Isn't it amazing that the President who ran on a platform of ridding the world of nuclear weapons has facilitated Iran obtaining one a few years down the road and has likely set off the largest arms race in human history?
Not that I'm complaining about receiving all that money, but it just should not have been necessary.
PS I'm in Boston again, where the local time is 1:32 pm.
The US House of Representatives has voted to restore aid to Israel to its pre-sequester level of $3.1 billion. At the same time, aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' was conditioned on its not running to the United Nations unilaterally for recognition. Additionally, a portion of the aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' was conditioned upon the 'Authority's developing programs against incitement.
The amount is in line with a 2007 10-year memorandum of understanding
that guaranteed Israel an average of $3 billion a year in assistance.
Also in the bill is $268.7 million in funding for U.S.-Israel
cooperative anti-missile programs. This is not considered assistance
because Israel contributes to the programs. The annual US assistance,
too, has strings attached: it is conditional on the money being used for
purchasing weapons from the US.
The $1.1 trillion bill passed Wednesday is the result of a deal
brokered last month between Democrats and Republicans, who have been
fighting over the spending bill for months. It restores about half the
cuts made in the “sequestration,” the across-the-board 8 percent cuts
which by law went into force in March, when Congress failed to agree on a
budget.
The bill also makes the $400 million the Palestinian Authority (PA)
receives in annual assistance dependent on programs against incitement,
and cuts off aid to the Palestinian Arabs if the PA takes further steps
to secure statehood recognition at international bodies.
The overwhelming passage of $3.1 billion in Israel security assistance as part of the larger omnibus appropriations bill again demonstrates the bipartisan commitment to ensuring Israel’s security needs are fully met," Eliot Engel (D-NY), ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
A substantial portion of the aid package is earmarked for Arrow, Arrow 2 and David's Sling, Israel's long- and medium-range missile defense systems.
I don't think Obama would dare to oppose a higher level of aid to Israel in a (Congressional) election year, but I would bet that he was ask the Democrat-controlled Senate to try to get the conditions to aid to the 'Palestinians' deleted.
Feiglin: Immoral for Israel to take US aid, US may not survive Obama
Likud MK Moshe Feiglin has told The New American that it's immoral for Israel to take US foreign aid. But many of you who like that statement may not like his reasoning.
“I’m totally against this [US foreign] aid [to
Israel],” Feiglin told The New American, a relatively unknown
publication affiliated with far-right American politics. “It cannot be
when, first of all, the Americans are standing in line like two or three
miles in the snow to get a job. To get any kind of aid from America
when, economically, we are in a much, much better position doesn’t look
moral to me.”
Furthermore, American aid “is not in our
favor, not economically, not militarily, not in any way,” the MK told
the magazine’s Alex Newman. (He gave the interview last month in the Knesset,
but it only appeared on Monday.) “This aid serves psychological
purposes, not anything else. We are talking about 1.5 percent of our
income, of what Israel is producing — we can definitely deal without
it.”
Since World War II, Israel is the largest
recipient of US foreign aid, having received a total of $118 billion,
most of it in the form of military assistance. Currently, Washington
supports Israel with about $3 billion per year.
Newman asked Feiglin about former Republican
presidential candidate Ron Paul’s argument that the US administration is
using the aid “to obtain leverage over the Israeli government when
Israel should be thinking about its own interests rather than what
Washington thinks.”
Feiglin responded, “I 100 percent agree.”
So is Feiglin a Ron Paul supporter? I think he'd say that's none of our business. On the other hand, he certainly doesn't have a lot of confidence in the Obama administration's stewardship of the American economy.
“I don’t know what’s going to happen with
America — I’m more worried about America than about Israel,” he told the
magazine. “I know it sounds maybe a little bit crazy. However, we are a
nation of 3,300 years. We have our little ups and downs over our
history, but it seems like physically we are stronger than ever.
“History shows that big empires fall, and it
doesn’t look like America today is on the rise,” he continued. “So
there’s more — from my historical understanding — there’s more to worry
about now for America than about Israel. I think — and again, excuse me
for saying so — I think America needs Israel not any less than Israel
needs America.”
