Reddit reviews The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
We found 20 Reddit comments about The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Reddit reviews The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign PolicyWe found 20 Reddit comments about The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
$3.7 billion annually, not including military and other aid. Israel by itself gets 1/3 of all the foreign aid the US distributes globally and, on top of that, 53% of all the military aid the US distributes globally.
Edit: rather than respond to each individual request for a source I'll include some that I gathered a while ago:
1/3 of the US budget for foreign aid globally goes to Israel, is with the recent increase in their aid package, the previous percentage was closer to 1/5.
US aid to Israel is approximately 3.7 billion dollars a year, or a bit more than 10 million dollars per day. Given the population of Israel, that means that the US is giving Israel about $450 per Israeli per year.
Just recently a deal was struck to give Israel 38 billion dollars over the next decade. The Israelis are pissed about this becasue they wanted 50 billion dollars over the next ten years
Israel also receives approximately 53% of the foreign military support provided by the US to the world. One little country gets over half of the total support. Israel also gets to use US military aid to purchase Israeli made products, something no other country is allowed to do.
The US separately funds anti-missile systems to the tune of approximately 280-600 million dollars, the higher number depending on if a funding proposal goes through.
Israel refuses to join any nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is widely thought to have stolen both plans and material from the US, although the latter is still a subject of debate and strong partisan politics (look into the Apollo Affair).
I have to say, I didn't look into it that much until the past five or six years. It did work on me for most of my life. Only when I started reading more about the history of the problem in the middle east, did my eyes begin to open. I would like other people to do that. No secret powers needed. Just read.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724/ref=pd_ts_b_65/104-8807523-9460718?ie=UTF8&s=books
You are paid by Israel to spread propaganda on reddit. If anybody is trolling it's you.
It's 2010 and you are seriously saying that there is no Israel Lobby? You've got to be kidding.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
We're now at the ad hominem stage. Next you will come up with some profanities and wild accusations, everything unfounded of course.
How is he a moron?
https://amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724/
Unfortunately, this too will be drowned in the cacophony of ad hominem attacks.
Some here may remember the most recent cogent calls for a national discussion about reevaluating American-Israeli foreign policy by Prof. Mearsheimer and Walt in both their LRB article and their follow-up book, and the torrent of both popular and academic outcry.
While it is likely not true that they all have dual citizenship, they do in fact all have painfully obvious dual loyalties that are extremely destructive to US interests globally... because most countries in the UN justly detest israel. Read this
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
How could you have left out Jane Harman?
The book The Israel Lobby explains why. Here is a reviewers synopsis:
>The basic argument is that the extraordinarily high degree of economic, military and diplomatic support given to Israel by the United States cannot be explained or justified by the notion that Israel functions as a strategic asset to the U.S., or that Israel as the "only democracy" amidst a sea of authoritarian neighbors is deserving of special favor for its "shared interests and values". In fact, the authors claim, Israel is more a liability than an asset. During the Cold War, the strategic-value argument had perhaps some plausibility -- but no longer. What has replaced the Soviet menace, as the enemy which the U.S. supposedly needs Israel's help to combat, is Islamic terrorism. But the U.S. favor shown to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians only makes us more not less vulnerable to terrorism. Furthermore Israel's cruelty towards the Palestinians and its essential nature as a Jewish but not a truly democratic state in which all citizens of whatever ethnicity or religion would be given equal rights and respect, belie the "shared values" argument.
>So if neither "shared values" nor "strategic asset" can explain the overwhelming U.S. support of Israel, what else is there? The power of the Israel lobby, which has brought about a situation in which it is impossible for elected officials to question support for Israel, much less redirect foreign policy in any way contrary to the perceived self-interest of Israel.
The NRA has completely won its battle against any gun control. The Israel lobby is even more powerful than the NRA. Politicians have this choice: support Israel uncritically or lose the next election.
You have a very nasty habit of putting words in quotation marks to imply that I said things I have never said. Apart from all these fabricated quotes you're essentially saying that discussing the Israel Lobby is anti semetic, which is just not a credible.
