Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

Let me file that under fuck it.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

…and a burning sense of injustice to juice the soul.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

Pelosi: “He either is stupid, or he thinks the rest of us are.” Why not both?

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

Republicans would impeach Biden if he bit into a whole Kit Kat rather than breaking the sections apart.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / I’d Like To See a Debate About This

Reader Interactions

36Comments

  1. 1.

    Ash

    lulz, a debate about anything having to do with Israel. You crack my shit up with these silly ideas, John.

  2. 2.

    Cain

    Oh yeah.. this would be great. Which one will Jon Kyl choose? Americans or Israelis? Or will he say “fuck them both”

    I hope Obama sez no, especially after that shit Bibi pulled when he was over here. Asshole. He can go fuck himself.

    cain

  3. 3.

    me

    It’s like the mafia looking for protection money. “If you don’t give us this money see, bad shit’s gonna happen round ’bout where your oil comes from and your soldiers are stationed.”

  4. 4.

    Tonybrown74

    My dream scenario for this situation would be for Hillary to receive them in her office (or wherever) and her response to be, “! You fucking lie!”

  6. 6.

    Svensker

    That could be a very interesting debate

    Conditional tense “could be” will not come to pass.

    It’s like how eating over the sink = food has no calories. Spending money on Israel/war = free!

  7. 7.

    El Cid

    On that $8 billion in “loan guarantees” — those are typically forgiven when unpaid, if my understanding is still correct.

  9. 9.

    Osprey

    Fuck Israel. With a rusty spork.

    Them asking us to help pay for the costs of fighting terrorism and intifada is like some random guy in California who goes over his neighbor’s house, punches his wife and pisses in his pool, then asks me to pay for a security detail so the wife’s husband doesn’t come kill him.

    I just don’t understand the infatuation with Israel. We dump billions in military/non-military aid into that country every year, try to cover up their mistakes, give them verbal fellatio on every media outlet…for what? And when we’re not subservient enough, they stamp their feet, whine about terrorism (a good deal of it self-inflicted), and anybody who doesn’t grovel at their feet is labeled an anti-semite.

  10. 10.

    PurpleGirl

    There won’t be any debate and there won’t be any discussion of where the money will come from but Israel will probably get it. I think we’ve been subsidizing Israel for long enough. The whole policy needs to be changed. We should be taking care of our own people first and foremost. If Kyl and the others think differently, then I invite them to move to Israel.

  11. 11.

    ericvsthem

    That could be a very interesting debate.

    It could be, if our congresscritters weren’t craven cowards, living in fear of appearing even slightly critical of Israel.

    If we’re going to give Israel $8 billion in foreign loans that will never be repaid, then we should at least call it foreign aid and have an honest debate on the merits.

  12. 12.

    Bob K

    Never mind debate – I’d be happy to see MSM reporting on this. I’d like to see both Dems and Repubs trying to justify shoveling money overseas while people are having their homes foreclosed due to a job loss and they can no longer pay their mortgages. I’d like more people to think about the fact that for eight years no questions were asked while we dumped boatloads of money in Afghanistan and Iraq. And all of a sudden the Rethuglicans have religion about budget deficits? What about the gospel according five deferment Dick? “St. Ronnie of Raygun proved deficits don’t matter?” If Ronnie and Dickie said it – it must be true. Sorry forgot – that applies only when the G(NO)P owns the White House.

  13. 13.

    Mark S.

    Weapons make up almost half of Israel’s manufactured exports.

    Really? That doesn’t sound very healthy economically. Actually, it sounds a lot like Cuba before the USSR collapsed.

  14. 14.

    Punchy

    That could be a very interesting debate.

    I’d love to see the name tags. On the “pro” side, John Bolton. On the “against” side, every tag says “anti-Semite!”

  16. 16.

    Allison W.

    oh hell no. oh hell mother f-ing no. And these guys aren’t kissing Obama’s ring why?

  17. 17.

    Comrade javafascist

    Punchy beat me to it but I think the debate would go something like this:
    Opening gambit: Relevant point made about loaning Israel money is not deficit neutral
    Rebuttal (Kyl running around screaming like Carol Kane from Princess Bride): Anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite…

  18. 18.

