[BretLudwig]

((Even liberal Xtians understand that with friends like Israel, no one, but
no one, has much need of enemies. Bret.))


Why the presidential candidates won't talk about Israel
Analysts say politicians hold their tongues on giving additional US aid to
Israel for fear of being labeled as anti-Semitic.
By David R. Francis



Israel, celebrating its 60th birthday last week, has proved to be an
expensive ally for the United States.

Since its birth, Israel has received at least $114 billion from the US in
direct foreign economic and military aid, says Shirl McArthur, a retired
US diplomat who periodically updates his Israel cost estimates for the
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WREMA), a magazine often
critical of US policy toward Israel.

That estimate, Mr. McArthur notes, is conservative. For instance, he has
not factored inflation into that $114 billion cumulative sum. The late
Washington economist Thomas Stauffer did that calculation several years
ago. He found total official aid to Israel, up to 2002, came to $247
billion. He added other costs of US support of Israel (interest on debt,
higher oil prices, etc.) to reach a highly controversial total of $1.6
trillion.

For comparison, the cost to the US of the Iraq war is running about $144
billion a year.

In March, a Memorandum of Understanding from the White House to Congress
urged an additional $30 billion in military aid to Israel, a sum spread at
about $3 billion a year through fiscal year 2018. Currently, Israel ranks
as the top recipient of American foreign aid ($2.4 billion in 2007 by an
official calculation) if reconstruction money for Iraq is excluded. Next
are Egypt ($1.8 billion) and Afghanistan ($1 billion).

Up to now, the presidential candidates have largely ducked the question of
what they would do to further peace between Israelis and the Palestinians.

"It's quite remarkable it has not been raised," says Stephen Walt,
coauthor of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a controversial
book published last year. "They have gotten a free pass on details for a
peace process."

The Harvard University political science professor further criticizes the
press for not questioning the candidates about what they would do to push
forward a two-state solution to the decades-old struggle with its sizable
cost to American taxpayers. Presumably a lever the US has in the dispute
is to withhold the aid it gives to Israel and the far smaller amount
($73.5 million requested for fiscal 2008) given to the Palestinians.

"The presidential candidates make it a point never to talk about Middle
East foreign aid," says McArthur.

Why the silence?

"Fear," says Paul Findley, a frequent critic of US foreign policy to
Israel. He blames the Israeli lobby for contributing to his defeat in 1982
when running for reelection as a Republican congressional representative
from Illinois.

None of the three remaining presidential candidates have uttered "even a
syllable" of complaint about US policy toward Israel, rather a "paean of
praise," Mr. Findley says. "This is a phenomenon without precedent in
American history."

To Findley, the "most powerful instrument of intimidation" used by
pro-Israel groups is the charge of "anti-Semitism." The meaning of that
term has been expanded. It used to be applied to those hostile to a race
or faith, that is, against Jews or Judaism. Now it's often applied to
critics of Israel or US-Israel policy, says Findley.

Considering the horrific history of the holocaust, politicians "run like
rabbits" to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism, Findley adds.

Another fear of politicians involves the campaign contributions of
pro-Israel political action committees (PACs). Last week WREMA reported
that more than 20 of these PACs have contributed $1.1 million to
Washington politicians in the 2007-08 election cycle. That amount is
dwarfed by what the three presidential candidates have raised for their
campaigns.

Since Israel now has a relatively prosperous per capita national income
comparable to Cyprus or Slovenia, direct US economic aid to Israel has
been replaced gradually by military aid. Since money is fungible, that
would make little real economic difference to Israel as its government
pays its high military bills. In fact, Congress allows Israel to use 26
percent of the aid it receives to buy arms outside the US, thereby helping
build up its own weapons industry. "We are thus shooting ourselves [the US
weapons industry] in the foot," charges Janet McMahon, managing editor of
WREMA.

Professor Walt maintains he's pro-Israel. The US refusal to put pressure
on Israel to settle with the Palestinians on a two-state solution, he
argues, is not helpful.

"Giving any country unconditional backing encourages irresponsible
behavior," he says. It could lead to an apartheid state, or as Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert put it, Israel facing "a South African-style
struggle."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0512/p15s01-wmgn.html

((That brings up this also: If "racism" was bad for South Africa why is it
OK for Israel??-Bret.))

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html