I don't even know why I'm bothering with you. You posted this rubbish in r/Israel and nobody has taken it seriously, not a single person.
Jews pour a lot of money into elections and they have very strong lobbies.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
The book is available here (these two links do not have embedded referral codes):
There are some Wikipedia articles on this topic:
> Israel is a country that seems to feel like it's backed into a corner as a Jewish state surrounded by Arab neighbors
The point was that Israel manufactured the "threat" for its own reasons.
You need to read this award-winning book before buying into the frame that Israel is the victim merely reacting to threats:
http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
The point is that Israel manufactured the "Iran threat" because they don't want to see Iran and the US getting along.
>"[I]t wasn’t Iran that turned the Israeli-Iranian cold war warm – it was Israel . . . The Israeli reversal on Iran was partially motivated by the fear that its strategic importance would diminish significantly in the post-cold war middle east if the then president (1989-97) Hashemi Rafsanjani’s outreach to the Bush Sr administration was successful." https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/israel_2974.jsp
And so,
> Israeli politicians began painting the regime in Tehran as fanatical and irrational. Clearly, they maintained, finding an accommodation with such “mad mullahs” was a non-starter. Instead, they called on the US to classify Iran, along with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, as a rogue state that needed to be “contained.” http://williambowles.info/iran/iran_israel_strategy.html
And as profs Walt & Mearsheimer have written, the "Iran threat" is useful for the pro-Israeli lobby too:
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0338796-7996150?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191689739&sr=1-1
> In addition to this tendency for those with more extreme views to back and dominate key organizations in the lobby, there is another reason that many pro-Israeli groups have moved rightward: to keep contributions flowing in. As Waxman notes, "Many American Jewish organizations now need Israel to legitimate their own existence. Although these organizations may have been established for the purpose of enhancing and strengthening Israel, today Israel is vital for their continued viability." Portraying Israel as beleaguered and vulnerable, and issuing dire warnings about continued or growing anti-Semitism helps maintain a high level of concern among political supporters and thus helps ensure these organizations' continued existence. ...
>Although it makes good strategic sense for the United States and Iran to pursue a grand bargain, and although there is plenty of suport for that policy inside and outside of America, it is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Israel and the lobby will almost certainly try to thwart any efforts to seriously engage Iran before they get started, as they have consistently done since 1993...If the United States does launch an attack, it will be doing so in part on Israel's behalf, and the lobby will bear significant responsibility for having pushed this dangerous policy. And it would not be in America's national interest.
Don't slap. Give him one of these instead:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0374177724
haha, don't worry, they're tagging along too!
....cough though they let a couple Huffpo dingbats post about how Trump triggers them here and there to appear centrist, check out what the custom amazon URL for CP referrals is!
even as recently as october can see it anytime one of the editor's board shills one of their friends' books
(scroll to the hyperlink at "the richly bipartisan ruling class and power elite")
All red, all the time!
I strongly suggest this book
Sounds like you should read THIS book
O ISRAELY? This isn't a surprise. If he doesn't support Israel, he'll be buried by the press, portraied as a nazi, and lose the election. Read this.
AIPAC is part of the modern US political gauntlet. Pols can't avoid kowtowing until the public starts rejecting AIPAC on a widescale. Hopefully that's starting, but still have a long ways to go.
>You are paid by Israel to spread propaganda on reddit.
No, I'm not, and you've never shown a termite's worth of evidence to the contrary.
>http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
A book that reputable scholars and journalists have torn to fucking pieces.
>the paper failed to meet basic quality standards for academic research
And
>the charges in the paper are "wildly at variance with what I have personally witnessed in the Oval Office over the years"
And
>Dershowitz contends that, "The paper contains three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted, and embarrassingly weak logic is employed."
Though, please, go ahead and check Dershowitz's refutation article yourself if you distrust him.
>Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, asserts that he did not find the thesis of the paper very convincing. He said that Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out that "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races." He finds that the authors "have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)", ignore historical "world affairs", and blame the Lobby for issues that are not relevant.[22]
And
>Daniel W. Drezner, who was also a University of Chicago political scientist until he was denied tenure in 2005, contends that Walt and Mearsheimer "vastly overestimate both pro-Israel lobby's causal role -- and their uniformity of opinion and motivation." He called the paper a "piss-poor, monocausal social science. To repeat, the main empirical problems with the article are that: A) They fail to demonstrate that Israel is a net strategic liability; B) They ascribe U.S. foreign policy behavior almost exclusively to the activities of the "Israel Lobby"; and C) They omit consderation of contradictory policies and countervailing foreign policy lobbies.[5]
And
>Goldberg finds that the authors "cherry-picked" their sources, deliberately leave out important information, and come to irrational conclusions and inferences based on their chosen evidence.
And
>Leslie Gelb, the former President of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the New York Times Book Review that the scholarship was shoddy and that the authors were biased. "More troublingly, [Walt and Mearsheimer] don’t seriously review the facts of the two most critical issues to Israel and the lobby — arms sales to Arab states and the question of a Palestinian state — matters on which the American position has consistently run counter to the so-called all-powerful Jewish lobby.
Oh, and
>Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey also wrote a strongly negative review, remarking that "... Reading [Walt and Mearsheimer's] version of events is like entering a completely different world." Woolsey contends the authors "are stunningly deceptive", and feature a "commitment to distorting the historical record is the one consistent feature of this book", proceeding with a few examples.
And some more
>Edward Walker, president of the Middle East Institute and former U.S. ambassador in Egypt and Israel, told NPR: "I lived through all the history that these gentlemen write about, and I didn't recognize it, not from the way they described it — and I was in government all this time."
And again
>Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: "Anyone familiar with the tortured history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have a hard time recognizing the history Mearsheimer and Walt rehearse."
And from someone a bit harsher
>James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal wrote that "We find [Walt and Mearsheimer's strategic arguments] wrongheaded, but we will stipulate that one can in good faith take the position that the costs to the U.S. of supporting Israel outweigh the benefits." After rebuking the authors' stance that there are neither strategic nor moral arguments in defending Israel, Taranto states that "Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are 'understandable.' This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent."
Yet more
>In an address to Stanford University, author and journalist Christopher Hitchens said that Mearsheimer and Walt "think that they are smarter than the American imperialists. If they were running the empire, [Mearsheimer and Walt] wouldn't be fooled by the Jews. They'd be making big business with the Saudis instead and not letting Arabs get upset about Zionism. Well, its an extraordinary piece of cynicism, I would say, combined with an extraordinary naiveté. It doesn't deserve to be called realistic at all."
And from a review:
>In a review of the book, The Forward adds that "Most of the paper's flaws survive in the book...and it does no service to those who truly crave a more robust debate in this country. Still, if the Forward had been asked to participate in a debate with the professors, we would have done so happily." It says: "They invented historical facts. They twisted quotes. David Ben-Gurion was cited as having stated in 1937 that he opposed the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states — drawn from a famous speech in which he went on to say that, nonetheless, partition was the best that Zionism could hope for and should be seized with open arms. Paul Wolfowitz was said to have been described by the Forward as 'the most hawkishly pro-Israel neocon in the administration' — this from a 2002 article citing the 'hawkishly pro-Israel' image as conventional Washington wisdom that was proved wrong that week, when Wolfowitz was booed by a pro-Israel crowd for defending Palestinian rights."
All this is found by looking the damn thing up on Wikipedia, and it all has sources.
Oh, but it did pick up one notable endorsement!
>Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda and self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, recommended the book in one of his audiotapes, saying that "after you read the suggested book[s], you will know the truth, and you will be greatly shocked by the scale of concealment that has been exercised on you."
Stating facts about Jewish control is anti-Semitic. Therefore, let me exercise some anti-Semitism:
I guess that's enough 'jew hating' for now.
Some of them are fringe, but overall, they're just echoing the sentiments laid out in this wonderful book written by two highly respected political scientists.