US/Israeli military supply relations – Symbiosis or parasitism?


"The biggest element of US-Israeli military-technical cooperation is military aid. Israel is the main recipient of US military aid in the form of grants and direct deliveries of equipment on advantageous terms. Since 1976, Israel has been the biggest recipient of annual US aid, and since 1987 of US military aid. In addition, by some estimates Israel receives $1 billion a year in the form of charity contributions, and a similar sum through short- and long-term funds. US provide aid to Israel in various forms: Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Excess Defense Articles, and also funds to support research and development. Moreover, the Foreign Military Financing program implemented by the US Department of State has become, over the years, the largest of all such programs implemented by the US. One should note that, for example, out of $5.7 billion budgeted for this program in 2014, $3.1 went to Israel, In other words, Israel obtains more military assistance through this program than the rest of the world combined. This sum does not include the financing for Israel’s ABM programs, which are estimated at another $500 million. Unlike other programs, FMF allows Israel to spend up to 25% of US-provided funding on own military programs. All other countries receiving military aid must spend it only on US weapons and equipment."  SF


IMO it is debatable as to which side is the donkey in the US/Israeli military relationship.  In my experience as the head DoD liaison to IDF general staff intelligence (7 years worth), "what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well."  I was an SES then with the spigot to intelligence largesse in my hand and I found them to be completely bloody minded about sharing information with the US.  To get anything from them was like pulling molars without anesthetic. 

I don't doubt that US government gifts to Israel benefit American defense industry, but these gifts come right out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and what do we get for it?  Is it salved conscience for FDR's unwillingness to open the floodgates to European Jewry during WW2? Perhaps that is so or is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress? 

Israeli forces are in no way at the disposition of the US.  They are not assets of American policy.  Israel sees itself as an self-defining island in the world and the only real home for Jews.  As such it thinks it cannot afford to be sentimental about any predominately gentile state, in other words, all others.

And then, there is the repeated phenomenon of Israel either skirting the provisions of proprietary agreements about equipment sales or shared R&D or simply outright violations of these agreements in sales to third parties.

No, there is no doubt, we are the ass. Hee Haw!  pl

This entry was posted in Israel. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to US/Israeli military supply relations – Symbiosis or parasitism?

  1. Peter says:

    You nailed it – the US is definitely the ass
    One wonders when young American troops will stop dying for Israel

  2. SmoothieX12 says:

    Ehhez nem kell semmit hozzáfűzni.
    But why in Hungarian? Not that I mind it–my Omega collection is purely in Hungarian, I do not like their English-language versions. Ezüst eső simply doesn’t sound that good in English. Per subject matter: Egyetért.

  3. b says:

    Notes from a speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist Movement Conference November 2017, Washington, DC
    “The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organization”

  4. Klaus Weiß says:

    FDR’s unwillingness? According to Alfred M. Lilienthal (“The Zionist Connection. What Price Peace?”, pp. 35 f.), it was the Jewish lobby that prevented a legislation enabling the immigration of the doomed.

  5. Kooshy says:

    Colonel in my understanding, this is an arrangement made in havens, a Judeo-Christian marriage with vows made not to separate till death, a at least that’s how the groom thinks.

  6. Lemur says:

    Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism. Predatory rent seeking minorities, protected by the liberal mind virus, leveraging the power structure for their own gain.
    And its not limited to just Jews. Even whites who originated further away from the largely northern European founding stock of the US play their little games. Few know concentrations of Poles in key swing states like Ohio have extracted significant concessions from various presidential campaigns on the matter of Eastern European foreign policy. This was why when unapologetic WASPs ruled the United States, they were highly selective of who could come in, and ruthlessly stamped out any value systems and cultural traits distinct from new world Anglo norms. America was never a ‘melting pot’ as a London based Jew tried to claim in the early 20th century in his hack play. It was an Anglo run forge which inducted selected adjacent groups who could be assimilated into to the whig Anglo tradition.

  7. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Please do not fall for this Judeo-Christian wording that aims to obfuscate the fundamental incompatiblity of these 2 religions.

  8. turcopolier says:

    “enough to get a better glimpse of the dynamic..” Grudging. What would you think “a lot? pl

  9. Poul says:

    A never ending “Marshall Plan” for Israel of about 1% of Israel’s GDP. They don’t need the money but as long as the USA can pay it’s nice.
    I think the access to American technology is of greater importance. A lot of R&D cost can be avoided and there is a great potential for weapons sales.

