http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/2010/10/2010102103847283685.html http://wrmea.org/component/content/...-israeli-palestinian-conflict-3-trillion.html http://wrmea.org/component/content/...rect-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html An immediate fix to our economy and safety.
I'd be fine with not giving Israel money. I actually think that is very called for in a time when we should be looking to cut spending.
It's not time to cut Israel loose, but I've always wondered why we gave them so much and received so little in return.
Jimmy Carter bought peace between Egypt and Israel by guaranteeing both would receive a lot of foreign aid dollars. http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/f/camp-david-accords.htm For almost two weeks at Camp David, Carter shuttled between Sadat and Begin, often doing his utmost to keep the talks from breaking down. Sadat and Begin never met face to face for 10 days. Sadat was ready to leave Camp David on the 11th day. So was Begin. Carter cajoled, threatened, bribed (with what eventually would become the United States' two biggest foreign-aid packages, one for Egypt, one for Israel), though he never threatened Israel with an aid cut-off, as Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford had in their tense moments with Israel.
As your own blurb points out, the US has been sending money to Israel since long before Carter. I realize you have an obsessive hatred of Carter, but trying to blame him for everything that's happened in US history is a bit silly.
I see unbalancing the area by pumping far more aid and weapons into Isreal than Palestine as blame-worthy. And it goes back much further than Carter. He and other Presidents made for us.
No other presidents made any obligations to Israel for us. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to name another president who obligated us to making yearly payments to Israel before Carter. BTW, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html
Aid is an obligation made on our (the people's) behalf, even if it is not yearly. I wasn't making a distinction between one-time obligations and continuing obligations. As for your "BTW," the Palestinian people are not interchangeable with "the Arab states." The US unbalanced Israel with respect to the Palestinian people. I said nothing about the rest of the Arab world.
I don't know anything about this particular "obligation," but is our country really accountable for an ongoing commitment it's been fulfilling since 1978? Do we plan on sending dough there in the year 2099 because of something a president (or presidents) promised decades and decades ago? Personally, it just sounds silly to me that we're somehow locked into paying Israel because of Jimmy Carter. Hell, we were locked into solar power in the White House until the day after he lost his election.
I sense some sort of semantic game here. We've made annual payments to Israel since the 1940s. Given that, does it matter if we are "obligated" or not? barfo
We have no obligation to pay $.01 in foreign aid to the Palestinian people, yet we do. Rather generous of us.
Article VI of our Constitution: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
