U.S. Sends Billions to Israel—and to Countries That Don't Recognize Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama today, and the two talked about the need to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  The prime minister of Israel and the president of the United States have generally enjoyed close relations, regardless of who holds the office, since the State of Israel declared independence in 1948. 

In fact, American recognition of the controversial declaration helped Israel build legitimacy as a state. To this day, about 31 countries don't formally recognize the State of Israel. Iran's one of them, and we may not give them any money, but while we spend $3.1 billion a year on aid to Israel we also spend $4.1 billion on aid to countries that don't formally recognize Israel.

Reason infographic

Comments

[John]

So fucking what? Maybe we shouldn't be sending foreign aid. If we shouldn't, it going to countries on both sides of the conflict is a fucking full on retarded reason to think it is. Seriously, are you guys so stupid you can't see the value of influencing both sides of a conflict through aid or are you just that desperate to score points against Israel?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I actually agree this by itself is not the most thoughtful criticism of our foreign aid, but I don't see the animus to Israel you, Al Sharpton-like, so casually toss out there but rather a traditional libertarian cynicism about foreign aid in general.

[Derpetologist]

A better criticism of this foreign aid would be to say why give money to Israelis, when most of them like the US anyway? Why give money to Muslims, when most of them would happily hate the US for free?

Look at all the money the US gave to Iran during the shah's reign. Fat lot of good that did.

[Hugh Akston]

It's only hypocritical if you think the reasons the government gives for sending aid to Israel are the real reasons the government sends aid to Israel.

[Jayburd]

What part of the Constitution......?

[Hyperion]

FYTW clause. It's the only working clause now.

[Hyperion]

Well, it's not their money and so every day is Christmas! They're like the real Robin Hood, they rob the evil rich Murikan middle class and give it to everyone else!

[Slammer]

Once it's stolen it's technically not our money, either. 🙁

[Old Man With Candy]

How is that number determined? Is that direct aid, loan guarantees, money that's earmarked to be spent with favored US defense corporations, what? I always get suspicious when I see the same kind of bumper sticker graphics used in bullshit clickbait posted by Facebook proggies.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

What's the difference from a libertarian perspective?

[Old Man With Candy]

Was my little shot at corporate welfare difficult to understand?

[Otisjay]

Why is the fat cat, fat?

I enjoy the question game..

[Doctor Whom]

OT: Free-market competition protects the drag community against a large (and therefore evil) corporation.

I haz a confused. Isn't this the sort of thing that government needs to STEP IN!!! and DO SOMETHING!!! about?

Trigger warning: Photo of drag queen in retina-searingly garish makeup

[Bo Cara Esq.]

We need a drag czar, preferably federal and cabinet level.

[Brandon]

I thought that was Jarrett?

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

She's the reptile tsar.

[Jimbo]

What will the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence do if they have to use their real names? "Walter Meyers" just doesn't sound as good as "Sister Pleasorius."

[Bo Cara Esq.]

So other than earning the enmity of about 1/4 of the world's population ( whom we then spend many more billions in trying to heal the rift and/or fight) what in the world is that aid to Israel getting us?

[grrizzly]

And can you believe how much enmity America earns by supporting the gays? I'm sure it's more than 25% of the world's population. If only we could stop aiding and abetting Jews and gays, we'd be so popular.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

How much foreign aid do we give to 'the gays?'

[Los Doyers]

Bo does indeed know pedantic commenting.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

We're talking about foreign aid. It's not pedantic to point out what we do in our own nation is different than that and might warrant different justifications.

[CatoTheElder]

It works like this:

The Democrats get the secular and reform Jewish vote. Since they voice criticism of Israeli policies, they trade the orthodox Jewish vote for the Muslim American vote.

And the Republicans get the millenial Christian Zionist vote and the orthodox Jewish vote.

Also, it assures continued demand for military goods, whose provides are spread about in every congressional district. So it's good for campaign contributions form the "defense" industry.

