As I seem to remember noting somewhere else, there are two sorts of US ally: there are Type II allies, who give the US stuff, and then there are Type I allies, to whom the US gives stuff. I'm not sure what the procedure is for changing categories
I'm trying to think of something more unrealistic than that 3 billion being used for something else. I'm coming up short. Super-intelligent pot crapping dogs take over Fresno?
This story isl going to get super annoying and BHO is going to have to bow and scrape and kiss Bibi's ass twice as much.
"What Sarkozy said is more than enough," a party spokesman quipped
Politics: everything is fine until someone catches you saying what we all know you're thinking.
4: I suspect you're wrong. I suspect further that Obama, continuing in his efforts to make his presidency into one very long and very disappointing West Wing episode, knew that the mic was on. Wait for the non-apology apology.
7: Your, uh, keyboard to FSM's ear! I don't think you're right, but hope you are. Obama cannot at all count on the press to report this as anything other than, "Obama has more trouble keeping the Jewish vote! All Jews everywhere are now Republican!" which is an angle getting worked for a while now. And at that point, what? I don't see how this gains him any leverage with Bibi or any brownie points at home. But tell me, what do you think he gains?
It is slightly worrying that the response to "ally facing imminent annihilation and enslavement by the most terrifying war machine in history" was to lend Britain lots of stuff - not that it wasn't hugely welcome! - but the response to "ally facing periodic attack by small groups of people with extremely inaccurate rockets and the occasional bomb" is to give Israel billions of dollars every year forever.
Wait, isn't it more like about $50 billion a year?
10. Lend at a considerable rate of interest, be it said.
What's funny is listening to politicians bullshitting and schmoozing and stroking each other and peasants thinking that they are ever sincere or authentic. All three of these guys lost track of reality somewhere before secondary school.
This feels deliberate, but don't think you can suss out their game. They are smarter and much meaner than you.
IOQ, this could mean Iran is on as easily as not. As usual, Obama will act reluctantly, forced by external pressures
10: I am not very familiar with the details, but based on a skimming of the relevant Wikipedia article, it seems as if the value of the lend-lease program was far greater in inflation-adjusted dollars than what we give to Israel in a similar interval.
12: Is this wrong, then?
Anglo-American loan
There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war, but the Americans did expect the return of some durable goods such as ships. Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies after the war, so the administration charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[27] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.
Is J-street making any inroads into AIPAC's wealth or power? Which parties in Israel have the greatest likelihood of emptying the most marginal settlements in the West Bank in the next two years if they gain votes?
Israeli political campaigns usually do a fair amount of US fundraising. Who gives to the good guys, and who to Likud and worse? Is post-Arafat Fatah less corrupt and less interested in acquiring weapons than it was under Arafat?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions, and find reading about the conflict pretty depressing, since the decades of enmity leave both Palestinians and Israelis with many good reasons to dislike and distrust each other.
Okay, maybe I didn't make 13 clear enough.
Of fucking course, if Obama starts bombing Iran, he will want to make it look like he is not bowing to pressure from AIPAC and Bibi before the rubble starts bouncing.
Israel and AIPAC won't care about what he says.
if Obama starts bombing Iran
And if he establishes death panels sets up FEMA concentration camps sexually assaults Hillary Clinton nukes Fukushima, he will want to make it...look like...uhh...
IMO, 10 grossly understates the direct US interest in seeing Britain (and all its dominions) survive/prevail.
1) There have been three assassinations or attempts of high-ranking Saudis in the last year.
2) SA has been very firm and public with recent statements that Iranian access to the Holy sites during Haj will not be compromised, no matter what.
3) AFAIK, the Sauds still have troops in Bahrain holding down the Shia majority there
4) Anybody remember the Saudi investor bailing out Citibank with tens of billions?
But it is always AIPAC, AIPAC, AIPAC. They have a some influence, but I honestly see AIPAC as the shiny bauble to distract the rubes.
it seems as if the value of the lend-lease program was far greater in inflation-adjusted dollars than what we give to Israel in a similar interval.
Probably not: the value of a $1m loan is considerably less than the value of a $1m gift. The nominal size of the loan may well have been greater.
19: indeed, this is central to my point. If you like,
"It is slightly worrying that the response to 'ally facing imminent annihilation and enslavement by the most terrifying war machine in history, with resulting direct, immediate and massive negative consequences for the US itself' was to lend Britain lots of stuff - not that it wasn't hugely welcome! - but the response to 'ally of no strategic importance facing periodic attack by small groups of people with extremely inaccurate rockets and the occasional bomb' is to give Israel billions of dollars every year forever."
16: Who gives to the good guys, and who to Likud and worse?
The father of a Jewish friend of mine is a recent convert to a skeptical view of AIPAC. As in, he used to be a significant fundraiser, and now has joined several progressive Jewish groups that oppose the occupation. According to him, through my friend, when Likud is in power, all the money raised in the US flows freely. When Likud is not in power, the money dries up. I dunno if that's the tail wagging the dog or what, but it was interesting to hear.
21: You have to take into account the time value of money, the physical depreciation of the underlying assets (stuff gets blown up in a war), the low interest rates, and the sale of surviving assets at a discount at the end.
Wait, isn't it more like about $50 billion a year?
No, not at all. Not even a little.
24 to 21--and, the time value of the gift was quite high.
You make me feel inadequate, Apo. I mean, clearly I am inadequate. Pathetic, even. Compensating just as hard as I can, obviously. But you make me feel it.
25, 27: I meant aid to Israel.
25 was in response to your comment.
A graph based on a Congressional Research Service report: ~$3B/yr
Wasn't somebody talking about a much larger number based on oil prices or something like that? Also, you have to factor in the Egypt number, since that is just a bribe to keep them from supporting the Palestinians.
