Turkey? I mean I don't even. Turkey changed their IFF programming to show Israeli warplanes as hostile after the flotilla raid. Their PM has said any subsequent flotilla would have Turkish warships escorting it to Gaza.

I know.

And that's why I said quite possibly. Medium to Lon term, Turkey has zero interest in a weakened Israel.

Most rhetoric from political leaders in Turkey about Israel is largely for show. There is domestic advantages to talking about the Great Evil of Israel. Especially after the flotilla being a rhetoric hawk against Israel is just lolduh brownie points for a politician. But anyone even remotely serious knows that the problems in Syria, Iraq and Kurdish Turkey completely dominate the actual geopolitical challenges and that the status quo with Israel is pretty fantastic for Turkey in that they have do to basically nothing at all and worry about basically nothing at all. Meanwhile the Syrian civil war and ISIS are ****ing disasters for Turkey and super high risk. The flip side is that a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and Palestine doesn't really help them either...its fine if it happens but no big deal if it doesn't happen for a decade or two.

Do these "smart" Americans understand the economic result of such aid? That helping stabilize governments provides huge markets for American-made goods, which are much larger than the piddly investments?

Or are they so myopic as to view these big numbers and just see it as a money pit? Is your definition of "smart" basically whoever agrees with you?

All of that can be true Uke. None of which means that Turkey could ever possibly step in and fill the role of the US WRT Israel. Like I said, Israel doesn't have a replacement for their US relationship. If the US decided to cut ties do you think France would start vetoing UNSC council resolutions or give Israel billions in aid a year? Not a chance.

Oh sure wasn't meaning to speak to that exchange. Ya nobody is going to replace the US in terms of the amount of military aid. But really, they don't need to. There was a time where one could say that Israeli survival literally depended upon its relationship with the US, but it currently as a vibrant economy, and advanced military sector, so that even if the US tomorrow cut off 100% of aid Israel would be just fine militarily. The reason the relationship perpetuates isn't based on need any longer. Even things like the Iron Dome for Congress there is always a fight to push towards coproduction so it isn't just the Israelis doing everything, gotta get those jerbs on american soil amirite.

Kind of like how the troops stationed in germany and japan aren't there any longer for the original post ww2 reasons.

Yeah I don't mean that the support of the US is existentially necessary for Israel. I do mean that Israel probably wouldn't get away with it's treatment of the Palestinians if not for US soft power.

Iraq and Afghanistan say hi. It isn't that there isn't some truth to the whole Pax Americana idea but if one wants to look at american military influence globally on a ROI basis it is a very lumpy picture (like depending where you look it appears hugely successful or wildly a failure.)

Only Dinesh knows what the world looks like without USA#1. Or anybody silly enough to watch that movie.

I'm not convinced. It isn't like I'm denying things like vetoing UNSC resolutions or providing diplomatic cover, but I don't accept a thesis like this: "if the US stopped supporting Israel so asymmetrically, a peace deal would surely be able to formed". That's a pretty popular meme in some circles but I don't usually find the counterfactual persuasive.

Nope. Nope. Yes. (Speaking about aid in general, not what we should be doing to support Israel defense)

Really? 5 whole hours and nobody's posted that rockets are back flying into Israel? That Gaza terrorists unilaterally broke the ceasefire hours before the negotiation deadline?

I guess it only starts when Israel strikes at rocket targets.

Certain facts are inconvenient to some ppl itt.

Who are the people in this thread defending Hamas?

Well this is good news.

every single one who says they're a reasonable to negotiate with.

lol Gamblor is beyond giddy thinking he caught someone in some trivial semantics trap.

Do you consider it "not nice" to plaster up the nonsense that followed, the sweeping statements that are, aside from their irrelevance to any important consideration, not true? In one sense, in the sense of self sabotage, it is not nice, to you.

Everything you said is factually false, and I will explain why.

Around 2008 the government-to-government payments, in the form of grants (money), were phased out. This was the result of a joint decision, dictated by the expansion of Israel's economy. Prior to that, Israel had been a large scale recipient of straight cash, since the early 70's up to 2008. Two points worth mentioning:

1.) If you were following the U.S./Israel relationship for a long time but just hadn't dug into the latest updates in transfers starting in 2008, you would keep on saying that the U.S. gives Israel a lot of aid in the form of money. This does not make you a "baffoon".

