| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 6:20 am Post subject: US Financial Aid To Israel - Figures, Facts And Impact |
| http://www.rense.com/general31/rege.htm
US Financial Aid To Israel -
Figures, Facts And Impact
Washington Report On Middle East Affairs
RMEA.com
11-9-2
Summary
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Special Reports:
U.S. Aid To Israel: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#STRATEGIC
The Strategic Functions U.S. Aid to Israel: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer
What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know U.S. Aid to Israel: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Israel
Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship' The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Lies
True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel
THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
By Stephen Zunes
Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign- aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.
AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding." Given Israel's relative prosperity, U.S. aid to Israel is becoming increasingly controversial. In 1994, Yossi Beilen, deputy foreign minister of Israel and a Knesset member, told the Women's International Zionist organization, "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Aid To Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
By Tom Malthaner
This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.
Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)
When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.
Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.
I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Aid To Israel: Interpreting The 'Strategic Relationship'
By Stephen Zunes
"The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.
He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."
Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just . . . one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."
U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern . . . has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies . . ."
The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly, . . . Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel.
Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S. Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it."
In the fall of 1993-when many had high hopes for peace-78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain "at current levels." Their "only reason" was the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S.
"I'm not denying for a moment the power of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby," and other similar groups, Zunes said. Yet the "Aerospace Industry Association which promotes these massive arms shipments . . . is even more influential." This association has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Its "force on Capitol Hill, in terms of lobbying, surpasses that of even AIPAC." Zunes asserted that the "general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC didn't exist. We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia
"An increasing number of Israelis are pointing out" that these funds are not in Israel's best interest. Quoting Peled, Zunes said, "this aid pushes Israel 'toward a posture of callous intransigence' in terms of the peace process." Moreover, for every dollar the U.S. sends in arms aid, Israel must spend two to three dollars to train people to use the weaponry, to buy parts, and in other ways make use of the aid. Even "main-stream Israeli economists are saying [it] is very harmful to the country's future."
The Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [Israel] undertake[s] the 'dirty work' of a godfather who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation." 'To challenge this strategic relationship, one cannot focus solely on the Israeli lobby but must also examine these "broader forces as well." "Until we tackle this issue head-on," it will be "very difficult to win" in other areas relating to Palestine.
"The results" of the short-term thinking behind U.S. policy "are tragic," not just for the "immediate victims" but "eventually [for] Israel itself" and "American interests in the region." The U.S. is sending enormous amounts of aid to the Middle East, and yet "we are less secure than ever"-both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. Zunes referred to a "growing and increasing hostility [of] the average Arab toward the United States." In the long term, said Zunes, "peace and stability and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel."
This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also "jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law." Zunes sees significant potential in "building a broad-based movement around it."
The above text is based on remarks, delivered on. 26 January, 2001 by Stephen . Zunes - Associate Professor of Politics and Chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at San Francisco University
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost Of Israel To US Taxpayers:
True Lies About US Aid To Israel
By Richard H. Curtiss
For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies--true lies.
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.
Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.
In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.
More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.
The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.
Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.
Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.
But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
Hiding AIPAC's Tracks
In fact, the congressmembers know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
Shocking Comparisons
These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for theWashington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.
As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.
But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.
It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.
Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.
Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.
Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.
By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi attrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.
In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.
It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it's a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America's mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.
------------------
Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 12:37 pm Post subject: The blackmailing of America by Israel (for Iraq Attack)! |
| The blackmailing of America by Israel (for Iraq Attack)!
[The blackmailing of America! More American tax-payers funds needed to support a racist regime! ]
PM Sharon plans to ask U.S. for covert aid that could top $10 billion
Reported by: Amnon Barzilai and Natan Guttman
http://www.sabawoon.com/articles.asp?id=11308&view=detail
10/21/2002
(Ha`aretz, Israel):
An inter-ministerial team headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bureau chief, Dov Weisglass, is working on a proposal requesting American economic assistance that could top $10 billion.
The team includes representatives from the treasury, the Foreign Ministry and the Defense Ministry.
A government source said the reason for the aid request stems from the United States' expected campaign against Iraq coupled with the American desire that Israel not interfere with Washington's plans or use IDF troops against Iraq.
Sources at the Prime Minister's Office said yesterday that American readiness to provide economic assistance has not been made in concrete terms.
However, a number of ideas have cropped up in Jerusalem over the type of aid Israel could use: cash, guarantees for low-interest bank loans from American banks, direct state-to-state loans from the U.S. treasury, and the conversion of some American defense aid into shekels.
