Yahoo! Groups
Groups Home - Yahoo! - Account Info - Help

Click Here!
Welcome, Guest Register - Sign In  
* Messages  
  owner = Owner  
  moderator = Moderator  
  online = Online  
Messages Messages Help
 Reply  |  Forward  |  View Source  |  Unwrap Lines 
  Message 18071 of 18104  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index 
 Msg #
From:  Horst Wessel <>
Date:  Tue Sep 4, 2001  4:11 am
Subject:  The Co$t Of UN-Israel

[The Co$t Of UN-Israel To The American People is indeed important, and
let's not forget the cost to Canadian taxpayers, as well as the taxpayers
of Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc.,
etc., etc., who are forced to contribute to the nefarious UN-Israel by
their "guiltified" government puppets.--HW

The Cost Of "Occupied" Israel To The American People
By Richard Curtiss

By now many Americans are aware that Israel, with a population of 
only 5.8 million people, is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign 
aid, and that Israel's aid plus U.S. aid to Egypt's 65 million people 
for keeping the peace with Israel has, for many years, consumed more 
than half of the U.S. bi-lateral foreign aid budget world-wide. 
What few Americans understand however, is the steep price they pay in 
many other fields for the U.S.-Israeli relationship, which in turn is 
a product of the influence of Israel's powerful U.S. lobby on 
American domestic politics and has nothing to do with U.S. strategic 
interests, U.S. national interests, or even with traditional American 
support for self-determination, human rights, and fair play overseas. 
Besides its financial cost, unwavering U.S. support for Israel, 
whether it's right or wrong, exacts a huge price in American prestige 
and credibility overseas. Further, Israel's powerful U.S. lobby has 
been a major factor in delaying campaign finance reform, and also in 
the removal from American political life of some of our most 
distinguished public servants, members of Congress and even 
Finally, the Israel-U.S. relationship has cost a significant number 
of American lives. The incidents in which hundreds of U.S. service 
personnel, diplomats, and civilians have been killed in the Middle 
East have been reported in the media. But the media seldom revisits 
these events, and scrupulously avoids analyzing why they occurred or 
compiling the cumulative toll of American deaths resulting from our 
Israel-centered Middle East policies. 
Each of these four categories of the costs of Israel to the American 
people merits a talk of its own. What follows,therefore, is just an 
overview of such losses. 
First is the financial cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers. Between 1949 
and 1998, the U.S. gave to Israel, with a self-declared population of 
5.8 million people, more foreign aid than it gave to all of the 
countries of sub-Saharan Africa, all of the countries of Latin 
America, and all of the countries of the Caribbean combined - with a 
total population of 1,054,000,000 [One billion 54million] people.
In the 1997 fiscal year, for example, Israel received $3 billion from 
the foreign aid budget, at least $525 million from other U.S. 
budgets, and $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the 1997 total 
of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel was $5.5 billion.
That's $15,068,493 per day, 365 days a year! 
If you add its foreign aid grants and loans, plus the approximate 
totals of grants to Israel from other parts of the U.S. federal 
budget, Israel has received since 1949 a grand total of $84.8 
billion, excluding the $10 billion in U.S. government loan guarantees 
it has drawn to date. 
And if you calculate what the U.S. has had to pay in interest to 
borrow this money to give to Israel, the cost of Israel to U.S. 
taxpayers rises to $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. 
Put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis 
had received from the U.S. government by October 31, 1997, cost 
American taxpayers $23,241 per Israeli. That's $116,205 for every 
Israeli family of five. 
None of these figures include the private donations by Americans to 
Israeli charities, which initially constituted about one quarter of 
Israel's budget, and today approach $1 billion annually. In addition 
to the negative effect of these donations on the U.S. balance of 
payments, the donors also deduct them from their U.S. income taxes, 
creating another large drain on the U.S. treasury. 
Nor do the figures above include any of the indirect financial costs 
of Israel to the United States, which cannot be tallied. One example 
is the cost to U.S. manufacturers of the Arab boycott, surely in the 
billions of dollars by now. Another example is the cost to U.S. 
consumers of the price of petroleum, which surged to such heights 
that it set off a world-wide recession during the Arab oil boycott 
imposed in reaction to U.S. support of Israel in the 1973 war. 
Other examples are a portion of the costs of maintaining large U.S. 
Sixth Fleet naval forces in the Mediterranean, primarily to protect 
Israel, and military air units at the Aviano base in Italy, not to 
mention the staggering costs of frequent deployments to the Arabian 
Peninsula and Gulf area of land and air forces from the United States 
and naval units from the Seventh Fleet, which normally operates in 
the Pacific Ocean. 
Many years ago the late Undersecretary of State George Ball estimated 
