15-03-2003 00:42									#121
	Inflate your Upload Space

A few questions about aid to Israel:

1) Is it true that Israel is the only recipient of US aid allowed to spend a sizable percentage of that aid on its own products rather than American?

2) Is it true that US defense contractors are required to buy a certain amount of Israeli-made equipment?

	15-03-2003 00:49									#122
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 1) Is it true that Israel is the only recipient of US aid allowed to spend a sizable percentage of that aid on its own products rather than American?

Military aid is supposed to be 90% "Made in USA". IIRC, some Israeli contractors open up plants in the US in order to fill that requirement.

quote: 2) Is it true that US defense contractors are required to buy a certain amount of Israeli-made equipment?

WHAT? nope. never heard of that. probably not true.

	15-03-2003 03:31									#123
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Azazel: the Pollard case, a US citizen in the Navy that stole several secrets and passed them on to Israel, only that they got into Soviet hands. He got 40 years, though all the way into the Clinto admin. many wanted him to be let out, cause he was spying for a friendly nation....

On the aid issue..I do think Israel does get to use significant amount of our aid to biuy Israeli goods..the only nation allowed to do so in the world. Many US military contractors complain that the Us subsidizes their oversea israeli competitors.

	15-03-2003 03:41									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: the Pollard case, a US citizen in the Navy that stole several secrets and passed them on to Israel, only that they got into Soviet hands. He got 40 years, though all the way into the Clinto admin. many wanted him to be let out, cause he was spying for a friendly nation....

These was technology, right? how exactly did it harm american agents?

quote: On the aid issue..I do think Israel does get to use significant amount of our aid to biuy Israeli goods..the only nation allowed to do so in the world. Many US military contractors complain that the Us subsidizes their oversea israeli competitors.

The production takes place is the US. therefore it fits the criteria of the aid, and the money is providing jobs. I am sorry that not all of the money goes to it's rightful intended purpose, US corporate welfare.

	15-03-2003 03:44									#125
	Increase Your PM Length

#2 sounds like an urban legend.

quote: AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

They're not Israeli agents; they're Christian Fundies & Evangelicals. They're far more loyal to Israel than most American Jews.

	15-03-2003 03:48									#126
	Tired of ads?

I think that you're not using "loyal" correctly. loyal means a direct connection.

In any case, I think you're wrong. You're, of course, entitled to your opinion.

	15-03-2003 03:49									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

GePap, You might be right on '56. I know we were concerned about expanding Soviet influence among Arabs. I believe Eisenhower sent the Marines to Lebanon in '58 and issued statement that he would guarantee Arab states in the region them against "Soviet" aggression or subversion.

I recall that the Soviet Union and Israel were very close at the beginning of Israel's history. Israel's politics seemed leftist. They may have been viewed in Washington almost as a Soviet puppet. I am not sure about this, but it makes sense.

Azazel, if the US first began to sell arms to Israel in 1964, it would be interesting to understand what changed either in Israel or in Arabia or in the relations between the USSR and the US. This is about the time the PLO was formed and Syria, a Soviet client state, became much more active on the Golan.

	15-03-2003 04:07									#128
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I think that you're not using "loyal" correctly. loyal means a direct connection.

The Johnson adminstration did in fact speak of "loyalty to Israel" during the 1967 war. I remember it...somebody at the State Department, I think, although LBJ himself may also have said it.

About the same time, when a spokesman said the US position was one of "neutrality in thought, word, and deed" in the war, there were considerable objections from Israel's supporters, in that the remark implied that the US was indifferent to Israel. There came a quick clarification: we're neutral, but we're neutral for Israel.

Re Pollard, assuming someone hasn't already cross-posted: He severely compromised sources and methods. Not WHAT we know, but HOW we came to know it. The case is generally held to be among the most damaging in American history.

	15-03-2003 04:08									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I recall that the Soviet Union and Israel were very close at the beginning of Israel's history. Israel's politics seemed leftist. They may have been viewed in Washington almost as a Soviet puppet. I am not sure about this, but it makes sense.

This is actually quite a fascinating piece of history.

The first PM of Israel, and leader of the jews during the late british mandate, David Ben-Gurion was quite socialist type, ending his life in a desert village, living in rather modest conditions. But was a fierce anti-communist, and tried to bond us with the west from day one. However, these views were not shared by many of the offshoots of the zionist movement. The Kibbutzim, an communitarian agricultural movement were of a strong socialist structure, and most of them were pro-soviet to one degree or another, hanging pics of Lenin and Stalin in halls, etc.

Another case was Itshak Sadeh , "The old man", as they called him, one of the leaders of the the Haganah and the fledgling Israeli army, and the founder of it's armored corps. He was sidelined during the Independence war at first by Ben-Gurion, due to his views. He was called to take command in a desperate situation in the north, and won the battle. He also sided with taking a pro-soviet stance.

The Geo-political situation is very interesting as well. One of the Soviet Union's policies in the region were to drive a wedge between the USA and Britain, and they succeeded to a large degree. the SU decided to side with the US in order to screw Britain in various UN decisions and processes.

at that point, I would strongly put Israel in the non-alligned movement. I would continue place it under no block till the mid 60s.

In 56' The 6th american fleet was planning to mount an amphibious invasion of Haifa in order to force Israel out of the Sinai war, a war in which Israel was involved in order to break its' relative isolation, and to force an alliance with a western power, in that case, it was France ( which was rather non-alligned itself ).


Generally, the 50s marked the first breaking of principles, when the two superpowers started whoring out their interests to various governments that had nothing to do with their principles of government, but because they were fitting some sort of short term interest.

	15-03-2003 04:13									#130
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: The Johnson adminstration did in fact speak of "loyalty to Israel" during the 1967 war. I remember it...somebody at the State Department, I think, although LBJ himself may also have said it. About the same time, when a spokesman said the US position was one of "neutrality in thought, word, and deed" in the war, there were considerable objections from Israel's supporters, in that the remark implied that the US was indifferent to Israel. There came a quick clarification: we're neutral, but we're neutral for Israel.

The US administration was hardly 'for Israel' in 67'. in 67', the Americans tried to handicap the Israeli government politically and diplomatically, and basically compromised Israel because of their involvement in Vietnam.

You can ask Gepap.

	15-03-2003 04:18									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Azazel, So, what changed in '64?

	15-03-2003 04:35									#132
	Put an end to popups!

The american probably understood that they've lost Egypt and Syria, and that there is no risk of Saudia falling into Soviets. ( I wish to point out that the Saudis weren't western puppets, but were quite indepnedent and looking for their own interests, as they keep doing to this very day )

In Israel, radical socialist elements suffered a severe blow, with the discoveries that Stalin was the terrible despot and murderer, as was admitted by the new government in the SU, mid-50s, and other internal issues, like the large amount of bourgois jews, from after-holocaust europe, and the Arab states. They've tilted, and made the country, as well as the founding party ( The Land of Israel's Workers' Part ), that connected itself firmly to the elements of capitalists, as well as a sprawling corrupt and un-efficient public sector that was rife with job proctionism, and created an elitist club of fat cats, which were connected strongly with the capitalists.

All of this killed socialism in Israel. Social tension mounted, and pretty much exploded in the 60s with a couple of riots by the immigrants that were housed in abandoned arab buildings.

This is widely portrayed in many books of the era. The social upheaval was enormous, and the state had a difficulty to absorbe all those new immigrants. It bit off more than it could chew, but it didn't really have any choice.