Feiglin said he is aware that his comments
sound “a bit funny” — though not because the world’s last remaining
superpower is also the world’s strongest economy, but because the US has
so many more inhabitants than Israel. “But even though I’m aware of the
numbers, I’m still saying what I’m saying because I think that Israel
carries moral weight, and also technological and strategic and
territorial weight, that is much bigger than its size.”
Stupid Jews: Israel backs aid to 'Palestinian Authority' despite rapprochement with Hamas
Politico reports that the Israeli government is backing continued aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' despite the fact that it is more interested in making peace with Hamas than with Israel. Here's a statement that Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren provided to Politico.
The Israeli government would welcome the decision to lift the congressional hold on U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. We appreciate that the hold was placed to demonstrate to the Palestinians the consequences of their attempts to declare statehood unilaterally at the United Nations, without making lasting peace with Israel. The Israeli government's position follows a decision by the Obama administration and Congress to declare specific consequences, including the closure of the PLO office in Washington and the withholding of future funding for the Palestinian Authority, and the fact that the Palestinians have refrained from additional U.N. initiatives.
We view these measures as essential for returning the Palestinians to direct talks without preconditions, as endorsed by the Quartet. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands by his commitment to negotiate all core issues leading to a viable and permanent two-state solution.
So on top of everything else, our government has now decided to cut the legs out from under the Republicans who have been supporting us.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have reached an agreement that will ignore the 'Palestinians' joining UNESCO and permit funding in 2012 so long as they don't join any other United Nations bodies.
The proposed spending plan was released by congressional Republicans, who say it was agreed between Republican and Democratic appropriators as a spending plan for fiscal 2012. Their agreement has until now been kept secret.
It was unclear how soon a vote would be held, or whether details of the plan would change. Republicans are pushing for a vote as soon as possible.
The plan does not specify any particular amount of aid for the Palestinians for fiscal 2012, apparently leaving it to the Obama administration to set the level in consultation with Congress.
"The bottom line is that US aid to the Palestinian Authority can continue, which is good news," said Dylan Williams, director of government affairs at J Street, a liberal advocacy group in Washington that says a two-state solution is essential to Israel's survival.
J Street argues that continuing US aid to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank benefits Israel's security. "That is because the alternative to the Palestinian Authority being able to assist Israel in maintaining order, and provide basic services to the Palestinians, is for extremist groups like Hamas to deliberately destroy that order and take control of the West Bank," Williams told Reuters.
Of course, the 'Palestinian Authority' and the 'extremist groups' have the same goal - they just differ in how to go about attaining it.
Here's an interview with Yoram Ettinger, which appeared on Israel's Channel 10 this past week. Yoram is a former Israeli consul general in Houston (which is how I met him - a client in Houston made the introduction), and is an expert on Israel's relations with the United States and on Israel's 'demographic threat.'
This interview is in Hebrew. There is an English translation below the fold. Yoram is the first person interviewed. The interview starts at 2:24 and ends at 18:00.
Let's go to the videotape.
Q. When was the last time you visited the United States?
A. Two weeks ago, in Midland, Texas, the Texas capital - and possibly the US capital - of the independent oil producers. I held two days meetings with independent oil producers, who support the enhancement of strategic relations between the USA and Israel, mostly as a result of the current seismic developments in all Arab countries. These developments clarify that while the USA cannot rely on any of the Arab countries, Israel is highlighted as the most reliable, stable, capable, democratic and unconditional ally of the USA.
Q. How long did you live in Texas?
A. I did my undergraduate studies in Texas and I also served as Israel's Consul General in Houston, Texas. In my current work I often visit Washington, DC and Texas, which has become a key State in the USA in general and in the overall increasing American support for the Jewish State in particular.
Q. Why Texas in particular?
A. Texas, because of its historical and cultural background. Texas is the only state in the US that joined the Union not through acquisition or conquest, but rather joined willingly. As a result, its rights are superior to all other states. For example, Texas is the only state that can secede, or even split to 5 states. But more importantly, Texas is a state that greatly appreciates tradition, patriotism, religion, independence and can-do mentality, defiance of odds and roots.
Q. Do Texans/Americans support Israel because of the influence of the Jewish community?
A. The support, by Texans in particular and Americans in general, of Judaism and the concept of a Jewish State dates back to the early Pilgrims who landed in America in 1620. They left England, "the modern-day Egypt," sailed through the Atlantic Ocean, "the modern-day Red Sea" and arrived to America, "the modern-day Promised Land" or New Canaan. Since then until today, American appreciation of Judaism and of the idea of the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel constitute key issues in the American ethos, American justice and as of lately, USA national security.