It's about a wash, but it assures that none of these groups will consider a third party, so it's a pretty sweet deal for the two parties.

Other than that, I don't see any upside.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

That sounds about right to me, though I'd grant we might get some valuable intel from the Israelis (though it's usually about groups we need intel on in large part because we ally with Israel).

[CatoTheElder]

Oops, I forgot about the 25% cut that the beltway bandits take, and the campaign contributions from their firms.

[David_B]

Well, seeing as Israel is the only country in the middle east that isn't hostile to the USA (or the world in general), Israel provides a stable democracy in the middle east for the USA to be allied with and it also provides a great deal of intel on the region.

There are also a lot of Americans that perceive Israel as very important to their world perspective, being preserved as a Jewish state. (The only Jewish state in the entire world mind you, wich also happens to be surrounded by very many Islamofascist states.)

[The artist known Dunphy]

As a general principle, when it comes to demographics ( vs. say principles) an ALL X anything is suboptimal (not that diversity is a goal justifying discrimination as in racial preferences etc)

but ESPECIALLY when the outlier (Israel) has beneficial qualities not present in any of the others, this point is especially valid

[Lt Womack]

seeing as Israel is the only country in the middle east that isn't hostile to the USA

Umm, no. Unless you don't count Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Egypt, most of Iraq, etc.

[gaoxiaen]

So maybe we should have a military base lease there instead of getting nothing. That could benefit us to the tune of one or two fewer aircraft carriers.

[SQRLSY One]

"?what in the world is that aid to Israel getting us?"
By supporting those who are WAY morally superior to us? Those who keep a separate kitchen and dining room for serving meat v/s dairy products and cheese, etc.? And who NEVER EVER would violate the COMMANDMENTS of "Yahweh" (AKA, He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken), and who NEVER EVER would think of eating a ham sandwich? THESE people are SOOOO Way Morally Superior to us heathens, we MUST appease and humor them in EVERY way, lest the Wrath of Yahweh fall upon us!!! Foreign aid to Morally Superior Cheese-and-Meat Separators is the ONLY thing that stands in the way of the Wrath of Yahweh, which otherwise threatens utter devastation upon our lands, lambs, and loins!!!!

[Mark22]

The problem with aid to Israel is not that it angers Muslims; who the f*ck cares what angers them.

The problem with aid to Israel is that it's wasted money; it doesn't seem to be doing anything for us or for Israel.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Foreign aid comes in two flavors: military and economic. Military aid consists of grant money to be used to buy US-made military equipment (and the training to use that equipment). Economic aid is basically international welfare (USAID) that is basically food stamps to buy our grain and pharmaceuticals. Therefore, when mentioning Israel's 3 billion of military aid, what one is saying is that, in reality, the US Government has sold military equipment to Israel at a 3 billion dollar discount. When one is mentions Pakistan's 1 billion of economic aid, what one is saying that, in reality, the US Government has provided the Pakistani's with 1 billion dollars worth of government cheese.

[Heroic Mulatto]

*Pakistanis

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Ok, but again, what's the difference from a libertarian perspective?

[Heroic Mulatto]

Umm...one involves the government choosing to sell its assets as a price it determines and the other is redistribution of wealth?

But you knew that already, didn't you?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

'It's assets' huh?

Wonder who pays for that?

[Heroic Mulatto]

I can safely say that you haven't.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Haha, stepped in it, eh?

[Heroic Mulatto]

Step in what? Your mendacious conflation of different types of foreign aid? Different individuals have different motivations for confusing the issue.

You do so because,as has been abundantly proven by your past contributions, you hate Jews.

As a result, you have nothing meaningful to add to this conversation.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Ah, having been embarrassed he resorts to old fashioned race card playing. Wonderful.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Embarrassed? By you making an ass out of yourself? Yes, a little, because as I am not autistic like you I possess some sympathy for my fellow human beings.