  10. Not to mention the blatant theft of US nuclear materials in support of their nuclear weapons program.
    Not to mention they are always on the FBI’s list of the countries most engaged in espionage against the US.
    The FBI was up in arms over the fact that Israeli firms were operating the US communications eavesdropping equipment until they got caught selling intercept information to California drug dealers.
    Israel has learned that the best way to spy on other countries is to be the country selling those countries all the surveillance equipment.
    Not to mention Israel’s hacking ability. The latest Russiagate nonsense involved the kaspersky Labs, an infosec company, being hacked by Israel who then claimed Kaspersky was connected to Russian intelligence. This resulted in the US banning Kaspersky products inside the US government and severely hurt Kaspersky’s business model.
    Not to mention their agents knew all about 9/11 prior to the attack and waited until a couple weeks before to mention it to US intelligence, as a means of CYA. Their agents actually filmed the attack from New Jersey while high-fiving themselves.
    Not to mention they were involved in “false flag” terrorist attacks against Western targets until they got caught at it.
    Not to mention the USS Liberty, a flagrant attack on a US intelligence ship with the expressed purpose of killing every US sailor on board.
    The list of Israeli aggression against the US is long and sickening. It should be considered treason to support that country in any way.

  11. J says:

    So is our U.S. becoming a more police state atmosphere like Israel? The same Israel where censorship and the state message rule the day, seems is being passed onto our U.S.. U.S. taxpayer funded startup GOOGLE is now on-board to become America’s censor. Was British Author George Orwell looking into a crystal ball when he created the writing “1984”? Hmmm..
    Why not let the American people do their own censoring, where if they don’t like the internet message (RT,Sputnik, Russian news), they can change the subject or move on to something they are more interested in.
    I’d say the parasitical more than the symbiosis is the meme.
    America’s police being trained in Israeli tactics of force upon the unarmed, the Israeli tactics to dehumanize is now percolating within U.S. law enforcement tactics and employment methods, is also spreading to thought and message control.

  12. mikee says:

    Perhaps there is a clue hidden in the choice of words?

  13. mikee says:

    I certainly hope you have some evidence to support all of these claims, particularly the 9-11 claim. Will be waiting with baited breath.

  14. mikee says:

    I believe Google has been doing this for quite some time. The information is there but you must make an effort to find it, and assess its factualness. The only thing Schmidt is doing is prioritizing Western propaganda over Russian propaganda.

  15. mikee says:

    Perhaps the body count has not reached the required threshold.

  16. The Porkchop Express says:

    This was one of the scariest things I noticed traveling in Israel/Palestine around 2006-2008. Just about every draconian security measure was used as part of daily life. They’ve since become common place in the US now all as a result of the same need to “fight terrorism.”
    That US police forces send delegations to Israel to learn about policing tactics are also worrisome.
    Tail truly wags the dog here. Maybe not overall but certainly as far as foreign policy/middle east/constant need for an enemy are concerned.

  17. mikee says:

    Are you ‘Rapture Ready’? ( )
    Focuses on the end times, Israel and now the Saudis, not necessarily in any order of importance. And damn India – they’ve cancelled a $500 million missile deal with Israel .

  18. mikee says:

    “Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism.” I believe diversity and multicultuarlism may be a superior counterbalance to your ‘rent seeking minorities’, Perhaps this nation needs some new blood to help ‘drain the swamp’.

  19. J says:

    The IC have lost it IMO letting Amazon have the keys to the kingdom.
    Question is, will Israel be given a copy set of keys, if not you can safely say they’ll try and get into it by other means. Which means by the IC using cloud, they’ll be giving the keys to the kingdom to both Moscow and Beijing.

  20. Crosley Bendix says:

    A long time ago I worked at Collins in Cedar Rapids in the GPS group. My boss at the time was head of R&D. He told me that when the Israelis came to town they were almost impossible to work with since they were constantly trying to steal intellectual property and classified material. Other foreign nationals would occasionally try something but they never tried to get away anything near what the Israelis did. As I’m sure that many of your readers would be aware of GPS is crucial to communication security.

  21. mikee says:

    Never forget that a Palestinian and an Israeli put their pants on the same way that you do. That’s the way I try to look at the inhabitants of this world. In my heart I’m hoping that most Israelis would agree

  22. mikee says:

    Go to Breitbart or other Zionist supporting websites and ask the same question. Only frame it differently i.e. ‘When will Israel start fighting it’s own wars?’

  23. Willybilly says:

    They will suck the last drop of blood from USA, then they will move out to better heavens…. They have already started moving lots and lots of funds and assets out of the USA…., for in their schemes, the US is nearing a breaking point to the worst…

  24. Peter AU says:

    The two major problems your country faces as an independent country are Saudi money, and Gods chosen people (according to the bible).
    Saudi money is corruption legalised.
    Israel – many people of influence in the US seem to give their loyalty to Israel rather than the US, for I guess religious reasons.
    Be interesting to see how much Saudi “sponsorship” money flows into the US after the MBS corruption enquiries. Israel is a harder nut to crack. A bit of chemo in the US required?

