Great post.

The Real News is excellent. I wish it was syndicated in some form on PBS.

It's sure the hell better than FOX(gag), CNN and MSNBC. I still find they have a bias, but at least they are vastly more informative at the same time.

This particular interview though isn't enormously enlightening like most of RealNews presentations. This interviewee states there is no question Israel couldn't pull this offensive off without American military aid. If Israel is only $3 billion dollars away from being unable to even field an operation this small, they are the biggest underdog in the entire Middle East. They of course are the singularly strongest military in the region and losing US aid would only make them the strongest by a smaller margin.

I was just listening to this and about to post it. The Real News is indeed very good and could potentially become much better when they start their full programming. I really hope their viewer donation model works, but I am a bit doubtful. I have donated to them though, and hope others do too.

"If Israel is only $3 billion dollars away from being unable to even field an operation this small, they are the biggest underdog in the entire Middle East. They of course are the singularly strongest military in the region and losing US aid would only make them the strongest by a smaller margin."

Phyllis Bennis did not claim that Israel is "$3 Billion dollars away from being unable to even field an operation this small..."

US aid amounts to $3 Billion/year.

Bennis is the megatonne brain behind the Iraq war primer from IPS.

http://www.ips-dc.org/

Phyllis Bennis did not claim that Israel is "$3 Billion dollars away from being unable to even field an operation this small..."


And I don't like mis-interpreting people, but the exact exchange which I watched several times to get correct is:


Question:Is it conceivable that Israel could pull of this kind of operation without US support?

Answer: There is no question that the Israeli military attack could not have happened without US support, both military and diplomatic. The direct support, the military support is that the US provides military grants of almost $3 billion a year to Israel, of which 75% is spent on US produced military hardware weapons, planes, bombs. 25% is used to invest in their own weapons production facility.


Bennis, who ever she is, said There is no question that the Israeli military attack could not have happened without US support and that aid amounted to $3 billion a year.

I don't really think I'm stretching anything by what I described. I also think it very accurate to say that if $3 billion a year less would mean Israel couldn't even launch this offensive then Israel is the biggest under dog in the middle east. Knowing that Israel is in fact probably one of the strongest militaries in the middle east, I think Bennis is dead wrong to say that this offensive couldn't happen without US support.

I'd also say that quantity of US support is a quibbling point, but it does speak heavily to the quality of Bennis representation of the situation.

Israel is entirely dependent on the US for the financial support of its military. Without that support, Israel, militarily, would be a non-entity in the region. It's not controversial.

>> ^qualm:
Israel is entirely dependent on the US for the financial support of its military. Without that support, Israel, militarily, would be a non-entity in the region. It's not controversial.


Really? Although if your right, it would make half Bennis comments make more sense, I just am not seeing it. The sources I find show Israel spending ~$10 billion a year on military and Egypt at $3 billion and Syria at $2 billion. Even removing the 'American' $3 billion from Israel's budget they would appear to be outspending Syria and Egypt combined. Am I out to lunch or is Israel just spending it's military money that badly?

Good Report. I agree that you have to go back to 1967. That is when Israel was attacked by her neighbors, and emerged victorious. These so-called "Occupied Territories" were legal prizes of that war.

Israel has chosen to offer up Gaza to revert to self rule. All of the current hardships suffered by the Palestinians in Gaza are a direct result of the bellicose nature of the Hamas gang now in power. Beyond that it traces to the cultural sickness introduced and nurtured by Yassar Arafat and the PLO for so many years.

If only the slate could be wiped clean, and a new start made...

mharvey, you are either a good troll or you like remaining ignorant.

Going back to 2000. Whenever there was a lull in the violence, guess which side alway started up the killings first? Just like in this last bit of violence, Israel is the one who starts killing Palestinians.

It's not because they want peace, they do it to justify bulldozing and bombing and keeping their apartheid strong, and possible the extermination of a race of people.

I recommend this post which has some illustrative graphs and links to show Israel breaking the peace.

>> ^bcglorf:

Bennis, who ever she is, said There is no question that the Israeli military attack could not have happened without US support and that aid amounted to $3 billion a year.
I don't really think I'm stretching anything by what I described. I also think it very accurate to say that if $3 billion a year less would mean Israel couldn't even launch this offensive then Israel is the biggest under dog in the middle east. Knowing that Israel is in fact probably one of the strongest militaries in the middle east, I think Bennis is dead wrong to say that this offensive couldn't happen without US support.
I'd also say that quantity of US support is a quibbling point, but it does speak heavily to the quality of Bennis representation of the situation.



I don't think it's about the dollar amount, it's about there being no other country that would sell them jets etc.

There's a tendency for the rest of the world to vote against Isreal on this stuff in the UN with the US vetoing it all alone as a member of the security council. I don't think even Russia would sell them MIGs. Soooo.... they really couldn't invade Gaza without US support. As of today there have been 10 Isreali's killed / 60 injured vs 660 palestinians dead / 2800 injured - most of the Israeli casualties were after ground troops were sent in. If they didn't have jets allot more Israelis would die and the political support for this kind of thing in their country would die off and it wouldn't have happened. I think she's clearly "dead right".