Q. Who was the most pro-Israel American president?
A. In my opinion, the leading one was Ronald Reagan and in another way Richard Nixon, in spite of the fact that Nixon was received only 12% of the Jewish votes, so he had no political IOUs to the Jewish community. But, in 1970, he witnessed Israel forcing the rolling back of the Syrian invasion of Jordan - that threatened through a Domino Syndrome Saudi Arabia and other oil producing Arab states in the Gulf. The Jewish state - which until then was not considered by Nixon a strategic asset - demonstrated its capability to snatch the hottest chestnuts out of the fire with no requirement of a single American soldier, while the US was bogged down in Vietnam. President Nixon became a supporter of Israel. It was Nixon who, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War - despite his Secretaries of State and Defense - decided to replenish Israel with significant military systems, in order to bolster the only effective ally of the US in the Middle East.
Q. And who is the least American President appreciative of Israel?
A. President Bush 41st and his Secretary of State, Baker. Jimmy Carter is in the same league and perhaps even worse. President Obama "threatens" to join them, but he is not there yet.
Q. Why Obama?
A. Because of his ideology and his view of the world, irrespective of Israel. For instance, an American president who does not believe in American moral, political and military Exceptionalism is less effective for Israel and the Free World. Israel and the Free World do not need a local American policeman; they needs an American Marshal. Obama believes that the U.N - which is not the home court of the US or Israel - is the playmaker of international relations. He does not believe in the existence of international Islamic terrorism, only in local Islamic terrorism - Taliban and al- Qaeda. He does not believe in the existence of Jihadist terrorism, because - according to his advisor on countering terrorism - "Jihad is a process which purifies the soul." Obama wants to be more European than the Europeans. He subordinates unilateral US policy to multilateral coalition considerations. Finally, he believes that the Palestinian issue is the root cause of Middle East instability and anti-American terrorism, and that the Palestinian issue is the crown-jewel of intra-Arab policy-making. All of which has no relevance to Middle Eastern reality.
Q. Maybe an American president who is not so pro-Israel can be more neutral and help bring the conflict to an end?
A. We need to comprehend that the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict does not depend on Israel or on the Americans. It is a derivative of the Middle East as it has been for 14 centuries. One shouldn't ignore the fact that for 1,400 years, since the appearance of Islam, there has not been intra-Arab/Moslem peace, intra-Arab/Moslem compliance with intra- Arab/Moslem agreements, intra-Arab/Moslem ratification of all borders and not a single Arab/Moslem democracy. Terror has been an integral key element of intra-Arab/Moslem policy. In defiance of such an entrenched reality, some of us wish that the Arabs would bestow upon the Jewish State that which they have yet to accord to one another. I wish that it would be a logical expectation, but it is not. Moreover, the less involved is the USA in the Arab-Israel conflict, the lower are Arab expectations, and the less strained are US-Israel relations. The US involvement has added fuel to the fire of Arab expectations and radicalism and undermined US-Israel relations. US-Israel relations are based on shared values, threats and interests and not on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Q. What will happen in September when there will be a unilateral declaration of a "Palestinian state"?
A. The sun will rise and the moon will appear, just as they did following the 1988 UN General Assembly recommendation - supported by 132 countries - to recognize a Palestinian state and the 1975 UN General Assembly declaration of Zionism as Racism. Since then, Israel has surged economically and otherwise. The U.N General Assembly is an ineffective body, and in the U.N Security Council there is a US veto. The anti-Israel UN proceedings, in September 2011, will constitute another bump on the way of the Jewish State to further achievements.
Q. You are refuting many myths. There is an assumption that the US may curtail/stop aid to Israel if Israel would not comply with US policy. Is that also a myth?
A. It is a myth, but in a different way. I was very involved in Benjamin Netanyahu's decision - during his first term as Prime Minister - to end US non-military aid. The non-military aid was eliminated over 10 years, half of which was transferred to the military aid. The decision paid off economically and diplomatically, in defiance of naysayers. Israel will thrive and prosper even more upon phasing out, over 10 years, of the $3BN in US military aid, rededicating each year 10% of the aid to the establishment of an additional bi-national employment and export driven fund.