By the way, what "race" are Jews, again? Very telling, that, in and of itself. Are you going to deny that on these fora you haven't repeatedly engaged in the anti-Semitic canards of blood libel, holocaust inversion, Jewish lobby/Jewish controlled-government, etc.? You really have the chutzpah to deny that you little shit?

There are principled arguments to be made for ending foreign aid to Israel. To date, you have made none of them.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

How about we do this, if you can provide one scintilla of evidence that I hate Jews I'll leave the thread. If you can't, you'll apologize for being the mirrior image of a leftist race baiting huckster?

I'll be waiting.

As to the substance if your comments, which you run from now while hurling race baiting and insults, I've explained why your much vaunted 'difference' is not one in libertarian thinking.

[Heroic Mulatto]

You've explained nothing. You're not an an-cap, and your point was not argued sincerely. I don't have to bite any bullet.

And how about this. Since the burden of proof is on you, (I don't need to search through old comments to prove what everyone who has ever responded to you on a Gaza thread already knows) why don't you type the following? I Bo Cara, assert that I hold no enmity toward the State of Israel or World Jewry. I don't believe Israel has a disproportionate influence on the American government. I don't believe any military action undertaken by Israel has been morally equivalent to the actions of the Nazis. Nor, do I believe the current policy of Israel toward the Palestinians in any way resembles the former South African institution of apartheid.

You do that, and I'll concede and apologize.

[Heroic Mulatto]

7 minutes to something you could have just cut and pasted to prove you're not a bigot...and you still couldn't bring yourself to do it?

You owe me an apology.

[Old Man With Candy]

Why are you feeding it?

And thanks for answering my question posed above.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You're ridiculous. The burden is on me to prove I'm not an anti-Semite? That's exactly how race baiters think and talk.

I'm critical of Israel sometimes. But I'm critical of the US sometimes. Neither is reason to think that implies I'm anti-Semitic or anti-American except for people who think like Al Sharpton.

You've thrown an ugly slur out there and offered no support for it, then tried to shift the burden onto me.

Rev Al would be proud.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

And it's been 32 minutes and no reply, so I guess by your logic that proves you concede your race huckstering.

[The artist known Dunphy]

fwiw, i don't think the request to say that israel"does not have a disproportionate influence on US govt" is a necessary claim to make or believe for one not to be anti-semitic or anti-israel.

one could be 100%zionist and believe israel does have a disproportionate influence,although the question is disproportionatre in what way?per capita?Or just more than some other nations?

of course SOME nations should have disproportionate influence vs. others.

believing otherwise would be as morally relevant and stupid as believing that all cultures are equally valid or other such postmodern relativistic tripe.

of course a nation that is democratic, that invents and distributes innovations in medicine, technology, agriculture etc. that save american lives and improve other american lives at a rate of innovation vastly greater than other nations, that respects freedom in general far more than its neighbors (gays serve openly in military, free speech rights are much better, religious freedom is much better etc.) etc. etc. to have a DISPROPORTIONATE influence as compared to say a nation that provides almost no benefit to the people of the world (medically technologically etc.), that brutalizes its citizens, that has no respect for civil/human rights etc. , that threatens to wipe us off the face of the earth, that emboldens and finanically supports terrorists who have declared war on the US, etc.

it would be INSANE for some nations not to have disproportionate influence vs. others.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Oh, good god. Just stop. The game is up.

[Sevo]

There's a utilitarian value in both cases being 'boomerang money', but it's a case of taking it out of one pocket and putting it back in the other.
None of which is gonna salve the wounds of anyone with libertarian views.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Exactly. The government taxing me and using it to build a tank which it then gives to a country is no different from a libertarian perspective than it taxing me and sending an equivalent amount in cash or cheese to another country. In fact, the latter could be worse since it fools people like into thinking there's a difference and creates a built in constituency for the welfare among US voters

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Should be 'fools people like HM'

[Heroic Mulatto]

There is a difference. A difference in morality, of which a moral cripple like you is incapable of sensing.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

What's that moral difference, in libertarian terms? I've said why there's none, why don't you try backing your claim?