Currently, Washington provides Israel $2.1 billion a year that must be spent in the United States on defense supplies. One proposal is for $2 billion to be converted to shekels and used to purchase defense equipment from Israeli manufacturers in the hope that it would invigorate the Israeli economy.
The final proposal will be worked out by the inter-ministerial committee and the White House.
Discussions about economic aid came up during the prime minister's recent trip to Washington, and, in particular, during talks between Weisglass and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Weisglass said the aid was necessary to get the Israeli economy moving; U.S. President George W. Bush mentioned American confidence in Israel's economy during a White House press conference with Sharon after their meeting last week.
Other than the annual economic aid, Israel expects fulfillment of a July 2000 decision made by then-president Bill Clinton to then-premier Ehud Barak for a $800 million grant. Since then, the sum has dropped to $200 million, and discussions were frozen, for bureaucratic reasons, after Clinton left office, according to the Americans. But with help of pro-Israel congressmen, discussions are expected to resume at the beginning of the new year.
AMERICA'S DUPING WORLD RE INSPECTIONS ACCORDING TO BRIT MP
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/23/america-s-duping-world-re-inspections-according-to-brit-mp.php | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:32 pm Post subject: |
| ACTUALLY, the request is for loan guarantees that allow Israel to borrow at a reduced interest rate.
This has been done before, and Israel has NEVER defaulted on any of these loans. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2002 1:15 am Post subject: $15 Billion "loan" to Israel |
| And let's be sure we understand the last $15 Billion "loan" at the time of
the last Iraqi war to resettle the Russian Jews, a majority of whom came to
America.
First Washington had to guarantee the loan (remember); this was so that the
loan could be borrowed from US pension funds (we weren't told this); now
each year Washington passes a resolution to pay Israeli indebtedness from
taxpayer monies. Thus first the US advanced the "loan" and second pays it
off to ourselves (which is kept secret in Washington). In effect, it was a
gift all along on top of the usual $5 or 6 Billion annually. God, what
sukkas Washington makes of US for their masters in Israel.
And now they would sacrifice millions of Americans for Israel rather than
join with the rest of the world in a just peace in the Middle East. All
loyalty to the people and the country is gone. This is treason, folks.
Boycott Zionism: NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NY TIMES and keep Christman for
Children; for adults buy War Bonds. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2002 9:17 pm Post subject: Billions more to Israel but zero for US workers |
| Subj: Billions more to Israel but zero for US workers
Date: 11/23/02 8:11:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
See below Democrats are complaining that unemployment benefits are denied US workers, but they are joining in with the Republicans to give Israel more money - see also below: Complain to Congress. Whether they heed your call or not, at least we can make them uncomfortable.
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=636993&fid=942
Israel submits $8-10b aid and guarantees request to US
Ministry of Finance director general Ohad Marani is in Washington to lobby
for the aid. Details of the discussions are being kept secret.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.24C.dash.pelo.lash.htm
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
It Is Shameful For The House To Leave Town Without Helping Workers
Friday, 22 November, 2002
"This is a sad day for a lot of workers. Because of Republican inaction, nearly one million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits three days after Christmas. Without jobs, and without an extension of their unemployment insurance benefits, they are facing a grim holiday season.
"Last week, the Senate unanimously passed a three-month extension of the unemployment insurance program that President Bush signed in March. With a phone call to Speaker Hastert or Representative DeLay, President Bush could have insisted that House Republicans follow the Senateís lead, and provide this much needed help for these hard-hit workers.
"Unfortunately, instead of giving laid-off workers some hope and some help to get through the holiday season, Republican leaders have given them the cold shoulder.
"It is amazing to me that so many who discussed their concern about unemployment on the campaign trail are unwilling to act on that concern now. When the Senate reconvenes, we will continue our work to help those who have lost their jobs, and to strengthen our economy to create new ones."
t r u t h o u t | Statement
House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi Condemns House Republicans' Refusal Extend Unemployment Benefits
Friday, 22 November, 2002
Washington, D.C. - House Democratic Leader-Elect Nancy Pelosi denounced House Republicans' decision today to adjourn the 107th Congress without extending unemployment insurance for 800,000 jobless Americans whose benefits will run out three days after Christmas.
"This is perfect example of the difference between our parties. If the Democrats had been in charge, we would have passed this bill," Pelosi said. "As House Republicans rush home for the holidays, I hope they give some thought to those less fortunate families who will not have much to celebrate this year."