the true financial cost of Israel to the United States at $11 billion 
a year. Since then direct U.S. foreign aid to Israel has nearly 
doubled, and simply adjusting that original figure into 1998 dollars 
would send it considerably higher today. 
Next comes the cost of Israel to the international prestige and 
credibility of the United States. Americans seem constantly astounded 
at our foreign policy failures in the Middle East. This stems from a 
profound ignorance of the background of the Israeli-Palestinian 
dispute, which in turn results from a reluctance by the mainstream 
U.S. media to present these facts objectively. 
Toward the end of the 19th century when political Zionism was created 
in Europe, Jews were a tiny fraction of the population of the Holy 
Land, much of which was heavily cultivated and thickly populated, and 
certainly not a desert waiting to be reclaimed by outsiders. 
Even in 1947, after half a century of Zionist immigration and an 
influx of Jewish refugees from Hitler, Jews still constituted only 
one third of the population of the British Mandate of Palestine. Only 
seven percent of the land was Jewish-owned. Yet when the United 
Nations partitioned Palestine in that year, the Jewish state-to-be 
received 53 percent and the Arab state-to-be received only 47 percent 
of the land. Jerusalem was to remain separate under international 
supervision, a "corpus seperatum" in the words of the United Nations. 
One of the myths that many Americans still believe is that the 
initial war between the Arabs and Israelis broke out on May 15, 1948 
when the British withdrew and military units from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq 
and Syria entered Palestine, allegedly because the Arabs had rejected 
a partition plan that the Israelis accepted. 
In fact, the fighting began almost six months earlier, immediately 
after the partition plan was announced. By the time the Arab armies 
intervened in May, some 400,000 Palestinians already had fled or been 
driven from their homes. To the Arab nations the military forces they 
sent to Palestine were on a rescue mission to halt the dispossession 
of Palestinians from the areas the U.N. had awarded to both the 
Jewish and the Palestinian Arab state. In fact history has revealed 
that the Jordanian forces had orders not to venture into areas the 
U.N. had awarded to Israel. 
Although the newly created Israeli government didn't formally reject 
the partition plan, in practice it never accepted the plan. To this 
day, half a century later, Israel still refuses to define its 
In fact, when the fighting of 1947 and 1948 ended, the State of 
Israel occupied half of Jerusalem and 78 percent of the former 
mandate of Palestine. About 750,000 Muslim and Christian Palestinians 
had been driven from towns, villages and homes to which the Israeli 
forces never allowed them to return. 
The four wars that followed, three of them started by Israel in 1956, 
1967, and 1982, and one of them started by Egypt and Syria to recover 
their occupied lands in 1973, have been over the portions of Lebanon, 
Syria, Jordan and Egypt which the Israelis occupied militarily in 
those wars, the other half of Jerusalem, and the 22 percent of 
Palestine - comprising the West Bank and Gaza - which is all that 
remains for the Palestinians. 
It is the unwillingness of successive U.S. governments to acknowledge 
these historical facts, and adjust U.S. Middle East policies to right 
these wrongs, that has resulted in such a devastating loss of 
international credibility. Americans, who once were identified with 
the modern schools, universities and hospitals they had established 
throughout the Middle East starting more than 150 years ago, now are 
identified with U.S. misuse of its veto in the United Nations to 
condone Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinians 
living in the lands Israel has seized by force. The Israeli 
occupation violates the preface to the United Nations Charter banning 
the acquisition of territory by war. What the Israeli government has 
been doing in the occupied territories also violates the Fourth 
Geneva convention, which forbids the transfer of populations to or 
from such areas. 
Governments of Middle Eastern countries which once looked to the 
United States as their protectors from European colonialism, now find 
it very difficult to justify maintaining cordial relations with the 
United States at all. Friendly Arab governments are jeopardized by 
their U.S. alliances, and the fall of one, the Hashemite Kingdom of 
Iraq, was directly attributable to its premature withdrawal of its 
armed forces from Palestine during the 1948 fighting, and its 
subsequent membership in a military alliance with the U.S. and 
Even our European and Asian allies have joined in deploring the 
perpetual American tilt toward Israel. In a recent vote on a U.N. 
General Assembly resolution calling upon Israel to curb further 
encroachments on Palestinian lands by Jewish settlers, only the 
United States and Micronesia voted with Israel. Of the 185 U.N. 
member nations, all of the others, without exception, voted against 
Israel or abstained. 
Yet Americans seem oblivious to such examples of how their Israel-
centered Middle East policies are isolating the United States in the 
Next is the cost of Israel to the American domestic political system. 