Or you could just slide back into race huckstering

[Derpetologist]

There is a difference.

Suppose 2 countries are at war. Suppose the US decides to send $1 billion in weapons to one side. After the war ends, the US decides to send half a billion to each country to rebuild. The amounts of money spent during and after the war are the same, but the first billion has a much different effect than the second billion.

From a money perspective the actions are the same, but that is not the whole story.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

But in libertarian terms taking my and your money from us and spending it on either is equally bad. The only possible difference that, say, a minarchist might accept, is that taking money from me for weapons is a legitimate function of government under defense is negated by the fact that the weapons are given away (that's hardly defense).

If the government were, say, to tax me X amount to build machine guns which it then donated to a private gun club that would be just as bad as taxing me the same amount to make government cheese and give it to the private boys and girls club. Giving weapons to another country is the same.

[Derpetologist]

You can't shoot somehow with a piece of cheese.

See the difference?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

If you're arguing that the military aid is morally worse, sure.

But I don't think that is what HM was getting at.

[Derpetologist]

It's not worse per se (Lend Lease was an example of positive military aid), but it is different.

What do you think HM is getting at? Perhaps he could explain himself.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

His original comment "Economic aid is basically international welfare (USAID) that is basically food stamps to buy our grain and pharmaceuticals." and others seems to imply he found the economic aid less defensible.

[Derpetologist]

Because he called it welfare? Your skill at reading between the lines is second to none.

I predict a long, illustrious career for you at the law offices of Ringling Brothers, Barnum, & Bailey.

[The artist known Dunphy]

This is definitely a so fucking what?

Much like many other false claims of hypocrisy (eg a cop who is against drug laws but has enforced them is a hypocrite... This person does not understand the definition and of course tge greater point is that that is entirely justifiable under basic respect for rule of law, process analysis etc) it's silly

We most definitely support the right of Israel to exist but it does not therefore follow that if we support Israel monetarily and support a country that does not recognize Israel's right to exist that this is somehow some sort of hypocrisy or illogic etc.

It's a logical disconnect

OBVIOUSLY, providing aid to country X does not imply that we are thus implicitly endorsing every official policy of tgat country

Again, it's a profoundly silly point

It is not a litmus test for support

In the matter of presidential politics has there ever been a candidate you have voted for that does not have some policy positions you oppose?

Does voting for Ron Paul and simultaneously disagreeing with his immigration policy AND supporting orgs that take the opposite stance make one a hypocrite?

No

[The artist known Dunphy]

'Bo Cara Esq.|10.1.14 @ 5:34PM|#

So other than earning the enmity of about 1/4 of the world's population ( whom we then spend many more billions in trying to heal the rift and/or fight) what in the world is that aid to Israel getting us?'

This implicitly assumes the goal or sole goal of providing Aid is to get us some thing or benefit

It reminds me of when progressives criticize Southerners for voting against their interests.

Personally, I believe voting for one's principles trumps doing it for one's interests. The two may intersect, stand apart or even CONFLICT

in cases where they do conflict in most cases the morally superior choice is usually the vote for principle

I would argue fwiw that giving aid to Israel does benefit us, but that's another issue

[Bo Cara Esq.]

If someone wants to argue we should support other nations based on ideals even if it harms our interests so be it, but let not those people pretend to be 'realists' on other foreign policy issues.

[The artist known Dunphy]

I agree.

I would argue that supporting Israel does not have such a binary result

Iow, claims that it harms us are as invalid as claims that it benefits us if one is saying that either is solely the case

Doing an action may benefit oneself or one's nation in some respects, damage it in other respects and in even other respects may plant seeds that could go either way or do nothing at all

I would analogize it to choosing to take a medication

It's rare that any medication only offers benefits

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I'm waiting to hear about these benefits.

