Skip to main content

View Diary: When is the USA going to invade Israel? (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah, ok (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, it was in the poll. I stand corrected.

    Annual US aid to Israel is in the 2-3 billion dollar range, right now. That comes to about $8.50 per American taxpayer.  Less than 3 Starbucks grande lattes per year.

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:11:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  still too much (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snakelass, ginja, Kujo AAR

      We should cut off all military aid, since it is technically a violation of US law to continue to give it to them.  If Israel wants to pick fights with its neighbors, they should pay for it themselves.  How happy should I be that my taxes are helping to pay for their war crimes?

      I still think this entire thing was a setup - too many details don't add up, and Israel has a long history of telling lies that help them achieve their political goals.

      The outrage over Hamas 'kidnapping' a soldier would have played a little better if the IDF hadn't gone in and kidnapped 2 palestinians less than 2 days earlier.  The claims that this was an outrageous act might have sounded a little more sincere if Israel hadn't been doing the same damn thing for years.  How many palestinians have they kidnapped over the last few years?  Anyone know?

      •  Violation of law? (0+ / 0-)

        How is it a violation of US law, if the US lawmaker -- Congress -- appropriates foreign aid?

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:27:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh so if Congress violates a Law - (0+ / 0-)

          The law doesn't exist?
          You want to live in a dictatorship where anything goes?

          How about going to the law, citing the law, cracking the book and studying it for a couple days before making such a sophomoric comment. Are you trying to be funny?

          This is funny.
          http://www.musicforamerica.org/...

          Remember those in prison as though you were there with them. -7.88,-9.49

          by Kujo AAR on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:33:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So we're clear (0+ / 0-)

            Poster X says it is a violation of US law to give money to Israel without citing a source.

            Poster Y asks how it is a violation for Congress to appropriate foreign aid.

            Your response is to tell poster Y to do research to disprove poster X's unsupported assertion?

            W's First Veto: not for tax cuts for the rich, pork barrel spending and earmarks, or civil liberties violations, but for stem cell research.

            by Red Sox on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 03:52:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You couldn't possibly look it up yourself? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Back in the Cave

              Find it yourself. I happen to know it to be true. Geesh, if you just asked nicely...
              Israel fits the U.S. agreed definition of a funder of global terrorism and terrorist State, as does the United States itself.

              Article 48 from the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that the "basic rule" of the Geneva Conventions is to protect the civilian population:

              "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

              NeoCons have a nasty habit of not enforcing International Treaty Obligations against themselves or Israel. That happens to be why we find our nation illegally invading other nations about once every year since the end of the Second World War.

              I expect the USA to be a nation of laws, enforcing our laws even against ourselves. It isn't.

              Here's a set of definitions for the EU, UN and US since the US vetos any attempt to define Israeli behaviors as terrorist.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              United Nations

                 * While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism [1], the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:

                     Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). [2]

                 * UN short legal definition, also proposed by A.P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime." [3]
                 * In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." [4]

              European Union

              The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) [5]. This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which, "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation."

              United States

              The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism[6]. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

                 "..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

              Laws and government agencies

                 * U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
                 * Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."
                 * United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
                 * USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
                 * The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." [7]

                 * The British Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism so as to include not only violent offences against persons and physical damage to property, but also acts "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".[8] This latter consideration would include shutting down a website whose views one dislikes. However this, and any of the other acts covered by the definition would also need to be (a) designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, AND (b)be done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.[the latter three terms are not defined in the Act]. [9]

              or

              US Complicit In Israel
              War Crimes In Lebanon
              By Dahr Jamail
              7-20-6
              http://www.rense.com/...

              Remember those in prison as though you were there with them. -7.88,-9.49

              by Kujo AAR on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:39:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kujo AAR

          US Law on the exportation of military hardware stipulates that it is to be used for defensive purposes only.  

          Technially, when a recipient of US military hardware uses that equipment to launch a pre-emptive attack or, lets say, an invasion of a neighboring country, the aid should be cut off.

          I think this has much to do with the whole outrage over the kidnapping fraud - they needed to provide at least some appearance of this being 'defensive', even though it is a fight they have been working towards for years.  The 'kidnapped' soldiers were not just a pre-text, they were an extremely well timed pre-text:  the wheels were already in motion before those soldiers were taken.