  25. Perer Reichard says:

    The Zionist Connection is a wonderful eye opening book that completely turned my thinking around when I first read it 39 years ago. Highly recommended.

  26. Heros von Borcke says:

    When I claimed that Nato was little more than the Rothschild Army I was lambasted here. If the US military, which has control of Nato, is the ass of the Donkey, then what does that make Nato? Somehow every Nato secretary ends up being a Zionist/Neocon too, so the control is clearly complete.
    In 1917, the Balfour declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who simultaneously was instigating the Russian Revolution and the murder of his sworn enemy, the czar.
    The point here is that Israel, more than anything else, is a creation of the House of Rothschild and during the decades of its creation there were numerous Jews who were rabidly opposed to the false claims of biblical justification. This is one reason why there are dozens of fake claims in the Zionist dominated newspapers of “6,000,000 dead Jews” starting in the pogroms of the late 1890’s until they finally found a holocaust that they could make stick to use to justify land theft and extortion.
    And extortion is the point here. Not only the US is being extorted for a few billion every year, other countries are forced to make massive extortion payoff’s too. Switzerland and Sweden were forced to pay billions due to their having traded with Germany during the war and having accepted “nazi gold”. Merkel famously gifted diesel-electric submarines to Israel, on top of the tribute that Germany still pays yearly.
    There are dozens of ways that Israel, and jews in general, extort money from gentiles in forms of special jew taxes. One of these is the OU kosher certification which many manufacturers are forced to provide.

  27. Peter Reichard says:

    The Lavi fighter saga epitomizes the perverse nature of US-Israeli relations. The US offered over a billion dollars for its R&D, 250 million to be spent in Israel. The primary beneficiary was IAI a company which illegally tried to sell its Kfir jet to Peru in direct competition with Northrup, illegal because the Kfir’s GE J-79 engines came free of charge and with an End User Certificate preventing their re-export. Informed of this Congress responded by increasing the Israeli largess to 450 million. In the end Israel decided not to build the plane but sold the plans to the Chinese whose J-10 aircraft, their first home-grown state of the art fighter, while not a part for part copy does bear a striking resemblance to the Lavi. Both the British and American aviation press claim the J-10 could not have been built as quickly and cheaply as it was without Israeli help. With friends like these …..

  28. gaikokumaniakku says:

    >is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress?
    Mostly it is about the bribery. To some degree it is about the blackmail. If Hillary gets convicted for uranium – or pizza trafficking – perhaps the extent of corruption will become widely known, and perhaps the populace will be moved to wrath.

  29. Poul says:

    Smart policy move from India? Leave Israel wanting to get back into India’s good graces with some extra technology transfers. My impression is that India plays Israel well on arms tech. Get as much as they can with as little in return as possible. Don’t the US sometimes put their foot down and blocks an arms deal.
    “India has become one of Israel’s largest buyers of military hardware, with annual defense deals worth over $1b.
    “Usually, all the [defense] deals between Israel and India included some technology transfer, which India could not get anywhere else in Europe or America,” said Shapir. “As long as we can supply better technology on better terms, India will welcome it.” He added that relations could deteriorate again, due to India’s strong ties to Iran and much of the Arab world.”

  30. Bob Smith says:

    Once Israel has sucked America dry . . got them in a strangle hold in National debt, bought out all Corporations that are profitable and useful for their cause . . and all the time Americans believe Israel is doing them a favour in the Middle East.
    Remember that’s what the Russians believed, the British, the German, the French, the Arabs & the Turks believed. Now its China’s turn . . now their done with the U.S. . . how long or how deep in debt must you go before you wake up America and how many Goyim children must die for these Talmudists. Work it out . .