[The artist known Dunphy]

For example Israel is incredibly disproportionate in the per capita technological scientific medical capitalistic innovations they have provided the world

http://www.israel21c.org/techn.....ll-time-2/

You can fit the recent innovations that come out of Islamofascist countries on the head of a pin

Even if aid to Israel does not specifically help them in these areas but merely increases their chances of survival then clearly from a game theory angle it's a good investment to aid them

[Bo Cara Esq.]

How does that help us, the giver of the aid?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

We get to buy their inventions after helping prop them up to make them?

[The artist known Dunphy]

cmon, brah! Really?

You cannot see how advancements in " agriculture, computer sciences, electronics, genetics, health care, optics, solar energy and various fields of engineering."

do not help us?

increased efficiencies in agriculture for example offer us no benefit. Medical devices/procedures etc. invented in Israel don't save lives, improve the quality of lives, etc?

Please don't hop down such a silly bunny trail.

You asked for benefits and I gave a FEW (of many) that Israel provides us.

You want MORE specifics?

"IceCure Medical's IceSense3 has been used by US doctors since 2011 to remove benign breast lumps in a 10-minute ultrasound-guided procedure that penetrates the tumor and engulfs it with ice. The system is being clinically tested over the next few years against small malignant breast tumors as well. The procedure is done in a doctor's office, clinic or breast center, and the patient can get up and leave afterward with no recovery period or post-care."

[Bo Cara Esq.]

By this logic government should spend R&D money generally.

[The artist known Dunphy]

"By this logic government should spend R&D money generally."

Thank you for evading the issue as I would expect you to.

The issue was- ARE THEIR BENEFITS THAT ISRAEL PROVIDES US?

I have provided several.

That is TANGENTIAL to "whether as a matter of policy it's good to spend govt. money on R&D etc. etc."

iow instead of acknowledging that yes there are benefits, you then switch the issue and it becomes one of investing in R*D in general.

That's exactly the kind of evasion I would sadly expect.

There are all sorts of good arguments for and against govt. investment in medical, agricultural, astronomical, etc. etc research.

That is not the question that was asked.

let's recap. You cynically remarked on what you saw as the ONLY benefit to our nation (and of course as a subset individuals therein) that come from israel aid.

As I explained, it is irrefutable that US citizens have benefited from (among other things) medical advances, devices, etc. that have come from Israel, which is undeniably on a per capita basis, one of the most innovative countries on earth providing more technological advances on earth than the vast majoirty of countries per capita.

So, assuming aid to israel either

1) improves their chances of SURVIVING
2) helps them economically

the aid has benefits.

even if our money is solely military based, well then that is money they SAVE and can thus use to help the technology field etc.

[The artist known Dunphy]

iow, i didn't say govt. should or shouldn't spend R&D money

That is completely tangential, since i didn't say the US - SHOULD - provide AID to israel.

I *said* providing aid to israel has other benefits besides those you list and then provided examples.

hth

[Bo Cara Esq.]

What's tangential is the idea that us giving billions of dollars of military aid to Israel helps us because they are then able to survive and thrive inventing things that we buy from them and benefit from.

My point is that such benefits are so tangential we might as well spend it on general R&D in our own country, and then we wouldn't earn the enmity of a quarter of the world.

[The artist known Dunphy]

first, making the claim that the only benefits we get from them are those that we BUY is incorrect

some are stuff we buy. Like we buy a medical device that makes procedure X far far cheaper to perform, with fewer complications. They have an initial outlay but then save us money.

Others are things that cost us zero initial outlay but just benefit us. Like new ways of doing a procedure that save time money and lives or a more efficient way to grow something or whatever.

I mean do the google-fu. It's just astounding how many things that we enjoy on a daily basis and how many things that have saved lives, improved quality of lives etc. come from israel.

you are now applying some sort of balancing equation and implying that we COULD make similar innovations given sufficient investment and I am not at all convinced of that.