          In light of the lack of any clear evidence of just where the soldiers were when they were attaked by Hizbollah, I am not willing to accept the official line.  Israel has done a great job of selling the idea that they were captured on Israeli soil, but I have seen conflicting reports and not a shred of evidence either way.  Add to this the 'massive infiltration of hizbollah' that Israel claims to have, and I am forced to suspect that this entire event was a setup.

          I am sure this sounds overly paranoid to some, but take the time to go back and read the detailed history of the war in '67 and you might understand why some people simply do not take Israel's word on these things.  They lied about who launched the war, they attacked a US navy vessel and lied about the circumstances.  They lied alot during that little war.  They even lied about the main reason they launched that war - which was to acquire more land.

          I highly suspect that much that we have heard this time around is just as untrue.

          But I may be baised by the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, what with the unmarked aircraft and 'accidental' machine gunning of US servicemen trying to escape in lifeboats and all...
          http://www.ussliberty.org/

    •  And your source for this 2 - 3 Bln USD per Annum (0+ / 0-)

      Please provide your link?
      Just to be fair.
      I would caution you though a current or recent amount may still be classified and unreliably low, wouldn't you give me that much?
      These two sources don't seem to be much more than estimates.

      Interesting on how total aid in 2000 spikes to 8 Bln USD.

      Total Direct Aid to Israel Conservatively Estimated at Almost $105 Billion
      http://www.washington-report.org/...
      U.S. Assistance to Israel
      (FY1949 - FY2006)
      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...

      Remember those in prison as though you were there with them. -7.88,-9.49

      by Kujo AAR on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:27:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My source (0+ / 0-)

        Is the US Government. The State Department and other agencies lists the amount of aid given to various countries each year. Easy to find.

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:28:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You still haven't provided the source (0+ / 0-)

          put the link on your comment page.
          You do the work to back up your own arguement.

          Remember those in prison as though you were there with them. -7.88,-9.49

          by Kujo AAR on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:36:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For those of you playing at home (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            Paul in Berkeley

            The Total Estimated / Reported Aid to Israel for
            2005 was 6 Billion and for 2006, also 6 Billion.

            Which reminds me, I haven't had a raise since Clinton 1999. You would think a Masters in Accounting working in Global Corporate Accounting might be a safe career pick. Not in America.

            Remember those in prison as though you were there with them. -7.88,-9.49

            by Kujo AAR on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:55:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              Liar. Making shit up won't get you far here, or anywhere else.

              http://usinfo.state.gov/...

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:50:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Paul are you Arrogant or just Lazy? (0+ / 0-)

                Paul in Berkely I am ready to troll rate you.

                I said:

                The Total Estimated / Reported Aid to Israel for
                2005 was 6 Billion and for 2006, also 6 Billion.

                and I give a cite:
                by Kujo AAR on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:27:47 PM PDT
                for 2005 & 2006
                http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...

                then you troll rate me, call me a "liar", impugn my democratic progressive credentials with some reference to Carl Rove,
                give a cite (finally) and your cite doesn't have 2005 or 2006 numbers, it ends at 2004.
                Are too lazy to bother to read my cite and your own?

                This reflects poorly upon you. I think you should really question whether you can handle the responsability of troll rating someone, as you seem to be using it as a tool to bear false witness against other users.

                You're really comming off like you are simply unaccountable to anyone in the Kos community.

                Bottom Line-

                Personally, I am offended and I think you should apologize to me and the Kos community.

                Arrogant (Ar"ro*gant) (#), a.
                [F. arrogant, L. arrogans, p. pr. of arrogare. See Arrogate.]

                1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; -- applied to persons. "Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate." Shak.
                1. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding from undue claims or self-importance; -- applied to things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.

                Synonyms -- Magisterial; lordly; proud; assuming; overbearing; presumptuous; haughty. See Magisterial.

                Remember those in prison as though you were there with them. -7.88,-9.49

                by Kujo AAR on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:40:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Fine (0+ / 0-)

            Here it is:

            http://usinfo.state.gov/...

            Next time, don't be such a liar and a jerk. Just walk down the hall to Karl Rove's office and ask him.

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:50:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Israel = #1 recipient of US foreign aid. (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe it is only three lattes, but that's 2.5 lattes more than any other country on earth (save Egypt) is getting.

    •  nice latte. (0+ / 0-)

      Well if you look at it that way. I want a chucnk of Israel in carry on cup please. thanks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (61)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (35)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site