In December 1997, Fortune magazine asked professional lobbyists to 
select the most powerful special interest group in the United States. 
They chose the American Association of Retired Persons, which lobbies 
on behalf of all Americans over 60. 
In second place, however, was the American Israel Public Affairs 
Committee, Israel's official Washington, D.C. lobby, with a $15 
million budget - the sources of which AIPAC refuses to disclose - and 
150 employees. AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the 
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a 
roof group set up to coordinate the efforts on behalf of Israel of 
some 52 national Jewish organizations. 
Among those organizations are groups such as B'nai B'rith's Anti-
Defamation League (ADL), with a $45 million budget, and Hadassah, the 
Zionist women's group, which spends more than AIPAC and sends 
thousands of Americans every year to Israel on Israeli government-
supervised visits. 
Both AIPAC and the ADL maintain secret "opposition research" 
departments which compile files on politicians, journalists, 
academics and organizations, and circulate this information through 
local Jewish community councils to pro-Israel groups and activists in 
order to damage the reputations of those who dare to speak out and 
thus have been blackballed as "enemies of Israel." In the case of 
ADL, police raids on the organization's Los Angeles and San Francisco 
offices established that much of the information they had compiled 
was erroneous, and thus slanderous, and some also was illegally 
In the case of AIPAC, this is not the organization's most 
controversial activity. In the 1970s members of AIPAC's national 
board of directors set out to form deceptively named local political 
action committees (PACs) which could coordinate their efforts in 
supporting candidates in federal elections. To date, at least 126 pro-
Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 PACs, like 
AIPAC, can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent and who 
has voted according to AIPAC recommendations up to half a million 
dollars. That's enough money to buy all the television time needed to 
get elected in most parts of the country. 
What is totally unique about AIPAC's network of political action 
committees is that they all have deceptive names. Who could possibly 
know that the Delaware Valley PAC in Philadelphia, San Franciscans 
for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Chili PAC 
in New Mexico, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin and even Ice PAC in New York 
are really pro-Israel PACs. So just as no other special interest can 
put so much hard money into any candidate's election campaign as can 
the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such 
elaborate lengths to hide its tracks. 
Some of America's wisest and most distinguished public servants have 
been kept from higher office by the blackballing of the Israel lobby. 
One such leader was George Ball, who served the Kennedy 
administration as Under Secretary of State and the Johnson 
administration as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Given his 
unmatched brilliance in forecasting international developments, there 
is no doubt that he would have become secretary of state had he not 
publicly expressed the skepticism about the U.S. relationship with 
Israel which most Americans involved in foreign affairs privately 
In membership meetings which journalists are not allowed to attend, 
AIPAC presidents have boasted that the organization was responsible 
for the defeats of two of history's most distinguished chairmen of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Democrat J. William 
Fulbright of Arkansas and Republican Charles Percy of Illinois. The 
list of other senators and House members for whose election defeats 
AIPAC takes credit is too long to recount. 
There is good evidence also that had it not been for complex 
maneuvers by the Israel lobby, including encouragement of third party 
candidates and unrelenting partisanship by pro-Israeli syndicated 
columnists and other media figures, Democratic President Jimmy Carter 
probably would have been reelected in 1980, and Republican President 
George Bush almost certainly would have been reelected in 1992. 
The cost to our political system of losing national figures who 
refused to allow U.S. domestic political interests to dictate U.S. 
foreign policy has been enormous. So long as AIPAC and other powerful 
lobbies continue to thwart meaningful efforts on behalf of campaign 
finance reform, Americans will continue unknowingly paying such 
Finally, there is the cost of Israel in American lives. References to 
the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the USS Liberty 
in which 34 Americans were killed and 171 wounded on the fourth day 
of the Six-Day War of June 1967 often are met by disbelief. Very few 
Americans seem to have heard of the attack on the ship operated by 
the U.S. Navy for the National Security Agency to monitor Israel and 
Arab military communications during the fighting. 
The Israeli government claimed it was a case of mistaken identity. 
The members of the crew and other naval officers who were stationed 
in the Mediterranean and in Washington at the time state that it was 
a deliberate attempt to sink the ship and blame Egyptian forces for 
the disaster. It is the only such event in U.S. Naval history the 
