The "food" thing is just more NGO fake bullshit. The articles covering for USAID are just fake as fuck. There is more than enough food sent to various countries by Christian organizations than USAID had ever sent. All the USAID money was grift and stolen tax money. Half of which went back to blue campaigns. Stop watching MS-13 NOW.
There is more than enough of everything to be sent everywhere and we have something that represents everything, it’s money.
Some people have more of everything than they’ll use in 10,000 lifetimes, others have not enough to pay for their AIDS medication to allow them to survive into their 30’s and beyond.
Why not take some from the people who have more than enough for 10,000 life times to give to others so they can not die to a disease that’s practically curable (AIDS)?
If foreign aid offends you, wait until you find out how much Israel cost every US taxpayer this year. I'm happy to fund WHO research and meteorological efforts that benefit all Americans, but am decidedly less convinced that billions in taxpayer dollars need to flow to a pariah state: https://foreignassistance.gov/cd/israel/
The US spent the equivalent of $710 on each Israeli citizen in 2024 alone. What are we paying for, Ghislaine's court fees?
You'll be happy to learn that Netanyahu favors tapering off US aid, although some US politicians are less enthusiastic.
> What are we paying for
Some very important influence. For example, US thought Israel's Lavi program would compete with F-16, and Israel canceled it. Later it canceled a lucrative Phalcon AEW sale to China, even though Israel had already committed, because of US pressure. Etc.
Both of these are examples of a pattern where Israel's government exploits reasonable doubt to strongarm the US. Israel couldn't afford the Lavi, manufacturing it would be reliant on foreign financing from absurd sources. Similarly, early Israel negotiated away from socialist policies in exchange for "capitalist" aid from the United States. They later threatened nuclear war in 1973 to Nixon to blackmail him into sending more aid. The history of promising absurd outcomes and using it as a negotiation basis is not a healthy (or realistic) way to treat an ally.
At some point, America has to call their bluff. Netanyahyu will be satisfied with decreased aid eventually, but he's clearly using America as his proxy against Iran.
Israel may not have started the program without US funding, but it was plausible enough to continue without it. After all, the decision to cancel it was only a slim majority, 12–11. If the US position was "we'll stop funding, but feel free to continue the program", it's likely Israel would have continued (at least for some time).
> They later threatened nuclear war in 1973
There was no "threat", just preparations. It's only natural to prepare whatever powerful weapons are available when a state is facing an existential threat and losing.
This is not really addressing my overall point. What you call "lobbying" is clear exploitation, as well as the vast minority of foreign aid sent to Israel.
> it's likely Israel would have continued (at least for some time).
On a skeleton crew, maybe. The sticking point was not research, but manufacturing - Israel would have bankrupted itself buying the jet's supply chain. Hence, I think it is safe to say that the political aspect was a bluff. Israel's only option for financing the jet was a catastrophic break from their allies that they were not willing to commit to.
> There was no "threat", just preparations.
"threat" and "preparation" are not mutually exclusive adjectives.
How is it exploitation when both sides are benefiting? If anything the US may be benefiting more, considering that Trump is keen on continuing the arrangement while Netanyahu is not.
> Israel would have bankrupted itself
The Lavi program in particular wasn't really poised for success, but it's likely Israel would have ended up getting into the defense aerospace industry in one way or another. Even if it never productionized its own fighter jets, it could have contributed a lot more to Chinese or other programs. Israel not working with China (among others) is a big opportunity cost to Israel, and valuable to the US.
> "threat" and "preparation" are not mutually exclusive adjectives.
If Israel was making preparations simply because they were necessary for its defense against invaders, that's not a threat. If its intent was to hint at its capabilities, that could be construed as a threat, but we can only speculate about intent.
.
The "food" thing is just more NGO fake bullshit. The articles covering for USAID are just fake as fuck. There is more than enough food sent to various countries by Christian organizations than USAID had ever sent. All the USAID money was grift and stolen tax money. Half of which went back to blue campaigns. Stop watching MS-13 NOW.
There is more than enough of everything to be sent everywhere and we have something that represents everything, it’s money.
Some people have more of everything than they’ll use in 10,000 lifetimes, others have not enough to pay for their AIDS medication to allow them to survive into their 30’s and beyond.
Why not take some from the people who have more than enough for 10,000 life times to give to others so they can not die to a disease that’s practically curable (AIDS)?
If foreign aid offends you, wait until you find out how much Israel cost every US taxpayer this year. I'm happy to fund WHO research and meteorological efforts that benefit all Americans, but am decidedly less convinced that billions in taxpayer dollars need to flow to a pariah state: https://foreignassistance.gov/cd/israel/
The US spent the equivalent of $710 on each Israeli citizen in 2024 alone. What are we paying for, Ghislaine's court fees?
You'll be happy to learn that Netanyahu favors tapering off US aid, although some US politicians are less enthusiastic.
> What are we paying for
Some very important influence. For example, US thought Israel's Lavi program would compete with F-16, and Israel canceled it. Later it canceled a lucrative Phalcon AEW sale to China, even though Israel had already committed, because of US pressure. Etc.
Both of these are examples of a pattern where Israel's government exploits reasonable doubt to strongarm the US. Israel couldn't afford the Lavi, manufacturing it would be reliant on foreign financing from absurd sources. Similarly, early Israel negotiated away from socialist policies in exchange for "capitalist" aid from the United States. They later threatened nuclear war in 1973 to Nixon to blackmail him into sending more aid. The history of promising absurd outcomes and using it as a negotiation basis is not a healthy (or realistic) way to treat an ally.
At some point, America has to call their bluff. Netanyahyu will be satisfied with decreased aid eventually, but he's clearly using America as his proxy against Iran.
> Israel couldn't afford the Lavi
Israel may not have started the program without US funding, but it was plausible enough to continue without it. After all, the decision to cancel it was only a slim majority, 12–11. If the US position was "we'll stop funding, but feel free to continue the program", it's likely Israel would have continued (at least for some time).
> They later threatened nuclear war in 1973
There was no "threat", just preparations. It's only natural to prepare whatever powerful weapons are available when a state is facing an existential threat and losing.
This is not really addressing my overall point. What you call "lobbying" is clear exploitation, as well as the vast minority of foreign aid sent to Israel.
> it's likely Israel would have continued (at least for some time).
On a skeleton crew, maybe. The sticking point was not research, but manufacturing - Israel would have bankrupted itself buying the jet's supply chain. Hence, I think it is safe to say that the political aspect was a bluff. Israel's only option for financing the jet was a catastrophic break from their allies that they were not willing to commit to.
> There was no "threat", just preparations.
"threat" and "preparation" are not mutually exclusive adjectives.
How is it exploitation when both sides are benefiting? If anything the US may be benefiting more, considering that Trump is keen on continuing the arrangement while Netanyahu is not.
> Israel would have bankrupted itself
The Lavi program in particular wasn't really poised for success, but it's likely Israel would have ended up getting into the defense aerospace industry in one way or another. Even if it never productionized its own fighter jets, it could have contributed a lot more to Chinese or other programs. Israel not working with China (among others) is a big opportunity cost to Israel, and valuable to the US.
> "threat" and "preparation" are not mutually exclusive adjectives.
If Israel was making preparations simply because they were necessary for its defense against invaders, that's not a threat. If its intent was to hint at its capabilities, that could be construed as a threat, but we can only speculate about intent.
[flagged]