9: I was mostly kidding. I have no earthly idea if he knew the mic was on or not. But I think it's certainly a real possibility that he did. These guys, no matter how clownish they may be, aren't novices when it comes to recognizing that hot mics are near them (except for Biden). That said, in terms of what's to be gained, I think that Team Obama believes that they control the narrative at the moment -- jobs! jobs! jobs! mean Republicans! jobs! -- and thus think that now is an ideal time to send a message to Bibi, whom they truly do, by all reports, despise: "We hate you. We want you to know that we hate you. We want you to know that we're cozier with the French than we are with you. We want you to feel uncomfortable about your relationship with us. We want you to stop being such a dick. Or, if you're not going to stop being such a dick, we want you to know that we're increasingly comfortable with the idea of calling you a dick." I also think that it matters a great deal that Obama knows that Bibi is very weak at home right now. Put another way, I think this has nothing to do with policy -- except maybe insofar as Obama, if he's reelected, will be trying to get rid of Bibi during term two -- and everything to do with politics.
Mostly, though, I was kidding and wanted to put forward my West Wing analogy without getting banned.
31: My bad; you're right. I was looking at the entire US aid budget for some reason.
32: an imputed value would be impossible to fairly construct. However, the aid to Egypt is of the same order of magnitude (terms of the C.D. accord) plus some other small stuff. Still doesn't get that huge compared to essentially any other category.
24 was maybe a little unclear since it looks like it does double counting.
To be clear, you have to consider the difference between the time value of money and the low interest rate charged.
And you have to consider the difference between the real value of the assets lent, and the real value of whatever was accepted as payment on the debt. Physical depreciation and discounted nominal prices both count.
Is Netanyahu genuinely unpopular at home? I can think of few things that would be better for Israel than throwing him (and Avigdor Lieberman) out of office.
33: So, in what way is distancing Obama himself from Bibi disapointing to you?
37: more and more as time passes. The Gilad Shalit capitulation was intended to shore up his popularity, or at least stop the bleeding, and it didn't.
38: huh?
I think when VW refers to a "disappointing" West Wing episode, he means the totality of the Obama presidency.
The story's kinda buried way down on the Haaretz homepage. Not much analysis either.
Put me down as skeptical of the West Wing open mic theory, and expecting that Obama is going to have to kowtow a bit.
13 is an awesome comment.
On Israel and Iran -- Israeli mouthpiece Jeffrey Goldberg today. Reuters today .
From one of the articles around 44
Many countries like Russia and U.S. allies Germany and France have opposed any strike against the Islamic Republic
"I cannot stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama.
= Bibi really won't attack Iran. It's a bluff.
"You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day."
= I am talking with Netanyahu every single day. Probably also means that Obama will make his own judgement about Bibi, thanks very much, French guy.
The "have to deal with him" also contains a slight insult about adult Obama handling important matters of state in spite of personal animosity.
I wonder if Obama talks with Sarkozy or Merkel every single day. Doubt it. Another insult.
37: maybe it would be even better if we threw them to man-eating sharks who crapped pot?
46:I am reading Netanyahu's biography at Wiki. I mean, Bibi has bombed anybody in like days ( I am not sure if he has been militarily aggressive as leader evah.) Talks tough of course. Settlements. Gaza
Obama is ordering bombings and shootings and death robots every single fucking day in God knows how many countries on however many continents. He stands on a mountain of skulls.
Misplaced hate and loathing round here, I think.
22: Well, yeah, but Lend/Lease was a way to work around domestic political constraints. If as much of Congress then had supported directly militarily aiding Britain as now support aiding Israel, we wouldn't have had that disparity.
48: well, this too is kind of reinforcing my point, isn't it? It's striking that enough of Congress was dubious about the whole "Nazis: a bad thing?" question that FDR had to go for compromises and workarounds like Lend-Lease, but the virtually unanimous response to "OMG occasional badly-aimed Qassem rocket damages Israeli shed" is "$$$ FOREVER!".
They're different eras. If somehow the modern-day Israel/Palestine conflict was projected back to the 30s, the most Israel could hope for would be a pat on the back.
Lend lease is like the AAA for foreign policy: it will plow under every fourth American boy.
re: 50
I think that's ajay's point. re: different eras. Although I suppose 'Republicans are assholes' remains fairly constant.
I suppose 'Republicans are assholes' remains fairly constant.
HEY!
No, that doesn't reinforce your point. The reactions were different because we had very different attitudes toward military action in that era (not counting the Greater Monroe Doctrine Co-Prosperity Sphere, of course).
54: wait, I'm saying "it's really striking how American attitudes towards helping other countries fight wars have changed" and your explanation is "well, of course we had very different attitudes toward military action in that era"?
Oh, was that the point you were making? Your posts were a little opaque if so - I read them as "why does the US perceive Israel as more imperiled now than the UK was in 1940"?
1941, rather. Or I just misread your posts, to account for all possibilities.
I misread them in exactly the same way. Possible explanations: a)I am Minivet, b) ajay used occult powers to occlude his meaning to Americans but not the British, c) the entire US is now behind a gigantic firewall and content that criticizes US foreign policy is silently rewritten by an algorithm.
See, this is what happens when you run out of pro-Israel trolls: everybody gets completely confused about these abstruse questions of US foreign policy intent and nobody knows what's going on!
I disagree that attitudes to war have changed all that much. Wheeler's constituents couldn't realistically have afforded to visit the holy land, so it did not need protecting back then.
56: it may be that Congress actually does perceive that: after all, Britain in 1940 was only really at war with one country (i.e. Germany - Italy doesn't count) while Israel, as is well known, is surrounded on every side by a billion hostile Muslims. (And the sea.)