Despite repeated requests by House Democrats today, Republican Leadership refused to even bring to the House floor a bipartisan Senate bill to extend unemployment benefits through March.
In addition to helping workers, unemployment insurance provides a targeted economic stimulus by immediately increasing consumer spending in the hardest-hit areas, Pelosi noted. Boosting consumer spending quickly is one of the most effective ways to bring about an economic recovery.
More than 8 million workers are currently unemployed. The Republicans' refusal to act, means that 800,000 workers will lose their unemployment insurance on December 28 and an additional 90,000 workers per week will lose their benefits. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:10 am Post subject: U.S. expected to approve $14 billion aid request |
| anybody else OUTRAGED? that fellow Americans were denied an extension of unemployment benefits which are about to expire prior to Christmas, Congress voted itself another $5000 pay increase, Bush is about to approve another tax break for the wealthiest ONE PERCENT.....and now this............!
mimi
U.S. expected to approve $14 billion aid request
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/...
By Moti Bassok
Israel will today submit a request for $14 billion in economic aid to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. President George Bush is expected to quickly approve the request - $4 billion in defense aid. and U.S. guarantees for $10 billion - with minor changes, Israeli sources said.
The sources said the Republican congressional majority would approve the aid within 3-6 months. After Finance Ministry director general Ohad Marani and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bureau chief Dov Weisglass submit the request, it will be handled by both Israeli and U.S. officials who will determine the duration of the grant and guarantees, and various technical details. The guarantees will apparently be for five years but it is unclear how the defense aid will be laid out.
Sharon told Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz during a meeting eight days ago with Finance Minister Silvan Shalom, that as soon as the U.S. makes a positive decision on the defense grant, he will consent to some of Mofaz's requests for budget increases. The sources say the grant will allow the government to direct defense spending to growth oriented projects.
Some treasury officials are not pleased with the request for such high guarantees, fearing that some of the money will not be directed to growth projects.
However, sources at the prime minister's office say news of the aid will improve the country's international financial standing, and could encourage both local and foreign investors to reconsider Israel. The U.S. aid will also substantially influence the strategic situation in the Middle East.
Sharon first raised the question of aid in his Washington meeting with Bush in mid-October. The formal request was completed by Marani's staff in the past two weeks, with the explanation that Israel has increased military spending in the past two years because of the Palestinian uprising and the expected U.S. war with Iraq. Last week, Turkey and Jordan received generous American military aid of $2 billion to prepare for the possible war with Iraq.
The request for the guarantees - the option of getting improved loan terms from U.S. banks - is based on Israel's need to stabilize the economy and pull out of recession.
Last week Washington approved Israel's annual military aid of $2.16 billion for 2004, and is expected to approve its civil aid soon. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 9:09 pm Post subject: Fwd: US to approve $14 BILLION aid request to "guess wh |
| Fwd: US to approve $14 BILLION aid request to "guess where"?????
That really upsets and angers me. We are so willing to give over $14
billion to another country to aide it, while over 41 million Americans
have no health insurance? Disgusting. I suggest that everyone reads
this NY Times article that just came out today. This is how we should
be using the tax payers money.
Mary!
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/25/national/25INSU.html?ex=1039239282&ei=1&en=f4d6965e041c4e62
November 25, 2002
Problem of Lost Health Benefits Is Reaching Into the Middle Class
By JOHN M. BRODER
his article was reported by John M. Broder, Robert Pear and Milt Freudenheim and was written by Mr. Broder.
Diane MacPherson, of Lowell, Mass., lost her job at a relocation management company last November, and with it the health insurance for herself, her husband and their 4-year-old daughter. Her husband works in construction and does not have access to health care coverage at work.
Continuing her family health insurance under the federal Cobra program would have cost $931 a month, so the couple decided to insure only their daughter, at a cost of $270 a month. Two months ago, when Ms. MacPherson's unemployment compensation payments ran out, they dropped their health insurance altogether. Although her husband earns about $75,000 a year, construction work is seasonal and they could not be assured of enough income every month to pay for health insurance.
Then their daughter came down with strep throat. "That was rather humiliating, being in the doctor's office without insurance," Ms. MacPherson said. "You become very obvious to everyone."
The family represents a changing portrait of the 41 million Americans who do not have health insurance today. Once thought to be a problem chiefly of the poor and the unemployed, the health care crisis is spreading up the income ladder and deep into the ranks of those with full-time jobs.
