]

 

I argued a third possibility (fund Israel's military with conditions that result in a peaceful resolution with Palestine)

 

Another is we cut military funding and Israel does fine without it

 

a fourth possibility... unfriendly neighbor's take advantage of Israel's use this weakened military status to launch attacks (military and otherwise) against Israel. Not having the resources to defend themselves, assuming it's enemies are well funded, many Israeli's die, and the nation is potentially ruined.

 

How likely is this scenario? It's not like we can't think of any people who want Israel to wiped of the map.

 

I might be playing the devil's advocate here, though. I'm not sure that this would actually happen.

[Pangloss]

I argued a third possibility (fund Israel's military with conditions that result in a peaceful resolution with Palestine)

 

Another is we cut military funding and Israel does fine without it

 

Ok, I apologize for posting a false dichotomy. Had I realized it at the time, I wouldn't have posted it.

 

Frankly I still think you're copping out. I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument in this thread for how Israel could "stand on its own". But hey you could be right. Aliens could land from Mars on the day after we cut Israel off, too, and Arabs and Israelis could unite in defending the Earth from them. Or hey, maybe they have money trees there. And ammunition trees, and laser-guided munitions trees, and F-16 RADAR trees, and .....

[gib65]

The thing that inspired me to start this thread was a series of audio lectures I downloaded from http://www.theteachingcompany.com. The lecture are titled "United States and The Middle East: 1914 to 9/11". If you can afford to fork out a few bucks, it's worth the while to download it. Highly recommended by me.

 

I'm up to the regan years, and in the 80s, the Israelis did some pretty atrocious things to innocent Palestinian civilians, some of which are almost on par with what the Nazis did to them. Not that the Palestinians, or other Arab states, are completely innocent either, but it just goes to shoe there are no saints in that corner of the world.

[bascule]

a fourth possibility... unfriendly neighbor's take advantage of Israel's use this weakened military status to launch attacks (military and otherwise) against Israel. Not having the resources to defend themselves, assuming it's enemies are well funded, many Israeli's die, and the nation is potentially ruined.

 

That sounds a lot like possibility #2 that Pangloss presented...

 

Frankly I still think you're copping out. I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument in this thread for how Israel could "stand on its own".

 

Honestly I don't think they could, hence why attaching strings to the funding would make an effective bargaining tool in promoting them to seek peace with the Palestinians, while at the same time the Osamas of the world would see we aren't just blindingly funding them in their fight against the Palestinians

[Pangloss]

Honestly I don't think they could, hence why attaching strings to the funding would make an effective bargaining tool in promoting them to seek peace with the Palestinians, while at the same time the Osamas of the world would see we aren't just blindingly funding them in their fight against the Palestinians

 

Well as I understand it that's what we've been doing. The problem lies in what happens when the Israelis fail to meet their obligations. It ends up being a toothless requirement, and that means the Israelis know it's toothless to begin with, so they can ignore it.

 

Not saying it's a bad idea to attach strings -- absolutely we should keep doing that. But I think something more is required, and I'm not really sure what that would be. I don't think anybody else is either, and therein lies the rub.

 

One thing is for certain -- our divisiveness doesn't help here. The Israelis know full well how our two political halves work, and are more than willing to benefit from that whenever they can. Many countries do this, in many different ways.

[ParanoiA]

I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument in this thread for how Israel could "stand on its own".

 

Well what's your definition of standing on its own? I don't see them surviving as isolationists in every sense of the word. Selling military stuff and other forms of trade is just trade. I guess you could call that support, I just call it trade and as long as we can trade with them I don't see why they need our military support. That's my hold up, this blanket military support obligation - and insultingly to a nation that perpetuates racism, albeit in a sea of nations that perpetuate racism.

 

I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument in this thread for how Israel should not "stand on its own". Why do they deserve our essential unconditional support? Why do we deserve theirs? If we're just going to internationally group-up irreverantly and push agendas then why do we bother with right or wrong? If we're going to support and commit to a group of people with an insane preference in real estate location, who uses force to install themselves and racism to perpetuate themselves, then why bother with ethics and morality?