Here's the casualty stats up to today

I don't think it's about the dollar amount, it's about there being no other country that would sell them jets etc.
...
I don't think even Russia would sell them MIGs. Soooo.... they really couldn't invade Gaza without US support.


Bullshit. Israel's first purchase of jet fighters where a Messerschmitt variation from Czechoslovakia. Saddam had no troubles buying any and every piece of hardware he wanted from tanks and jets from the Soviets all the way up to VX gas and a nuclear reactor from the French. Rwanda's RGF had a study supply of every form of military hardware they could use while they were busily executing the worst genocide seen for generations. Even the video itself declares that 1/4 of the American aid is spent on ISRAELI made weapons!

Arms dealers are loyal to money and nothing else. You don't seem to have a clue what your talking about on this.

>> ^joedirt:
mharvey, you are either a good troll or you like remaining ignorant.
I recommend this post which has some illustrative graphs and links to show Israel breaking the peace.

JoeDirt, I'm no troll. I see things very differently than you. Ignorance is not one of my vices. Perhaps you need to recognize that reasonable people can disagree (strongly) on some issues.

I checked out your graph, and am not impressed. As Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This looks to be both.

The group that produced the webpage and graph is B'Tselem, a Liberal advocacy group in Israel which seems a bit like the ACLU is here. In other words, an enemy of the society which hosts it.

Their stated mission is, "to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B'Tselem

They start with an agenda, and not surprisingly, manufacture proof that their presuppositions are correct.

To my knowledge, the Palestinian leadership has never made an honest peace (going back to Arafat), but will frequently agree to a hudna in order to regroup and strengthen.

>> ^mharvey42:
I see things very differently than you. Ignorance is not one of my vices. Perhaps you need to recognize that reasonable people can disagree (strongly) on some issues.

[snip]

The group that produced the webpage and graph is B'Tselem, a Liberal advocacy group in Israel which seems a bit like the ACLU is here. In other words, an enemy of the society which hosts it.


I think you just effectively proved that you're not reasonable right there.

Part 2 brings us up to speed with the current state of affairs:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israel-and-international-law

Violations of international law and human rights must be recognized, but also of importance are the myriad ways in which life is systematically degraded for the people in Gaza:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Slavoj-i-ek-Israel-s-Missteps-with-Palestine

>> ^mharvey42:

If only the slate could be wiped clean, and a new start made...


I thought Hitler tried that and didn't get the job done before the Allies liberated the camps?

The world's come a long way. From being persecuted, tortured and executed to being the persecuters, the torturers and murderers. Israel should be proud.

/golfclap

"The idea that you can bomb your way to peace flies in the face of reality."

"Laws are only pieces of paper; they are tools. If we don't pick them up and make them our instruments then they are worth nothing."

-Phyllis Bennis

(This lady is very quotable.)

I'm not defending Israel, but why does she stop in 1967, when Israel occupied the Palestinian territories? Why not stop a little earlier when Arab nations started a war against Israel?

If you want to explore the extent to which the United States supports Israel and makes their military activities possible, see this well referenced piece by Mearsheimer Walt.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

There is no question that Israel could not undertake such actions without American financial and military aid. Where else would they get the money - export of desalination plants?

>> ^Kymbos:
If you want to explore the extent to which the United States supports Israel and makes their military activities possible, see this well referenced piece by Mearsheimer Walt.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
There is no question that Israel could not undertake such actions without American financial and military aid. Where else would they get the money - export of desalination plants?


Open your eyes. From the link you provided:

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest

For starters, any time you see something this identical to 'the secret jewish society' spoken of in 1940's Europe you need to be very cautious. Verify anything that group says with a third party somewhere before accepting it as fact.

But you also cited the link as demonstrating " There is no question that Israel could not undertake such actions without American financial and military aid. Where else would they get the money - export of desalination plants?" Which would seem to be saying you believe the article shows Israel wouldn't have the money for an operation like this without US aid, correct? But the review in the link you gave states "Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain." Doesn't that mean your own source refutes your claim?

The Israel lobby does exist http://www.videosift.com/search?q=aipac

>> ^Farhad2000:
The Israel lobby does exist http://www.videosift.com/search?q=aipac


Yes, the bigger point is no other lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest. If you read the whole article the theme is consistently discussing how Israeli special interests essientially control the US government against it's own best interests more strongly than any other group in existence. That's frighteningly familiar, and one step from crying that the Jews are secretly controlling the US for their own gains.

Sigh... this argument is missing the point. Why not go back EVEN FURTHER to when one tribe of Neanderthals was wiped out by another of Homo Erectus?

This isn't about when to start, it is about the CAUSE of the problem.

What is that cause?

RELIGION.

As long as point keep adhering to their fairy-tale-based bullshit and don't realize that we are ALL human beings and no one is "CHOSEN" there will be this crap.

Religion is the white elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk to. Right winged nutjobs in the US. Zealot Israelies, militant Islamics... its all the same crap. It is not to say that there haven't been insane atheists that have tried to solve this problem the wrong way, but ultimately these conflicts all come back to one cause: its "us" v. "them." And it is almost exclusively religion v. religion. I've said it in another post that this is the best evidence that there is no God as described by any known religion: if God were all powerful, there would be uniformity in the way we worship him.

*politics
*history

Adding video to channels (History, Politics) - requested by Eklek.