2) The reason the U.S. stopped giving money to Israel is because of the expansion and stability of Israel's recent economy. The phasing out of grant money did not represent any paradigm shift in U.S./Israel relations, which have only become more entrenched since then. So the only reasonable conclusion is that if Israel should again fall on hard times we will go right back to giving them direct government-to-government transfers of money. A relatively short cessation does not justify the statement: "The U.S. does not send money to Israel". We do, only we have majorly cut back on that particular form of aid in the past few years.

The fact that we also give Israel relatively small (10-40 million/year) grants also means that not even in some myopic, narrowed technical sense is Gamblor correct. But his biggest ignorance is regarding the military aid distribution itself.

About 25% of the 3B we give in military grants is money that Israel is allowed to spend on weapons it produces itself, and NOT a direct subsidy to American contractors. 3BX.25 = 750M. So Israel gets 750M of cash which it gets to spend on it's own weapons which it manufactures. That money goes right back into Israel and helps them build their weapons industry (which in turn costs us additional money due to their competing in the export market but let's not get into too much at once). This is just a grant which is called "off-shore procurement" on our books but, as anyone can see, is just a grant. When we give Israel 750M with the condition that they have to spend it on their own defense products, that is giving Israel money. This is just like when we give the Palestinians money to rebuild the **** Israel just blew up, only in Israel's case more of the money stays in house.


lol at including Israel last, like, and, oh yeah, Israel. Israel, just another inconspicuous partner. Israel is the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. and they are the only country given the benefit of the "off shore procurement" I referenced above. The U.S. has obligated itself to ensuring that Israel maintains a military advantage over the region. This goes as far as legislation requiring that no arms are sold to other countries which might upset the imbalance intended to favor Israel.

It is often quoted that Israel receives more U.S. aid than all of sub-Saharan Africa and South America combined- hardly one of the crowd lol Gamblor.

This above is all categorically false. Here is a quote from an AIPAC (so you know it's rabidly pro Israel) PDF called "Key Provisions of U.S. Security Assistance to Israel (which anyone can google):

So here is AIPAC directly contradicting what Gamblor claimed. They say it right there, "26.3 percent" of American military aid goes for Israel purchasing it's own "home-grown equipment". That means Israel does control how it is spent, and the money does leave the U.S. and goes to Israel.

Is AIPAC "clueless" Gamblor? is AIPAC going around "publishing agitprop"? Surely not in this case, as what they say conforms to what other serious source, like the U.S. government accounting offices, say. You are the clueless one, gamblor. That is no sin, but when you go around and call other people buffoons when you are in fact grossly ignorant in areas to which you falsely claim kind of expertise, it compounds the pathos of your sad clown show.

I think we're saying its impossible to negotiate the end of a conflict by ignoring one of the belligerents. Particularly when the other option of just bombing them out of business never seems to work. How is that defending Hamas?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...edia-bought-it

No one is ignoring Hamas. And it's quite obvious that the end of the conflict can't be negotiated while they are in power (unless they drastically change).

Okay so nobody ITT, got it.

Ya there are exactly zero people ITT who support the rocket fires, as you full well know. Stop imagining things.

it isn't. The unity government they tried to start up before Israel rounded up most of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank had both renounced violence and recognized Israel, the two key terms for engagement. Israel was of course completely unwilling to negotiate, but I don't think it is a priori impossible. Indeed, it is quite possible that such rappropachments between Hamas and Fatah will help gaza to be more, well, Fatah like and more likely to be included in future negotiations.

well that's just not true.

please quote people saying Hamas are reasonable?

I'm certainly in the camp that believes in negotiation (hey, it's what they are doing right now!), but I don't think anyone thinks they are anything remotely close to reasonable. Heck, I'm also in the camp that usually interprets geopolitics as people in different circumstances responding to different incentive structures and might say something like that it is "understanable" that Hamas retaliates when Israel rounds up most of the their WB leadership under false pretenses. But reasonable? No.