According to recently released Census Bureau figures, 1.4 million Americans lost their health insurance last year, an increase largely attributed to the economic slowdown and resulting rise in unemployment. The largest group of the newly uninsured ? some 800,000 people ? had incomes in excess of $75,000. They either lost their jobs, or were priced out of the health care market by rapidly rising insurance premiums, or, like Ms. MacPherson, both.
While it is true that the number of uninsured people rises when unemployment goes up, it is also true that the rolls of the uninsured can expand even when joblessness is going down, as it did through most of the 1990's.
The numbers of uninsured during the last recession from 1990-92 jumped to 35.4 million from 32.9 million. But the number continued to rise even in the boom years of the mid- to late 1990's, reaching 40.7 million in 1998 before dipping slightly in 1999 and 2000.
Labor economists say that much of the job growth during the expansion of the 1990's came in small businesses and in service industries, low-wage, nonunion sectors that are much less likely to offer health insurance as a benefit to new workers. There was also a demographic bulge of young people and recent immigrants entering the work force during the decade, with many of them willing to take jobs that did not offer rich benefit packages.
The problem has long been acute among minorities, immigrants, part-time workers and employees in low-wage service jobs. What is different this time, analysts say, is that the problem is hitting middle-income and upper-income families harder because many of the job losses are in high-wage industries like technology and telecommunications.
Thirty million Americans in working families today ? 16 percent of all those in families headed by a worker ? lack health care coverage, according to a four-year tracking study by the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonprofit research group financed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. An additional 16 million Americans ? mostly low-income workers ? are offered health insurance through their jobs but decline because they get health care from government programs or it is too expensive, the study found.
"The failure of the economic boom to expand employer-based coverage for working families significantly is ominous," the center said in a recent study. It found that the current slowdown and the rising cost of providing health care to employees produced a double whammy: fewer companies are now willing to offer their workers health care coverage, and those that do will demand that employees shoulder a far higher share of the cost.
Rising Concerns
Policy makers and health care analysts say the United States is again confronting a crisis in its medical delivery system.
"The number of uninsured will continue to grow as long as health insurance premiums rise more rapidly than earnings, as they have for a decade," said Drew E. Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks health coverage trends.
"Losing health benefits is becoming a middle-class issue," Mr. Altman said. "If it had not been for expansions in the child health program and Medicaid, we would have 10 million more uninsured."
The growing number of uninsured and the rising cost of health insurance have stimulated Congressional interest on a scale not seen since 1993 and 1994, when President Bill Clinton tried to remake the health care system and guarantee coverage for all Americans.
The major proposals being debated now fall into two main categories. One approach, favored by Republicans and some Democrats, would provide tax breaks to help individuals, families and small businesses buy health insurance in the open market. The other, preferred by many Democrats, would expand eligibility for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program to include the parents of some children who are already eligible.
Either plan could have eased the situation of Brian and Anna Brooks, who run a small electrical contracting business in Westminster, Colo. They gave up their health insurance for themselves and their 8-year-old daughter this year to keep their business afloat.
They had already let go four of their five workers and wanted to maintain health coverage for their remaining employee.
Ms. Brooks said that they dropped their health coverage in July after the family premium jumped to $989 a month from $489 a month. Business was slow, and their previous income of more than $60,000 a year had fallen by half.
The effect has been immediate. Mr. Brooks, 50, has stopped taking Lipitor to control high cholesterol and has started taking over-the-counter herbal supplements. Ms. Brooks no longer takes Singulair for asthma and has adopted an exercise program intended to regulate her breathing. Ms. Brooks estimates they are saving $150 a month by not using prescription drugs.
"We changed our diets a lot in order to help the effectiveness of the supplements, and maybe that's a good thing," she said. They are setting aside $30 a month for their daughter's medical needs, but one ear infection would quickly empty the pot.
The federal Cobra program, enacted as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, is devised to provide a cushion for those who have recently lost their jobs. It allows workers to maintain their health care coverage for up to 18 months if they assume the full cost of the health coverage provided by their former employer. But many find the cost prohibitive, and only a quarter of workers say they would keep up their coverage under Cobra because of its high cost, according to a new survey from the Commonwealth Fund, a private research group.
Betting on Good Health
The high cost of Cobra coverage presents many people who have recently been laid off with a cruel choice. Audrey Robar of Milwaukee, 63, who lost her job at a private social services agency in September, decided to skip the $300 a month Cobra package in the expectation that she would soon find another job.