cause of which has never been formally investigated either by 
Congress or by the Navy itself. 
Major losses of American lives at the hands of Arab forces opposing 
Israel are better known. These include the loss of 141 U.S. service 
personnel in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 
1984. They also include the loss of xx U.S. diplomats and xxx local 
employees of the U.S. government in two bombings of the American 
Embassy in Beirut. Other such events include the bombing of the U.S. 
Embassy in Kuwait, the taking of U.S. hostages in Beirut of whom 
three were killed, the deaths of Americans in a series of Middle East 
related skyjackings, the deaths of 19 U.S. service personnel in the 
bombing of the Al Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the 1997 
assassination of four U.S. accountants working for an American 
company in Karachi. 
All of these incidents, and many more in which Americans have died, 
resulted directly from one-sided U.S. support for Israel in its 
refusal to participate in the land-for-peace settlement with the 
Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors envisioned in U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 242. The U.S. has given lip service to that 
resolution since November, 1967. But in practice the U.S. has done 
nothing to force Israel to comply, even though the resolution has 
been accepted by the members of the League of Arab States. That U.S. 
hypocrisy fuels rage and frustration throughout the Middle East and 
South Asia which will continue to take a toll of American lives until 
Israel finally gives back the lands it occupied in 1967, or the U.S. 
stops subsidizing Israeli intransigence. 
Claims that there are positive aspects of the U.S.-Israeli 
relationship seldom stand up to scrutiny. During the Reagan 
administration it was labeled for the first time a "strategic 
relationship" conferring benefits on the U.S. as well as on Israel. 
The idea that Israel - smaller in both area and population than Hong 
Kong - can offer the United States benefits sufficient to offset the 
hostility that relationship arouses among 250 million Arabs living in 
a 4,000-mile strategic swath of territory stretching from Morocco to 
Oman is ludicrous. It becomes even more ludicrous when one realizes 
that the relationship also has alienated another 750 million Muslims 
who, together with the Arabs, control more than 60 percent of the 
world's proven oil and gas reserves. 
Apologists for Israel also describe the U.S.-Israeli cooperation in 
weapons development. The fact is that the one or two successful joint 
weapons programs have been largely U.S. financed, while for their 
part the Israelis have repeatedly sold to rogue nations U.S. weapons 
turned over at no cost to Israel. 
It is a sad but proven fact that the Israeli government also has 
obtained secret U.S. military technology which Israel has sold to 
other countries. For example, after the U.S. sent Patriot missile 
defense batteries on an emergency basis to help defend Israel during 
the Gulf War, the Israelis seem to have sold the Patriot missile 
technology to China, according to the U.S. State Department's 
inspector general. As a result, the U.S. has been forced to develop a 
whole new generation of missile technology able to penetrate the 
defenses China has developed as a result of the Israeli treachery. 
Perhaps the most hypocritical rationalization offered by friends of 
Israel is that U.S. special treatment is justified because Israel 
is "the Middle East's only working democracy" and that Israel and the 
U.S. have many basic institutions in common. In fact, Israeli 
democracy does not work for non-Jews. In contrast to the United 
States, where by law all citizens have equal rights regardless of 
religion or ethnic origin, Muslim and Christian citizens of Israel do 
not have equal rights with regards to military service, the extensive 
social benefits available to veterans of Israeli military service, or 
even in terms of Israeli tax rates imposed on Arab citizens and 
Israeli government expenditures in Arab communities within Israel. 
Further, Israeli citizenship is not available to the Muslim and 
Christian Palestinians driven from their homes in Israel in 1948, nor 
to their descendants. But a Jew, born anywhere in the world, can have 
Israeli citizenship for the asking. 
Perhaps most shocking is the little-known fact that by now 90 percent 
of the land in Israel proper is held under restrictive covenants 
barring non-Jews, even those with Israeli citizenship, from owning 
the land or from earning a living on it. Unfortunately, the land held 
under such covenants is increasing, not decreasing. It would be 
difficult,therefore, to find two countries more profoundly different 
in their approaches to basic questions of citizenship and civil and 
human rights as are the United States and Israel. 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

•· Die Wahrheit zu sagen, ist eine Verantwortung Dir selbst und anderen
•· Es ist eine Ehre, eine Pflicht und Dein Vermächtnis für die
nachfolgenden Generationen.
•· Es ist ein Teil ihres rechtmäßigem Erbes.  
“HorstWessel” ~~~~––~~~~ ä † ö ~~~~––~~~~ von 1470 A.D.™©®

  Message 18071 of 18104  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message Index 
 Msg #
 Reply  |  Forward  |  View Source  |  Unwrap Lines   

Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help