  31. All,
    The notes from the recent speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist Conference which were published under the title ‘The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organisation’ are I think very interesting – thanks to ‘b’ for the link.
    (See .)
    I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly sceptical is her description of ‘the British’ as ‘our other best friend in the world’. This may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing ‘neoconservative’ and ‘neoliberal’ policies the leaderships of both major parties have drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already turning antisemitic, and may become much more so.
    It was also interesting that Ms Bryen relied extensively on the views of our former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, given that he has little understanding of the attitudes of people in this country outside the narrow circles in which it appears he moves.
    In September 2016, he gave a speech to the European Parliament entitled ‘The Mutating Virus: Understanding Antisemitism’, in which it was claimed that: ‘Antisemitism is not about Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their own failures and have instead to blame someone else.’
    (See .)
    A short answer to this is that ‘anti-semitism’ is not a single thing, and to use the experience of the Shoah as establishing that it is never, at any place and time, related to what Jews themselves do is not only stupid but reckless. If one has decided in advance that any resentment purportedly provoked by one’s actions and attitudes has nothing to do with them, one will have no means of avoiding doing things that may provoke resentment.
    As a matter of fact, Rabbi Sachs habitually talks in ways that raise the hackles of many people who have no predisposition whatsoever to scapegoat Jews. In the conclusion to a piece he published in May 2015, under the title ‘We never forget Jerusalem’, we read:
    ‘We have had the privilege to be born in a generation that has seen Jerusalem reunited and rebuilt. We have seen the Jewish people come home.
    ‘Today God is calling on us all to be Guardians of Zion. Never has this been more important. We must all stand up for the one home our people has ever known and the one city our people has loved more than any other. We are all shagrirey medinat Yisrael (ambassadors for the State of Israel) and we must all make Israel’s case in a world that sometimes fails to see the beauty we know is here. Let us all take on that task. With Hashem’s help, we will succeed and we pray may the world make its peace with Israel so that Israel and Israel’s God can bring peace to the world.’
    (See .)
    In a couple of paragraphs, Rabbi Sachs has done a number of things:
    1. He has raised a rather large question as to whether, in his Zionist conception, most of the Jews I have admired and learned from are really Jews at all. Take Osip Mandelstam, one of the greatest of Russian Christian poets, whose ode denouncing Stalin cost him his life (apparently, Yagoda – a rather different kind of Jew – knew it by heart.) In another poem, Mandelstam wrote ‘We shall meet again, in Petersburg, as though we had buried the sun there’. I was reminded of those lines when visiting a schoolfriend of my late mother’s, and seeing the walls of the house her father – a secular Jew who had fled the Bolshevik Revolution – still covered with prints of St. Petersburg.
    And then there was the great French historian Marc Bloch, who shouted ‘Vive la France!’ as he and his Resistance comrades faced a Gestapo firing squad in June 1944, having told the teenage boy next to him it wouldn’t hurt. From his classic study ‘Strange Defeat’:
    ‘I was born in France, I have drunk the waters of her culture. I have made her past my own. I breathe freely only in her climate, and I have done my best, with others, to defend her interests.’
    It would be easy to multiply examples among Jews, from many countries – in particular Germany – including some refugees and their children I have known personally. But it is not really clear whether, in the view of Rabbi Sachs, such people can be classed as Jews.
    2. If indeed a Jew living outside Israel follows the Chief Rabbi, sees that country as home, and loves Jerusalem with the passion evident in the passage I have quoted, then it is simply silly to suggest that questions raised about his or her loyalty to the country in which he or she lives can be dismissed as scapegoating.
    In fact, multiple and complex loyalties are perfectly natural and normal, and as long as the different loyalties are not perceived as being in conflict, can be completely unproblematic. When they are so perceived, the results can be tragic.
    Where the compatibility of different loyalties is in question, however, it is peculiarly foolish to dismiss those who believe there are real tensions as simply engaged in scapegoating – and if anything even worse to define the interests of both countries in ways that suggest they are identical, when the wish may be becoming father of the thought. (Doing this has led ‘neoconservatives’ to produce dubious definitions of Israeli interests, as well as American.)
    To suggest that the grounds on which I and many others have opposed British policy over Iraq and Syria – and also Ukraine and Russia – have anything whatsoever to do with a dislike of Jews is complete BS, and makes people angry.
    While some of the most cogent critics of those policies have been Jewish, it is a fact that very many of the most influential champions of them have been, and this championship has in many cases quite clearly reflected both Zionist commitment and Jewish trauma. Simply to suggest that Israel and its lobbies in Britain and the United States have sought peace, and others have caused war, as Rabbi Sachs implies, is infantile.
    So if you ask me candidly whether I regard Rabbi Sachs as unequivocally loyal to this country – or indeed, journalists like Jonathan Freedland, Gideon Rachman, Martin Wolf, or David Aaronovitch, to take a few among many – then of course I do not.
    The whole tenor of Rabbi Sachs’s speech to the European Parliament is premised upon the assumption that people like me would regard Jews leaving as tragic. If however things continue along present lines, he may have the shock of his life, when people finally shrug their shoulders, and say: ‘If you want to go, what’s stopping you?’
    3. The reason why the world ‘sometimes fails to see the beauty we know is here’ in Israel is, to be blunt, that many people cannot see any beauty whatsoever in Benjamin Netanyahu. And it goes far beyond that.
    Take a look, for example, at the annual lists of the 50 most influential Jews produced by the ‘Jerusalem Post’ – the criterion, apparently, relating to ‘the power to shape his or her community and surrounding communities.’ This year’s top three: Jared Kushner/Ivanka, Gail Gadot, Benjamin Netanyahu; last year’s, Haim Saban, Benjamin Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson; for 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu, Janet Yellen, Jack Lew.
    There does seem here to be both a Jewish and American tragedy – that there is commonly an inverse correlation among Jews in the United States, and also increasingly in Britain, between genuine ability and influence.
    So, for example, Stephen F. Cohen, whose book on Bukharin was actually an event in Russian history, and who has a record of being right about developments in the post-Soviet space, is widely reviled as a ‘Putin apologist.’ Meanwhile, Julia Ioffe, who is stupid and nasty, is treated as an expert on Russia at the Aspen Security Forum.
    In this situation, to dismiss the convictions of people who think that Jews have too much influence as scapegoating is, again, simply silly. The wrong Jews do.
    4. Particularly counter-productive is a form of sleazy dishonesty which is well exemplified by the conclusion to the passage from Rabbi Sachs which Shoshana Bryen quotes.
    He argues that the notion of covenant is presupposed by the line in the Declaration of Independence that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” And he then goes on to say that: ‘They are self-evident only to people who have internalized the Hebrew Bible.’
    A great deal more could be said about this. A salient point, however, is that a key part of the backlash on both sides of the Atlantic relates a radicalisation of the individualism expressed in the Declaration.
    This abstract universalism now often expresses itself in hostility to whites and to the traditional cultures of many ‘old settler’ Americans – and there are similar processes visible on this side of the Atlantic. A central manifestation of this is enthusiasm for unrestricted immigration, which is, to my mind, lunatic.
    Leaving that aside, however, there is a growing perception – and a justified one – that many influential Jews are happy to side with those who attack what one might call traditional white Christian ‘tribal’ identities, while assuming that the ‘Shoah’ gives Jews an indefinite right to the preservation of a Jewish tribal identity.
    This ‘having your cake and eating it too’ performance is not sustainable. More and more of us, I think, are looking forward to the moment when, say, Bret Stephens and David Brooks pen a thundering editorial in the ‘New York Times’, saying ‘Mr Prime Minister – Tear Down that Wall.’