It was a gamble, and she lost.
"She was thinking she could get away with it," her daughter, Eva Robar-Orlich, said in an interview last week.
In the early hours of Oct. 23, Ms. Robar began to suffer chest pain and dizziness. She called her sister to ask whether she could seek medical care immediately and sign up for Cobra later. Her sister, Alden Egan, urged her to call an ambulance right away, but Ms. Robar set down the phone to look for the Cobra documents. Ms. Egan then heard over the open phone line the sound of her sister falling to the floor and quickly called 911. By the time paramedics arrived a few minutes later, Ms. Robar was dead of a heart attack.
"I think the fact that she hadn't paid for Cobra very well could have cost her her life," said Ms. Robar-Orlich. "She deliberated over calling an ambulance at a time when every minute was urgent."
Because the insurance crisis has hit high-income families and millions of middle-class Americans with jobs, advocates for the uninsured have expressed hope that Washington will finally resolve the problem. High-wage workers and small-business owners are a much more effective lobbying force than the unemployed, children and the poor.
Mary R. Grealy, president of the Healthcare Leadership Council, an industry coalition seeking coverage for the uninsured, said: "We are very optimistic. More and more people say that the uninsured will be a big issue in the next Congress."
"Lawmakers have seen the new face of the uninsured ? it's not a welfare population ? and will seek solutions for the employed uninsured," the many working families who lack insurance, Ms. Grealy said. "This is now an issue for Republicans," she added. "It's not just a one-party issue."
Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer group, said that Republicans and Democrats could agree on proposals combining tax credits with some expansion of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
On the other hand, proposals to aid the uninsured could easily touch off a partisan brawl, in which lawmakers fight over the merits of government programs versus the private market.
President Bush has already proposed tax credits and is expected to offer more proposals to help the uninsured as part of his budget early next year.
In his first two budgets, Mr. Bush earmarked a large amount of money for health insurance tax credits: $89 billion over 10 years, for people who are not covered by an employer's plan and not eligible for public programs. The proposal languished in Congress, but Mr. Bush will have a greater incentive to push for action this year.
"The president wants to develop a record on health care to neutralize this issue going into the 2004 elections," Mr. Pollack said.
The issue is of particular concern to small-business owners, who say they would like to offer their employees health insurance but cannot keep up with the fast-rising premiums. They are a large and influential lobby and an important base for the Republican Party.
Martyn Hopper, the California state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said that 42 percent of the state organization's 37,000 member businesses did not offer their employees health care coverage. He blames rising premiums and the high cost of doing business in California, which has imposed a number of expensive mandates on employers. Big companies, Mr. Hopper said, can move operations to cheaper locations or offshore, but mom-and-pop businesses are forced to lay off workers or make their employees pay an ever-increasing share of health care costs.
Tom Lucas, who owns two plant nurseries outside Los Angeles, said that he provided health coverage to his 70 employees until the mid-1990's, when the cost became crushing. Mr. Lucas said that some of his workers have spouses with jobs that provided insurance, some drove to Mexico to seek cheap treatment and drugs, and some did without.
He said that health coverage was particularly expensive in California because the legislature had imposed a number of mandates on the policies that employers must offer, including coverage for mental illness, comprehensive cancer screening, substance abuse treatment and weight loss programs.
"Health insurance is a luxury I can't afford for my people," he said. "It's a great perk, but in an industry like my own, it's not reality. There's not enough dollars to go around."
Roadblocks to a Solution
While there is continuing public concern about health care and gathering sentiment in Washington to do something about it, a number of constraints are limiting the likelihood that the growth in the numbers of the uninsured will be reversed any time soon.
Growing federal and state budget deficits will make it difficult to find money to subsidize coverage for the uninsured. The president and members of both parties have promised prescription drug benefits to the elderly, who vote in large numbers, and fulfilling that commitment is a higher political priority for most lawmakers than addressing the problem of the uninsured.
In addition, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers are demanding higher Medicare payments, which will eat up money that could be used to cover people with no insurance. Medical providers are much more effective lobbyists than are the uninsured.
A number of proposals on Capitol Hill would at least incrementally address the problem. One, sponsored by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, would provide tax credits for the health insurance expenses of individuals, families and small businesses; allow small businesses to take a tax deduction for the full cost of their premiums; and allow states to cover low-income parents and legal immigrants under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, know as CHIP. The bill would also provide federal money to the states to establish insurance purchasing cooperatives for small businesses and high-risk pools for people who cannot get insurance in the private market because of chronic illnesses.