 

I don't see where Israel gets off forcing themselves a homeland, ridiculously outnumbered, within a region of the world who's people have equal historical, traditional claim to that territory and who's religion utterly declares Jewish hatred - and expect the West to support this. I really don't get it. Hey, if they insist on being surrounded by millions upon millions of people who hate them, then let them face the consequences. Why should we sacrifice anything for an insane decision like that?

[Pangloss]

Well what's your definition of standing on its own?

 

I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument in this thread for how Israel should not "stand on its own".

 

As I indicated earlier in this thread, I asked a specific question on that very point. Geoguy speculated on the exact same point that you just raised, and I responded by saying that's fine, but would you also cut off arms sales? I believe that answers your question above.

 

As for the "reasonable argument", I provided that as well: The simple fact of the need for air superiority in any modern conflict, coupled with Israel's dependence on US aircraft, which, as I indicated, fly or not fly based absolutely on the supply of spare parts, is a reasonable and well-reasoned argument for why it would not stand on its own. This is just one example, but it has yet to be rebutted. By anybody. On a discussion board reputedly populated by people who believe in logic and deductive reasoning. Instead all I get is podium-pounding avoidance like the above.

 

YOU may "just call it trade", but there's plenty of precedent for our ENEMIES calling it SUPPORT. And while you and I may not give a rat's patootie what the enemy thinks, the question was what excuses will our enemies use.

 

 

Why do they deserve our essential unconditional support?

 

I don't know if this was in response to me or if you were just widening to include your own opinion (which is cool), but just to be clear, I haven't made an argument that they do deserve our unconditional support.

[ParanoiA]

As for the "reasonable argument", I provided that as well: The simple fact of the need for air superiority in any modern conflict, coupled with Israel's dependence on US aircraft, which, as I indicated, fly or not fly based absolutely on the supply of spare parts, is a reasonable and well-reasoned argument for why it would not stand on its own.

 

It's a well-reasoned argument for why it would not, but it's not an argument that addresses whether or not they should stand alone - or fall as it may be. That was my statement, but since I basically robbed the guts of it from your statement, you probably missed the "should" in place of "could".

 

This is just one example, but it has yet to be rebutted. By anybody. On a discussion board reputedly populated by people who believe in logic and deductive reasoning. Instead all I get is podium-pounding avoidance like the above.

 

Not sure if you're referencing my post or not here, so I'll just say that my post concerns whether or not they deserve support, not what will happen as the result of removing it. I don't take any issues with your assessment here, sounds thought out to me. I'm just not convinced we would support any other country in the world under the same circumstances. Seems wrong to me. But since it dates back to WWII and we were countering a previous isolationist psychology, it was allowed to happen and now we're content to keep it going. I think Israel needs to deal with this on their own.

 

But I will admit I'm split on trade. I'm a free trade guy, but I do see the problems with selling arms to one country and not another - a pseudo market alliance. My ideology would dictate selling arms to every country or no sales at all, to be fair, but my sense says that's stupid - and fair is subjective.

 

I don't know if this was in response to me or if you were just widening to include your own opinion (which is cool), but just to be clear, I haven't made an argument that they do deserve our unconditional support.

 

Yeah, I was widening a little. Because at this point it seems truly unconditional. I don't know what Israel could do to get us to turn our backs on them, with our present policy leaders anyway.

[Pangloss]

Misunderstandings happen, thanks for clarifying that. You and bascule are both touching on something that in my view does lead in the right direction -- holding Israel accountable for its position and stopping it from continuing to use what I would call "two wrongs" reasoning in its ongoing conflict with Palestinians (not always, mind you, but it seems to happen all too often). I think we've gone a long way towards answering the OP's question.

[Genecks]

I'm not an American so I know less about the US's motives for support Israel than actual Americans. Please don't take this as a belligerent question. I'd honestly like to know.

 

To waste money. To annoy tax payers. I think that's pretty much been the objective for over 40 years. Also, it's about building defense.

 

Old ideas say you need veterans; without vets, how are you going to defend a country? Throw noobs into the combat zone? Military history says you shouldn't be doing that.

 

My view is go "ka-freaking boom," take it over, establish order, make sure order is sustained by neighboring countries, and leave. If not, have outside countries knock out all of the inner countries, and done deal. Communistic rein of underdeveloped lands.

 

Personally, with all the terrorists and the S.A.Complex, looks like having an ally doesn't matter anymore. What's the U.S. got to lose? Nothing.