  32. Babak Makkinejad says:

    But what did Rotschild gain from the wars of disintegrate of Yugoslavia?
    Or from NATO’s march East, towards W.W.3?

  33. rjj says:

    Extrapolating from the above mentioned list of 50, a list of 100 would include Bernie Madow and Leona Helmsley.
    It’s agitprop — bait.

  34. rjj says:

    Seems to me the Jewish predicament is that they number 15 million in a world with 1.3 and 1.4 billion Indians and Chinese respectively. Am guessing this is experienced as a threat to their post-ww2 intellectual, cultural, and economic supremacy.
    All living organisms at all levels of organization have survival strategies for overcoming disadvantage. See Darwin and/or Adler and/or Clausewitz and/or Kautilya for different but similar — variations on a theme — descriptions of how that goes.

  35. outthere says:

    as usual, your analysis is provocative and I mostly agree, but you say
    “to dismiss the convictions of people who think that Jews have too much influence as scapegoating is, again, simply silly. The wrong Jews do.”
    In my view, Jews do have too much influence over the government of the USA, but it is NOT just a matter of “the wrong jews” as you state.
    Consider the Supreme Court, where 3 of 9 justices are jews, also noteworthy that 5 are catholic. Gorsuch is the 9th, and he was raised catholic but became an episcopalian. Until Gorsuch was appointed, there were no protestants on the Court, none, zero.
    And of course there are no atheists, or muslims or buddhists or hindus.
    I do not fault the jewish members of the Court, rather I ask for analysis of how this small minority of perhaps 2% came to occupy one third of the seats of the Court.
    And catholics with 22% of the population, hold 5 of 9 seats on the Court.
    Perhaps the answer is there are no intelligent articulate protestants in the USA?? I don’t think that is the answer.

  36. A sampling…
    Four Part Series Carl Cameron Israeli Spies in U.S.
    9/11 – Whar Was Israel’s Role?
    9/11 Suspects: Dancing Israelis
    The Apollo Affair
    How Israel Stole the Bomb
    Lavon Affair
    There’s more – Google is your friend.

  37. outthere says:

    Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections
    Washington – Which Nation is Really Interfering in the Electoral Process?

  38. SmoothieX12 says:

    Meanwhile, Julia Ioffe, who is stupid and nasty, is treated as an expert on Russia at the Aspen Security Forum.
    Far from being an exception, Ioffe is a typical representative of the American (meaning Soviet-Russian Jewish immigration) so called Russia “scholarship” and “expertdom”. Masha Gessen is another highly quoted and referred to “expert” on Russia, same goes for Herirage’s Ariel Cohen–the guy is a jike. This IS the level of American Russia “expertdom”. Having said that, there is another side to this “expertise”–it was and still is in demand and not by American Jews only.