As Congress debates, however, employers and workers continue to struggle with higher costs and more difficult access to health care.
Mitch Flinchum, the controller at a highway paving company in Burlington, N.C., sees the problems from both ends ? as an executive in charge of benefits and as a consumer.
Mr. Flinchum pays more than 10 percent of his $65,000 annual salary for health insurance for his family, but he considers himself better off than most of his company's 350 workers. Only 119 of the employees accept the coverage, and two-thirds of those pay only for themselves and not their dependents. Mr. Flinchum says most of the workers who decline insurance do so because the premiums are costly and the coverage is so meager.
"When you look at your benefits, you've got massive deductibles, massive co-pays, and unless you have a heart attack or cancer, which would be devastating in itself, it's like you don't have any insurance," he said.
"I don't know where it stops," Mr. Flinchum added. "With a 20 percent increase each year, over time the only two people in this country who will be able to have health insurance are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. No one else can afford it." | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 4:46 am Post subject: THE PRICE OF ISRAEL |
| DEC. 16, 2002 (COL. 2)
THE PRICE OF ISRAEL
BY CHARLEY REESE
The Christian Science Monitor published in its Dec. 9 edition a story about Thomas
Stauffer, a consulting economist, who said recently that the total cost of U.S. support for
Israel since 1973 is $1.6 trillion, or twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
This is relevant because the Israelis have just demanded from the U.S. taxpayers another $4
billion to cover the cost of their oppression of the Palestinians as well as an $8 billion
loan guarantee.
Ladies and gentleman, there isn't a state in the union that is not facing a financial
crisis, and if the U.S. government caves in yet again to the Israeli lobby on this matter, it
will be prima facie evidence of mass insanity or of the worse corruption since the
administration of Ulysses S. Grant.
Stauffer made his speech in a lecture commissioned by the U.S. Army War College for a
conference at the University of Maine. He has converted past aid into 2001 dollars and counts
this cost as follows:
Israel has been given $240 billion (remember, this is current dollars), while Egypt has
been given $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion as bribes for signing a peace treaty with
Israel.
In 1973, when the Arabs attacked Israel in an effort to recover territory taken by Israel
in the 1967 war, U.S. support for Israel triggered the oil embargo. This, according to
Stauffer, kicked off a recession that cost $420 billion of output; the boost in oil prices
cost $450 billion; the necessity to build a strategic oil reserve, another $134 billion.
He points out that the United States has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans
to Israel and $600 billion in housing loans, and he expects the U.S. Treasury will end up
paying for all of these. He goes on and on listing more costs, direct and indirect. Israel,
for example, is the only recipient of foreign aid allowed to spend a sizeable percentage of
the money on Israeli products rather than American. It's the only country from which our
defense contractors are required to buy a certain amount of Israeli-made equipment. It is the
only foreign country that gets its aid in a lump sum and then invests it in U.S. bonds so that
taxpayers not only make an annual gift to Israel but also have to pay Israel interest on that
gift.
The fact is that the Israeli government and its powerful lobby have taken advantage of the
good-heartedness of the American people. The American people are generous, but never generous
enough to satisfy Israeli demands for more of our people's hard-earned tax dollars.
It is one thing to provide emotional support. It is one thing even to guarantee coming to
the defense of another country if it is attacked. It is quite another to undertake the
permanent subsidy of a foreign country, something our federal government does not even do for
its states. We have all kinds of problems in the United States that need attention. It's time
to tell the Israelis ``We can no longer afford you.''
I highly recommend that you read the complete story in the Monitor
(www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209 /p16s01-wmgn.html). It should open your eyes to a problem that
will not be fixed unless the American people make their voices heard in Washington.
If we are going to be forced to subsidize a foreign country, I would rather it be France.
We can at least get a decent meal in France and enjoy the art treasures collected there.
Furthermore, France would not involve us in its quarrels.
It's America's policy of absolute support for Israel and Israel's cruel treatment of the
Palestinians that are a big part of our problem with terrorism. We stand convicted in the eyes
of the Muslim world of practicing a double standard by condoning Israel's human-rights
violations and protecting it from international sanctions. That, too, is a terrible price the
American people can no longer afford to pay.
(Write to Charley Reese at P.O. Box 2446, Orlando, FL 32802) | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