It is a seperate argument as to whether the benefits minus the costs make giving israel aid into a good investment. I am simply saying there are benefits.

my primary point is about the DISPARITY

we give aid to tons of countries and receive NO benefits within our borders. it might help keep a region stable or help humanitarian issues in their country or whatever.

Look at the israel-denying countries we provide aid to and then try to find all the benefits we have gotten from them.

[The artist known Dunphy]

Look at it this way:
we provide 4 million to israel deniers
we provide 3 million to israel.

i'd be surprised if israel deniers provided 1/20 the benefits that israel does (medically agriculturally etc. etc.), yet we pay out 4/3 to them what we pay to israel.

whatever other factors you want to consider, israel gives us way way way way more bang for the buck.

the other issues (hate from anti-israel bigots etc.) aren't as easily quantifiable. It's hard to put a dollar sign on bad fuzzies

[The artist known Dunphy]

"OrSense's NBM-200 non-invasive monitor is relied upon by blood donation centers in 40 countries for continuous and spot measuring of potential donors' hemoglobin level (to check for anemia) and other blood parameters. This device eliminates the need for finger pricking as well as biologically hazardous equipment and waste. Studies show that donors screened this way are more likely to become repeat blood donors. OrSense recently completed successful trials using its technology to detect hemorrhage and anemia in pregnant women."

"Surpass Medical's NeuroEndoGraft flow diverters redirect blood flow from a brain aneurysm (a bulge in a weak artery wall), so that a stable clot can form and the potentially fatal aneurysm no longer is in danger of rupturing. The family of devices has the CE Mark and has been used successfully in dozens of patients. US medical device manufacturer Stryker acquired Surpass for $100 million in October 2012."

[Mark22]

Personally, I believe voting for one's principles trumps doing it for one's interests.

And what "principle" is that? To force your fellow citizens to part with money so that it can then be given to causes you happen to believe in? That's about as anti-libertarian a position as you can take.

If you want to help Israel for "moral" or "principled" reasons, do it with your own damned money.

[The artist known Dunphy]

IMO, arguments such as Cato's as to the limited benefits he sees fail to recognize many aspects of Israel

For example unlike most Islamofascist countries, Israel has a history of all sorts of innovations in medicine technology etc. that benefit the world in general as well as us

If aid helps ensure that Israel continues to exist at all or even better helps ensure that they can devote more resources to technological innovation and medical innovation etc. those would certainly be benefits of aid

http://www.israel21c.org/techn.....ll-time-2/

[The artist known Dunphy]

Israel as per Wikipedia: Science and technology in Israel is one of the country's most developed sectors. The percentage of Israelis engaged in scientific and technological inquiry, and the amount spent on research and development (R&D) in relation to gross domestic product (GDP), is the highest in the world.[1] Israel ranks fourth in the world in scientific activity as measured by the number of scientific publications per million citizens. Israel's percentage of the total number of scientific articles published worldwide is almost 10 times higher than its percentage of the world's population.[2] Israel boasts the highest number of scientists, technicians, and engineers per capita in the world with 140 scientists, technicians, and engineers per 10,000 employees. In comparison, the same is 85 per 10,000 in the United States and 83 per 10,000 in Japan.[3][4][5]

Science is good

[The artist known Dunphy]

More: Israeli scientists have contributed to the advancement of agriculture, computer sciences, electronics, genetics, health care, optics, solar energy and various fields of engineering. Israel is home to major players in the high tech industry and has one of the world's most technologically-literate populations.[6] In 1998, Tel Aviv was named by Newsweek as one of the ten most technologically influential cities in the world.[7] Since 2000, Israel has been a member of EUREKA, the pan-European research and development funding and coordination organization, and held the rotating chairmanship of the organization for 2010?2011.[8][9] In 2010, the journalist David Kaufman, wrote that the high tech area of Yokneam, Israel has the "world's largest concentration of aesthetics-technology companies".[10] Google's Chairman Eric Schmidt complimented the country during a visit there, saying that "Israel has the most important high-tech center in the world after the US."[11]

[Mark22]

Great, so they don't need US taxpayer money then!