    JUST A NORMAL GUY (THE ORIGINAL)

    WELL YET AGAIN THE LIB’S FAIL TO SEE THE ‘LONG VIEW’

    WELL UN-EMPLOYMENT IS TEMPARERY, BUT ETERNETY LASTS FOR-EVER. IF YOU DO’NT WANT TO SPEND ETERNETY EMPLOYED IN THE GRIP’S OF SATIN DOWN IN HELL, YOU SHOUDL SUPPORT ISREAL. ITS THE ONLY WAY TO BECKON CHRIST TO RETURN. POLITICLY I AM A MODERATE BUT WHEN IT COMES TO NATIONAL AND SPIRTUAL SECUTIRY THEIR’S NO DEBATE

  19. 19.

    glasnost

    Um,

    JC, the article you linked to is from December 9, 2002. Kind of collectively embarrassing that the first 16 commenters didn’t catch that…

  20. 20.

    The Bearded Blogger

    Mr Cole,

    The wizard of Obam has given democrats a brain, which is a lot. He has yet to give them either a heart or a spine. The latter is a necessary condition for this debate to happen.

    So: not gonna happen

  21. 21.

    Martian Buddy

    @El Cid:

    On that $8 billion in “loan guarantees”—those are typically forgiven when unpaid, if my understanding is still correct.

    That was my understanding, too; that they get retroactively converted into straight aid and the “loan” aspect is just a polite fiction.

  24. 24.

    Osprey

    @Bearded

    First, what happened to the damn quick-reply link-thingy next to the post dates?

    Secondly, I’m in NY, so I was going for a far-away reference (Israel being on the other side of the world). Quite random really, no intent, especially after that big quake, probably just on my mind.

  25. 25.

    The Bearded Blogger

    @Osprey 23

    I know… I had it on this thread, and now it’s gone… yeah… just curious about that…

  26. 26.

    Ash Can

    I’d like to see a debate about this

    Yeah, like unemployed Americans are likely to be shelling out the kind of kickbacks the Israeli government pays anytime soon.

  28. 28.

    Citizen_X

    IT’S A LONG WAY TO TEMPARERY

    (Especially if you’re employed in one of Satin’s grips.)

  29. 29.

    El Cid

    Since this was cited from an older article, some may be curious about updated information.

    On U.S. aid to Israel labeled as “foreign aid” [Congressional Research Service, Jeremy Sharp, “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel”, December 4, 2009, PDF here.]:

    Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel.
    …
    Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance. In the past, Israel also had received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel’s receiving benefits not available to other countries. For example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, all U.S. foreign assistance earmarked for Israel is delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year. Most other recipients normally receive aid in installments. Congress also appropriates funds for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs.
    …
    In August 2007, the Bush Administration announced that it would increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the next decade. The agreement calls for incremental annual increases in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel, reaching $3 billion a year by FY2012.
    …
    For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $2.775 billion in FMF to Israel. Congress provided $555 million of Israel’s total FY2010 FMF appropriation in P.L. 111-32, the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act. The remaining funds are contained in H.R. 3081 and S. 1434, the House and Senate’s FY2010 Foreign Operations Appropriations bills respectively, which await further action in both chambers.

    On loan guarantees in recent context:

    Loan Guarantees
    …
    Overview
    …
    Since 1972, the United States has extended loan guarantees to Israel to assist with housingshortages, Israel’s absorption of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, andits economic recovery following the 2000-2003 recession sparked by renewed Palestinianuprising. Loan guarantees are a form of indirect U.S. assistance to Israel, since they enable Israelto borrow from commercial sources at lower rates and not from the United States government.Congress directs that subsidies be set aside in a U.S. Treasury account for possible default. Thesesubsidies, which are a percentage of the total loan (based in part on the credit rating of theborrowing country; in the case of the loan guarantees in the 1990s, the subsidy amount was4.1%), have come from the U.S. or the Israeli government. Israel has never defaulted on a U.S.-backed loan guarantee, as it needs to maintain its good credit rating in order to secure financing tooffset annual budget deficits.
    …
    Loan Guarantees for Economic Recovery
    …
    In 2003, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon requested an additional $8 billion in loan guarantees tohelp Israel’s failing economy. The loan guarantee request accompanied a request for an additional$4 billion in military grants to help Israel prepare for possible attacks during an anticipated U.S.war with Iraq and Israeli efforts to end the Palestinian uprising. P.L. 108-11, the FY2003Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, authorized $9 billion in loan guaranteesover three years for Israel’s economic recovery and $1 billion in military grants. P.L. 108-11stated that the proceeds from the loan guarantees could be used only within Israel’s pre-June 5,1967, borders; that the annual loan guarantees could be reduced by an amount equal to theamount Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories; that Israel would pay all fees andsubsidies; and that the President would consider Israel’s economic reforms when determiningterms and conditions for the loan guarantees. On November 26, 2003, the Department of Stateannounced that the $3 billion loan guarantees for FY2003 were reduced by $289.5 millionbecause Israel continued to build settlements in the occupied territories and continuedconstruction of the security barrier separating Israelis and Palestinians. In FY2005, the U.S.government further reduced the amount available for Israel to borrow by an additional $795.8million. Since then, no other deductions have been made.
    …
    According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Israel is legally obligated to use the proceeds ofguaranteed loans for refinancing government of Israel debt and also has agreed that proceeds shallnot be used for military purposes or to support activities in areas outside its pre-June 5, 1967,borders. However, U.S. officials note that since Israel’s national budget is fungible, proceeds fromthe issuance of U.S.-guaranteed debt that are used to refinance Israeli government debt free updomestic Israeli funds for other uses.43
    …
    P.L. 108-447, the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, first extended the authority of theloan guarantees from FY2005 to FY2007. In the aftermath of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict,President Bush stated that he would ask Congress to again extend the authorization of loanguarantees to Israel. P.L. 109-472, the 2006 Department of State Authorities Act, extended theauthority to provide loan guarantees through FY2011. Israel has not borrowed any funds sinceFY2005. In general, Israel may view U.S. loan guarantees as a “last resort” option, which thetreasury could use if unguaranteed local and international bond issuances become too expensive.
    …
    In June 2009, the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG) held its annualmeeting. According to a U.S. Department of the Treasury press release, “The U.S. delegationcommended Israel’s strong economic performance and fiscal discipline in recent years. Bothcountries’ delegations agreed to terms and conditions that will govern the U.S. Government’sdecision to make available FY2010 and FY2011 tranches of loan guarantees for use by Israel,subject to statutory deductions.”44

    For FY2010 and FY2011, the loan guarantees are reported as $333 million each year.

  31. 31.

    liberal

    The standard response I get from “supporters” of Israel when I raise this is that it’s a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.

    As someone who thinks aid should be eliminated, I don’t even think the direct cost is the biggest cost. The biggest cost is that our “alliance” (NB: we have no formal mutual defense treaty) with Israel gets us into really costly things, like the invasion of Iraq (which has cost the better part of $1T).

  32. 32.

    John Cole

    JC, the article you linked to is from December 9, 2002. Kind of collectively embarrassing that the first 16 commenters didn’t catch that…

    I didn’t either.

  33. 33.

    LanceThruster

    I agree that no such debate would take place, yet the prevailing narrative is that a large majority of Americans are in favor of US support for Israel.

    If this was the case based on the merits of the arguments put forth, then supporters would not have to shy away from discussions such as these. The fact that they work so tirelessly to prevent such discussions shows they’re afraid of the public becoming educated on the subject.

  34. 34.

    LanceThruster

    As far as the date of the original piece, it does not negate that a discussion needs to take place. Additionally, the amount of aid continues to increase, and is often hidden in other assistance packages.

  35. 35.

    D-Chance.

    I’m an idiot who can’t read datelines.

    Now, now, Cole… no one ever suggested you couldn’t read datelines…

  36. 36.

    Caravelle

    I’m an idiot who can’t read datelines.

    I agree, we should definitely have a debate about this.

    Now, now, Cole… no one ever suggested you couldn’t read datelines…

    Hmm, so you’re leaning to the Evil side of the Stupid/Evil debate…

Comments are closed.