  39. rjj says:

    how old are the Catholics and where did they go to school? I know Google is my friend.

  40. Will.2718 says:

    Obama’s SC justice nominee Merrick Brian Garland would have made it 4/9. Nobody seemed to care. An appointed SC should reflect America, that’s just my opinion.

  41. MRW says:

    What ?!?
    Colonel, this a-hole can get away with this claim? She’s allowed to make this statement without some military condemnation of any sort?

  42. MRW says:

    Exactly. The stuff they wrap around FDR and blame him for is BS.

  43. MRW says:

    Yeah. Judeo-Christian is 20th C BS designed by Jerry Falwell and his ilk.
    Menachem Begin wanted to get around Jimmy Carter and stop any upcoming agreements between Israel and Palestine–should Carter have won a second term–so he decided to hook up with Jerry Falwell (starting 1979) and only communicate with Reagan through Falwell and Falwell’s new magic red phone to the White House. How the Evangelicals and Christian Right won power.
    There was no compatibility between the two religions. Begin said it should be ridding the world of homosexuality. Falwell said he and his group could agree on that.
    They fashioned Judeo-Christian to deal with all this. Babak is right.

  44. MRW says:

    “I certainly hope you have some evidence to support all of these claims, particularly the 9-11 claim.”
    Oh fercrissake, mikee, you’re years out of the touch. The info was on TV the day of 9/11, for one thing. The woman who saw them and called the police described the high-fiving act with the lighters to cops and reporters.
    Israeli TV said the Israeli team had “gone to NYC to film the event.” Their words. This was of course before 9/11 ever happened.
    Keeping waiting with baited breath. You’re over a decade out of touch. Richardstevenhack doesn’t owe you anything.

  45. MRW says:

    “In my heart I’m hoping that most Israelis would agree”
    Not a chance. Naive.

  46. turcopolier says:

    This is not a public forum. you are my guests. My reasons for not posting something have been stated many times. If I find something you write offensive I don’t post it. pl

  47. Yeah, Right says:

    “A never ending “Marshall Plan” for Israel of about 1% of Israel’s GDP.”
    That is not the correct measure.
    Military expenditure is a line-item in a government budget, which is a statement that is as true in Israel as it is in any country.
    US military aid accounts for over 25% of the Israel budget allocation to the IDF (total is 70.7 billion shekels, of which 18.5 billion shekels is US aid i.e. only 52.2 billion shekels comes from Israeli government revenue).
    So, a simple question: could any country suffer a 25% cut in its military budget and not notice?
    The simple answer is “no”, military effectiveness would be gutted by such a shortfall.
    The amount of US military aid to Israel is chicken-feed to the USA, but never forget that it is the life-blood of the IDF and without it the IDF would be decidedly second-rate.

  48. rjj says:

    “Judeo-Christian” was first used in 1847.

  49. fanto says:

    …”more parasitical than the symbiosis…”
    look at the gauging of consumers of medications by the company TEVA

  50. jpb says:

    Hay Mikee,
    Christopher Bollyn DC 9/11/2017 ” The War on Terror Among the Truth Seekers” has plenty of evidence and dares to examine capability, motive, and evidence at:

  51. Will.2718 says:

    it was obviously copied from the Ancient Egyptians along with monotheism.
    “The earliest historical record of circumcision comes from Egypt, in the form of an image of the circumcision of an adult carved into the tomb of Ankh-Mahor at Saqqara, dating to about 2400–2300 BCE. Circumcision was done by the Egyptians possibly for hygienic reasons, but also was part of their obsession with purity and was associated with spiritual and intellectual development. No well-accepted theory explains the significance of circumcision to the Egyptians, but it appears to have been endowed with great honor and importance as a rite of passage into adulthood, performed in a public ceremony emphasizing the continuation of family generations and fertility. It may have been a mark of distinction for the elite: the Egyptian Book of the Dead describes the sun god Ra as having circumcised himself.”

  52. Tony Wikrent says:

    I’m rather surprised to find no reactions to Howard Blum’s article in Vanity Fair a few days ago.

  53. turcopolier says:

    Tony Wikrent
    If a government passes intelligence to the head of state of a foreign state, they should expect that he will do with it what he pleases in the game of nations. pl

  54. Decameron says:

    JINSA and Shoshana Bryen are again cashing in on their investment in US military with a blueprint for re-escalating the war in Syria by means of US blood and treasure. Thanks for providing her comments.
    For JINSA’s plan, see

  55. Tony Wikrent says:

    Well, thanks. Realpolitik I understand. What Trump’s game is (or what Trump thinks the game is), I don’t understand. And, to be precise, I was hoping someone would render a confirmation, condemnation, or qualification of what Blum wrote. His article struck as basically true, but I think it odd so many details were aired in public, and that the forum was Vanity Fair.

