The problem with banning the phrase "Israel firster" is that it is a neat summation of an important problem, and when people bar such phrases they are really trying to shut down the discourse. And in fact Zionists themselves have used the term Israel firster when it suited their meaning. Notice how incredibly neutral Senator Leahy's comments are here, as reported (and criticized) by Adam Kredo:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) last Thursday criticized a hotly contested proposal concerning Palestinian refugees for not putting “the United States’ interests first”—a charge that critics said evokes the “Israel firster” slur at the center of the Middle East debate.
While debating an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) that would examine exactly how many Palestinian refugees benefit from U.S. tax dollars, Leahy expressed that the proposal does not put “the United States’ interests first.”
“Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I always look at what is in the United States’ interest first and foremost, and this would hurt the United States’ interests,” Leahy said, emphasizing the words “United States.”
“It may give a momentary advantage to one side or the other after we spend all that money, but it hurts the United States’ interests,” Leahy said.
Then look at this statement by an unnamed American official about briefing Israel about the Baghdad talks on Iranian nukes:
According to the U.S. official, the Israeli government was the first to be updated by them on what happened in Baghdad after the talks were over. "We updated the Israelis in detail before we updated our own government," the official said.
Yes and who comes first?
Interesting.
The word “first” refers to both sequence and priority. “Israel-firster” goes to the priority meaning — specifically, the priorities of American politicians. Advising the Israel government before advising the US government goes to the sequence meaning, which may or may not have anything to do with the priorities.
That a non-NPT country — ANY non-NPT country — should be advised at all or have any role at all in discussions related to the obligations of a treaty member country seems to be entirely counter-productive to the goals of the treaty. Why should Israel ever join the treaty when it can get all the benefits of the treaty via its proxy? But the US budget controls and perpetuates this non-sense b/c the US is barred from financially supporting the NPT unless Israel is involved in the dialogue. And that rule is there b/c of the Israel-firsters in Congress.
AIPAC never sleeps.
Exactly right, Denis. So until we get zionist money out of Washington, the USA is simply a tool of the enemy and should be treated as such. Why, for example, the Palestinians have agreed to any mediation/talks, etc., with the US involved is beyond me. It’s like asking Luca Brasi to mediate between Vito Corleone and one of his victims.
The word “first” refers to both sequence and priority. “Israel-firster” goes to the priority meaning
sequence is often, largely, a statement on priority. and israel firster can mean sequence. it simply means putting israel first.
Advising the Israel government before advising the US government goes to the sequence meaning, which may or may not have anything to do with the priorities.
can you give me an example of how US officials ‘advising’ israelis prior to advising the US gov does not indicate prioritizing israel?
also, excellent comment denis!
US Financial Aid To Israel –
Figures, Facts And Impact
Washington Report On Middle East Affairs
RMEA.com
11-9-2
Summary
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Special Reports:
U.S. Aid To Israel: The Strategic Functions
U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the ‘Strategic Relationship’
The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers:
True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel
THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
By Stephen Zunes
Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees.
This history unless ethced into memory of every American sons and daughters for generations in some way or another will be obliterated and will be reduced with replacement to some stray commnets of David Duke or Pat Buchanon or of some other as evidence of ongoing antisemitism in US and as continuation of Nazi propaganda .The authors of those lies will refer to the columns at Haaretz as example of ongoing democratic debate among Isrealis and Jews for a better Palestinian and Arab relationship based on Jewish morality and sense of justice .They will blame US senate and Congress for obstrcuting the desire of the Israelis. They most likely throw fit if the systemic assault on that concept in israeli run American media is mentioned and will most likely blame US for instigating all these horrors in the heart of Middle east. That was the fate of Persian and Egyptian experiences with the jewish power in the midst of those civilazations before and after common era in the middle ages.It is the same convoluted semanitcs that has allowed a cottage industry among academicians that accuse the Moorish kingdom of Spain being antisemitic.
Israel firsters is the ONLY thing that explains this….and this was 14 years ago, I’m looking for the latest.
What are Israel’s Loan Guarantees?
By Ed Finn|
The New York Times reported Tuesday that the United States may be planning to reduce Israel’s loan guarantees to account for any money the country spends constructing a “security perimeter” that will divide its citizens from Palestinians. What are these loan guarantees, and how important are they to Israel?
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you’re buying a car, an apartment, or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.