[The artist known Dunphy]

Iow, if ANY country is a shining beacon on a hill, it's Israel

It's the 'little country that could' ... And DOES

[The artist known Dunphy]

I just remembered the quote refers to a city not a beacon but whatever you get the point

[John Thacker]

We *also* send a lot of money to countries that don't recognize Taiwan, including basically our own country, despite the Taiwan Relations Act.

[John Thacker]

Which sort of requires the US to ensure Taiwan (ROC)'s successful self-defense and give them aid, despite us not recognizing them.

[Jayburd]

So you want to forcibly take the fruits of my labors and give it to the country of your choice?

[Lt Womack]

Krayewski goes off the deep end again.

Most of those countries aren't "enemies of Israel" in any real sense, most are just countries with populations that don't like Israel (while the people in power probably don't really give a shit either way). I seriously don't think the Israeli govt is worried about attacks by Malaysia, Indonesia, Morocco, or Bangladesh. The only country on that map that would even think about going to war with them is Iran, which gets no US aid.

I also would love to see the source for Syria getting over $100M in aid. I'm sure Assad's govt isn't getting it, are you counting the Syrian rebels?

[Seamus]

Well, Ted Cruz apparently thinks we shouldn't be supporting anyone in that part of the world who won't "stand with Israel."

[CatoTheElder]

Here's some crazy math regarding Israel:

Surface area = 8019 sq miles = 5.1 million acres, mostly desert with a bit of nice oceanfront property.

US aid since 1947 = $250 billion since 1947 (all $ amounts in 2014 $)

$250,000,000,000 / 5,132,160 acres = $48,700 / acre for property that wouldn't fetch $2000/acre in West Texas. And that doesn't include the bribe money that the US has shelled out to Egyptian dictators, Jordanian monarchs, and Lebanese politicians to lay off Israel.

Further the pretty much the entirety of the GWOT is due to the fact that US aid to Israel has created new enemies, and that's a price of around $3 trillion, TEN TIMES as much. Call it $500,000 / acre for some scrubby hills and desert.

Israel could have been bought outright for far less than it has cost. And the cost curve lately has been a genuine hockey stick.

[Suicidy]

So in the absence of Israel we would have so,e other Islamic evil bullshit to deal with. That's the way their kind are.

Evil is as evil does.

[Seamus]

This has got to be the stupidest post I have ever seen on Hit and Run. It is not "hypocritical" for the United States to give aid to countries that don't recognize Israel. The United States does not grant foreign aid in order to express its endorsement of the recipient's foreign policy. We grant foreign aid because we believe it will further the foreign policy ends of the United States. It should, for example, be obvious why we are giving foreign aid to Afghanistan. Or perhaps Keisling and Krayewski think that if Afghanistan won't recognize Israel, we ought to just abandon it to the Taliban?

[kaprihenzamif]

my friend's step-aunt makes $70 an hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her pay check was $16695 just working on the internet for a few hours. view it now....

???? http://www.netjob70.com

[eyeroller]

Foreign aid is already one of the very, very few government programs that most voters oppose, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this graphic is.

[Redbeard]

Good God, you guys can't even be bothered to find a modern map and get your facts straight? Sudan and South Sudan are different places, and the South Sudanese government recognizes Israel. Also, Afghanistan gets over $1B in aid, you need a different color.

[VicRattlehead]

yeah it all needs to read a big fat 0

American taxes belong to the Americans they were stolen from.

[Suicidy]

Maybe some of the wealthier countries should be paying us tribute, Instead of us giving money to everyone. Considering the relative peace and stability the U.S. has provided since the end of WW2. Might as well get paid for it. As we should have in Iraq.