Q. But the military aid sustains Israel's ability to hold its own militarily!
A. That is what the naysayers told Netanyahu in 1996, but the sun rose and it was much warmer and friendlier for Israel following the gradual phase out of the Economic Support Fund (non-military foreign aid). Israel incurs high cost for the USA aid. The Israeli defense industry prefers, sometimes, to operate in the USA because Israel's Ministry of Defense has more dollars, and therefore it is easier to purchase from an Israeli company that operates in Florida, Alabama, California or Texas. Moreover, the US aid limits Israel's defense exports, occasionally undermines Israel's R & D, accelerates the regional arms race and the resulting burden on Israel's economy (Egypt receives military foreign aid in correlation with aid to Israel) and portrays Israel - unjustifiably - as a member of under-privileged countries which require "foreign" "aid." If those $3BN will be gradually reduced, at 10% each year, expanding cooperation between the defense industries of both countries - which would then benefit from a similar tailwind currently available to the commercial industries - it would create more jobs, exports and research & development in the USA and in Israel. A year later, the 10% of the reduced military foreign aid would be directed at an employment-driven collaboration between their water-related industries, which would advance the effort to overcome the water crisis, leveraging each other's technological edge. Then, a year later, collaboration between alternative energy industries, and so on. Mutually-beneficial joint ventures and trade are always preferable to foreign aid.
Q. USA aid does not go to Israel only.
A. USA relations with Israel are unique among recipients of foreign aid. They are not a one way street; they constitute a two way, bottom up, mutually-beneficial street, where both give and receive. For example, the intelligence the USA receives from Israel exceeds that which the USA receives from all NATO countries combined. The late General Alexander Haig who was the Supreme Commander of NATO and US Secretary of State considered Israel the largest USA aircraft carrier which did not require a single American on board, that couldn't be sunk, that saved the US tax payer $20-$30Billion per year and was deployed in a most vital region to critical American interests.
Q. Finally, what would you suggest to Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding Israel relations with the USA?
A. First and foremost Israel needs to understand that an American President is not The American Government, but one of three branches of government, which are equal in power to one another. The US Congress and the Courts are the other 2/3rds. Prime Minister Netanyahu should recognize Congress - a systematic bastion of support - as a co-equal and a co-determining player in setting US foreign policy in general and US-Israel relations in particular. In fact, until November 2012, Congress could potentially be even stronger than the President, who needs Congress in order to be reelected. Finally, Netanyahu should rid Israel of the dependency on US military aid.
Sorry about the obnoxious ads in the middle.
I found his comments about giving up American aid most interesting.
Shaath: US threatened to cut off aid to 'Palestinians'
Israel Radio reports that 'Palestinian negotiator' Nabil Sha'ath told al-Arabiya on Saturday that the United States threatened to cut off all aid to the 'Palestinians' if the 'Palestinians' do not drop their efforts to condemn Israel in the United Nations.
Shaath said that the 'Palestinians' were not afraid of the US cutting off their aid.
I'm sure he's not. After all, the Europeans will make up whatever the US cuts off.
Legislation has been introduced in the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, with bi-partisan support, which would guarantee that organizations like Hezbullah will not benefit from US funds.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during a committee hearing on the political turmoil sweeping across the Middle East that trends in Beirut were troubling.
“In Lebanon, we have witnessed the takeover of the country by the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis,” she said in her statement.
“Even now, when the Lebanese government has been overthrown, the United States has still failed to indicate that it will cut off assistance to a proxy government for Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah,” she complained.
She called for the adoption of Berman’s Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act which guarantees that organizations like Hezbollah do not benefit from American taxpayers funds.
During the hearing House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Howard Berman announced that he would be introducing the new bill entitled the “Hezbollah anti-terrorism act of 2011.”
The bill would bar U.S. assistance to Lebanon unless President Barack Obama certifies to the Congress that no funds will go to Hezbollah or any of its entities under its control and that the Lebanese government is actively working to dismantle Hezbollah’s military capability.
This will be watered down to be like the provision in US assistance to the 'Palestinians' that requires the President to certify every year that they're fighting terrorism. Of course, it gets certified every year even though it's not true. What could go wrong?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