The $9 billion in loan guarantees (along with $1 billion in direct aid) comprise a special post-Gulf War II aid package, awarded to Israel on top of the $3 billion in other assistance that the United States gives annually. But with loan guarantees, it’s never clear how much money is actually “given”: In a perfect world, they wouldn’t cost the United States a cent. Israel—or Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which snagged loan guarantees as postwar rewards—could borrow on the international markets, then pay off the loans completely, leaving the United States with no financial obligation. But Israel has already received nearly $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States since 1992, and while it has yet to default on any of those loans, this new round of guarantees is intended in part to help Israel pay off the old debt. Which means the United States could be stuck with a bill ranging anywhere from zero to $9 billion plus interest.
When borrowing on the United States’ good credit, the Israeli government can use the money for any purpose. However, Congress attached a series of stipulations to the recent package, including one that reserves the right to reduce the guarantee amount to counterbalance any money Israel spends creating new settlements in contested territory. This caveat is exactly what Bush may use now to pressure Israel to cease construction on its “security perimeter”—
american, we were just talking about this on another thread. here’s tree
link to mondoweiss.net
great annie…I was looking for that up to date one…I had all the current data links saved but then computer melted down in April and a lot of it went by-by.
Now I am having to refind everything. I could probably do it faster by going back thru posts here on MW….since we’ve all spilled our brains here it’s quite a library…in fact I think that’s what I will do to rebuild my Israel links file.
Now I am having to refind everything
you could start with your own comments..Searching for: loan guarantees (8 results found)
link to mondoweiss.net
;)
thank you annie…..I’ll start with me first and on to others.
It was once said (and maybe still) that Israel knew the nature and even the whereabouts of USA’s munitions (bombs, etc.) before the USA Army did. Israeli military could tell USA Army where to find such stuff before USA Army folks could locate them using their own quartermaster software. (Ahem, they knew “first”.)
This is a lot more complex and a lot more slippery than this post indicates. You have to go back to the source articles.
First, the Baghdad talks. Phil’s quote from Harretz was “the Israeli government was the first to be updated by them”.
The article was about Wendy Sherman, the head of the negotiating team, going to Israel after the talks and “them” refers to Sherman and other officials that were in Israel after the talks. It does not refer to those US officials who went straight back to the US and the White House, or what they said to Obama or when they said it. Believe me, whatever Sherman said to Barak was ok’d by U.S. State.
The article also says Sherman updated the Arabs via a phone call instead of going there as planned. So, as I read it, she talked to Israel first, then the Arabs, then went home. I don’t call that an Israel-firster. When I think Israel-firster, I’m thinking Foxman, Dershowitz, Schumer, Liberman.
The part about Leahy is even harder to follow, even after reading the Kredo source article. It looks like Leahy’s comment was in reference to an amendment to remove millions of Palestinian refugees from US refugee status so they can’t obtain US tax money. Leahy’s comment that the amendment would not be in the best interest of the US got the you’re-an-anti-semite-dogs barking, I guess because the comment implies that Kirk is an Israel-firster because he wants to cut off the Palestinian refugees.
OK, so what? I mean, Kirk trying to cut off the Palestinians from US refugee status is a lot more important part of this story — and a lot more problematic — than worrying about the labels we put on people. Kredo virtually ignores this point.
Given American’s great summary below of the amounts of taxpayers’ money going to Israel, one must ask how much of it gets to Palestinians?
Exactly right, Denis! Thanks for stating the obvious, something the US government avoids at all costs when it comes to anything Israel.
Good for Leahy for at least saying something.
I’ m going to keep using the Israel firster description because it is the most accurate and all encompassing…don’t want to leave out any of these sobs whether they are firsters because of their Jewish/zionist identification or because they are bought politicians.
In fact I would bet ‘Israel firster” shows up in accounts of this period in US history when historians start writing about it. Whether it gets a few pages or a whole chapter depends I guess on how it ends.
MJ Rosenberg has gone back to using Israel-firster. I think the term is here to stay.
At least Leahy said it. He has demonstrated some nerve on this issue in the past
RE: “Zionists themselves have used the term Israel firster when it suited their meaning.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: In reality, they really only seem to have a problem with “Israel firster” when it is used regarding someone who is Jewish (or a group like AIPAC that is commonly seen as being a Jewish group). They don’t seem to care so much if “Israel firster” is used regarding a non-Jew (or a group like John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel).
STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH: “The odious ‘Israel first’ libel”, by Alan Dershowitz, N.Y. Daily News, 2/27/12
SOURCE – link to articles.nydailynews.com
I use it all the time; on Twitter there’s a hashmark for it: #IsraelFirst
Succinct, to the point and encompassing all motivations.
This bit by Leahy is a welcome exception to the rule. Our Congress, both the House and the Senate, have for some time considered an ex-officio position for whoever is the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu the most recent, is to be serve as the head of the US Congress. You can see this by the standing ovation that Netanyahu received by its members compared to the more tepid ovation for Obama, who merely serves as the President of the United States.