  56. turcopolier says:

    Tony Wikrent
    Trump is playing the game he has always played. He plots in his mind against all except his “fam.” He deprives his subordinates of information as to his intentions so as to remain more powerful than they. Then he acts instinctively with others he considers to be “players,” people like Putin, the Chinese president, Duterte and MbS. MbS has proven himself a weak reed and will be downplayed in Trump’s mind. Nothing could be less important to Trump than wounded Israeli feelings over their f—–g intelligence. He knows they have nowhere else to go. pl

  57. Tony Wikrent says:

    Thank you again. By describing his tactics, do you mean to imply he has no real strategy in terms of pursuing USA interests? I can understand a strategy of continuing the present status quo of financial and corporate dominance over the rest of the economy–but Trump’s populist nationalism runs counter to that, particularly in the area of trade policy. My own conclusion thus far is that Trump’s populist nationalism is what he clothes himself when he has to appear before the citizens (or, more precisely, the conservative and Republican base). I had hoped, before the inauguration, that Trump’s experience as a real estate developer had led to his clashing with bankers and financiers, and this would leave him highly suspicious of, if not outright hostile, to Wall Street and the City of London. That hope has been drowned in the flood of appointments of Wall Streeters to various high posts.

  58. turcopolier says:

    tony wikrant
    IMO he means well for the US and thinks that his instincts will lead to good things. Your talk about corporate interests is just more marxist BS. pl

  59. Tony Wikrent says:

    In classical republican theory from Machiavelli through Algernon Sidney, whose 1698 Discourses on Government has been called “the textbook of the American revolution, there were two major threats to a republic. One was a standing army. The other was concentrated wealth. Driving the Americans’ 1771 revolt was their belief that Parliament had been corrupted by concentrations of wealth such as the East India Company. Corporations were seen as an institutionalized arrangement to preserve and perpetuate unfair economic power.
    Hence, in early America, articles of incorporation were not easily granted, and there were very few of them. And those which were granted almost always included some statement along the lines that the corporation is being granted by the legislature because said corporation would advance the general welfare or serve the public interest in some specific way. So, you get very limited corporate charters that usually are aimed at building roads, bridges, canals, and later railroads, Charters for banks almost invariably created great controversy.
    Often, the charter included a clause to the effect that the purposes had to be accomplished in very specific time frames or the charter of incorporation would lapse and the corporation would cease having a legal existence. Up until the 1860s, it was not unusual for a state to revoke a corporate charter if the corporation did not fufill the purpose for which it was incorporated. For example, the Sunbury and Erie Railroad, chartered by Pennsylvania in 1837, was never able to actually begin construction, and after the state had given it an extension of time, the company was dissolved by state government fiat and its property given to the Pennsylvania Railroad. (Sunbury is located near the confluence of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna River.) The Franklin Railroad received an unusual dual charter from Maryland and Pennsylvania in 1832, to construct a railroad from Chambersburg Pa. 27 miles south to Hagerstown Md. It failed soon after it opened, but was operated by the bankruptcy receiver until 1852, when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania determined that the thin-flat, bar-rail on which the horse-drawn cars rode had become unsafe to operate on, and ordered that the company either disband, or rebuild the road with heavy T-rail to allow the running of steam locomotives.
    Corporate charters also often included clauses intended to prevent the corporation from engaging in activities unrelated to the charter. The charter for the First Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, included these clauses: “VIII. The lands, tenements and hereditaments which it shall be lawful for the said corporation to hold, shall be only such as shall be requisite for its immediate accommodation in relation to the convenient transacting of its business….”
    It was also illegal for corporations to buy control of other corporations. But by the 1820s, there had nonetheless begun to emerge widespread public dissatisfaction over corporations. But it was not so much that corporations were straying from their charters. It was that many people felt that only a rich and privileged few were being given corporate charters, and everyone else was being deliberately excluded from having a share in this new engine of prosperity. The result was that many states began to enact laws of general incorporation. You no longer had to go to the state legislature or the Congress, and get a specific charter passed just like legislation. With general acts of incorporation, anyone can just get the papers written up, file the fee with some administrative office of the state, and start a business. The process of incorporation, supposedly, had been democratized. By the 1850s, almost every state had adopted laws of general incorporation.
    What happened next, of course, was the further consolidation of wealth, with the building of the trusts after the Civil War, fueling the rise of organized opposition in the form of the populists, then the progressives. Personally, what I think happened is that after it becomes clear to the British ruling class that they are not going to be able to dispose of the American republic by breaking it up in the Civil War (see “British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862,” by
    Author(s): Kenneth Bourne Source: The English Historical Review, Vol. 76, No. 301 (Oct., 1961), pp. 600-632, available online as a pdf), the British realize they can neutralize the American republic by undermining its principles of political economy. This is why the Constitutional mandate to promote the General Welfare is crucial. The British, I believe, use the Morgan banking apparatus to being taking control of the US economy. Many people see this history and unfortunately spin CTs about the Rothschilds, or Jewish bankers, or whatever. Of course the British ruling class is not going to do anything to dispel these smokescreens. (I frankly do not know to what extent, or even if, these CTs are deliberately created as smokescreens.)
    Another crippling blow is the emergence, in the 1970s and 1980s, of the shareholder theory of value, which cements corporate dominance of the economy firmly in place. The more insidious result, which very few people see, is that the shareholder theory of value directly undermines the republic by making the pursuit of corporate profit primary, and dismissing almost entirely any concern for promoting the general welfare. That burying of the concern for promoting the general welfare strikes at the very heart of what sets the American republic above all other government created before it. The creation the American republic and its Constitution must be understood in the context of the global shift from the economic and political systems of feudalism, to mercantilism and modern nationalism. The Framers were entirely familiar with mercantilist policies, and the debates in the Constitutional convention make very clear that they had no intent of creating laissez faire and unregulated market capitalism, but a careful and deliberate plan to ensure that all economic activity was channeled and directed to the promotion of the general welfare and national development.
    The words “mercantilist” and “mercantilism” are generally used whenever government powers are used to promote a state’s economic powers. By specifying in the Constitution that government powers are used to promote a state’s economic powers in promotion of the general welfare, the American republic made a sharp break from European mercantilism, in which the welfare of a sole monarch or small group of oligarchs was often conflated with the general welfare of a state or nation.
    It is the Constitutional commitment to promoting the general welfare that establishes the USA as the culmination of the political and scientific Enlightenment.

  60. Tony Wikrent says:

    And for what it’s worth, I believe British intelligence played a significant, though certainly not exclusive, role in the creation of Marxism and Leninism.

  61. turcopolier says:

    Tony Wikrent
    Is this a larouche thing? pl

  62. Tony Wikrent says:

    Regarding the British role, LaRouche is one of the few people who writes about it, and I admit to reading his stuff in the 80s and 90s. The political economy of republicanism is something I’ve been working out on my own. Following the 2007-2008 financial crash, I asked: Are there economic policies that should distinguish a republic from other forms of government? Turns out that in order to answer that question, you also need to ask: What is a republic? The best material I found about four years ago: Mass. Senator Charles Sumner, The Equal Rights of All: The Great Guaranty and Present Necessity, for the Sake of Security, and to Maintain a Republican Government. Speech in the Senate, on the proposed Amendment of the Constitution fixing the Basis of Representation, February 5 and 6, 1866.
    Charles Sumner, Works, Volume 10, p 174ff,
    And, just to needle you a bit: Jefferson changed his tune a bit about “the best government is that which governs least” when he became President; then a bit more when the opportunity to purchase Louisiana presented itself; then a LOT when the weakness of American industry and the atrophy of the army and navy nearly lead to defeat in the second war against Britain. And the entire history of how the U.S. developed industrially and technologically ALWAYS has featured a crucial supporting role by government. Just like Jefferson’s nemesis, Hamilton, argued….

  63. Poul says:

    I have no idea where your numbers come from but if Israel spent 5,9 % of it’s GDP (2016, )on it’s military then 3.9 billion dollars is only 1%+ of GDP. Not it’s no peanuts unless you argue for a one-time expenditure for the USA. As for Israel. Please they can foot the bill without problems. Like the US Israel has a bloated armed force.
    So ca 1/6 of Israeli military cost. Not 25%. Would Israel notice that. Yes so send home the women or make some adjustments. But would it undermine their security,.. No.
    Their armed forces would still be overwhelming and don’t forget their nukes. The ultimate defensive weapon. Please present me with a plausible scenario for how Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon could successfully attack Israel.
    3.9 billion dollar with interest as it’s borrowed money runs up in 100’s of billions of dollars in a century. Is it sensible policy for the US tax payer to donate what amounts to more than half a years expenditure on the US military to a foreign nation?
    For example the US congress is considering cutting 20% of the budget for Children’s Health Insurance Program (annual budget ca $15 billion). Cut the money for Israel instead and spent it on American children. Who should the US congress look after first. American children or foreigners?

  64. Croesus says:

    FDR, a complicated case.
    It can’t be denied (although it’s never admitted) that Brandeis and Frankfurter — and Henry Morgenthau, Jr., — played FDR like Jack Benny’s violin.

Comments are closed.