The Real Cost of US Support for Israel: $3 MILLION-MILLION
Hobo
While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3
billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S.
government, this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many
billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking
beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis has
concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost American
taxpayers nearly $3 trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.
"The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:
$3 Trillion" is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R.
Stauffer. Stauffer's summary of the research was published in the June
2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes
and teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East.
Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University's
School of Foreign Service. Stauffer's findings were first presented at
an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the
University of Maine.
Stauffer's analysis is "an estimate of the total cost to the U.S.
alone of instability and conflict in the region - which emanates from
the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion," Stauffer says.
"About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs - about $1.7
trillion - arose from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that
amount has been incurred since 1973."
"Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade
advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts.
In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some
275,000 American jobs each year." The trade-aid imbalance alone with
Israel of between $6-10 billion costs about 125,000 American jobs
every year, Stauffer says.
The largest single element in the costs has been the series of oil-
supply crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the
construction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. "To date these have
cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion (2002 dollars), excluding the additional
costs incurred since 2001," Stauffer wrote.
The cost of supporting Israel increased drastically after the 1973
Israeli-Arab war. U.S. support for Israel during that war resulted in
additional costs for the American taxpayer of between $750 billion and
$1 trillion, Stauffer says.
When Israel was losing the war, President Richard Nixon stepped in to
supply the Jewish state with U.S. weapons. Nixon's intervention
triggered the Arab oil embargo which Stauffer estimates cost the U.S.
as much as $600 billion in lost GDP and another $450 in higher oil
import costs.
"The 1973 oil crisis, all in all, cost the U.S. economy no less than
$900 billion, and probably as much as $1,200 billion," he says.
As a result of the oil embargo the United States created the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to "insulate Israel and the U.S. against the
wielding of a future Arab 'oil weapon.'" The billion-barrel SPR has
cost U.S. taxpayers $134 billion to date. According to an Oil Supply
Guarantee, which former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger provided
Israel in 1975, Israel gets "first call" on any oil available to the
U.S. if Israel's oil supply is stopped.
Stauffer's $3 trillion figure is conservative as it does not include
the increased costs incurred during the year-long buildup to the
recent war against Iraq in which Israel played a significant, albeit
covert, role. The higher oil prices that occurred as a result of the
Anglo-American campaign against Iraq were absorbed by the consumers.
The increase in oil prices provided a huge bonus for the leading oil
companies such as British Petroleum and Shell, who are major oil
producers as well as retailers. The major international oil companies
recorded record profits for the first quarter of 2003.
The Washington Report seeks to "provide the American public with
balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with
Middle Eastern states." The monthly journal is known for keeping close
tabs on the amount of U.S. taxpayer money that goes to Israel and how
much pro-Israel money flows back to Members of Congress in the form of
campaign aid.
The journal's website, www.wrmea.com, has an up-to-date counter at the
top that indicates how much official aid flows to Israel. While the
counter currently stands at $88.2 billion, it only reflects the
minimum, as it does not include the many hidden costs.
"The distinction is important, because the indirect or consequential
losses suffered by the U.S. as a result of its blind support for
Israel exceed by many times the substantial amount of direct aid to
Israel," Shirl McArthur wrote in the May 2003 issue of Washington
Report.
McArthur's article, "A Conservative Tally of Total Direct U.S. Aid to
Israel: $97.5 Billion - and Counting" tallies the hidden costs, such
as interest lost due to the early disbursement of aid to Israel and
funds hidden in other accounts. For example, Israel received $5.45
billion in Defense Department funding of Israeli weapons projects
through 2002, McArthur says.
Loans made to Israel by the U.S. government, like the recently awarded
$9 billion, invariably wind up being paid by the American taxpayer. A
recent Congressional Research Service report indicates that Israel has
received $42 billion in waived loans. "Therefore, it is reasonable to
consider all government loans to Israel the same as grants," McArthur
says.
Support for Israel has cost America dearly - well over than $10,000
per American - however the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been
extremely costly for the entire world. According to Stauffer, the
total bill for supporting Israel is two to four times higher than that
for the U.S. alone - costing the global community an estimated $6 to
$12 trillion.
Finis
Courtesy Rumor Mill News Agents Forum
P. Maffia
receives almost as much each year from the US as does Israel.
"Hobo" <dfgsdgt5...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:aafd50ed-94aa-489c...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
MasterChief
"P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:T_6dnbPHp7xffOLa...@centurytel.net...
clams_casino
>No more our taxes should go to any nation,but our own.
>
>
>
Tell that to GW - the biggest tax spender in US history.
P. Maffia
history quickly.
"MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:vcOdnZNRVLy_iB3a...@comcast.com...
MasterChief
their own problems ,if they blow each other up ,the better for the rest of
us.
"P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:c5GdnYMVmreezB3a...@centurytel.net...
P. Maffia
"MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Q_2dnfCLRP7iwB3a...@comcast.com...
MasterChief
"P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:_M2dnUKpoJHBtRza...@centurytel.net...
P. Maffia
> Hypocrisy is a better alternative according to you wicked vision.
Hypocrisy? The word does not even come into play, which speaks volumes for
your mastery of the language.
But anyone who thinks that the US should be insular and not participate in
the world is living in the 19th Century.
Now one can legitimately raise questions about any of the allies we may
associate with and argue that others would be preferable. But in the modern
world one cannot adopt your attitude of let them all fend for themselves.
Madness lies in that direction.
Rod Speed
> MasterChief <1...@nowhere.com> wrote
> But anyone who thinks that the US should be insular and not participate in the world is living in the 19th Century.
It didnt even happen like that in the 19th Century.
> Now one can legitimately raise questions about any of the allies we may associate with and argue that others would be
> preferable. But in the modern world one cannot adopt your attitude of let them all fend for themselves. Madness lies
> in that direction.
Not madness so much as complete impracticalility.
P. Maffia
news:5ud4quF...@mid.individual.net...
> P. Maffia <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote
>> MasterChief <1...@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>> But anyone who thinks that the US should be insular and not participate
>> in the world is living in the 19th Century.
>
> It didnt even happen like that in the 19th Century.
True, but with the technology that existed then, any nation with the
resources we had then and protected by two Oceans, could have gotten along
being very insular without much fear that an external enemy could do much to
them.
Just not possible in the modern world where any two-bit wannabe Master of
the World, for a price, can get their hands on ICBMs and nuclear materials
and do a lot of damage.
>
>> Now one can legitimately raise questions about any of the allies we may
>> associate with and argue that others would be preferable. But in the
>> modern world one cannot adopt your attitude of let them all fend for
>> themselves. Madness lies in that direction.
>
> Not madness so much as complete impracticalility.
I won't argue with that. But, in my opinion, anyone who lives in a world of
impracticality is mad.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> But anyone who thinks that the US should be insular and not participate in the world is living in the 19th Century.
>> It didnt even happen like that in the 19th Century.
> True, but with the technology that existed then, any nation with the resources we had then and protected by two
> Oceans, could have gotten along being very insular without much fear that an external enemy could do much to them.
That wasnt what the US did in the Philipinnes, China and Japan was about.
> Just not possible in the modern world
Its still possible in the modern world, tho it makes no sense.
> where any two-bit wannabe Master of the World, for a price, can get their hands on ICBMs
No they cant, even china has only recently managed that.
> and nuclear materials and do a lot of damage.
The real reason it makes no sense is because of what the US has
to import like oil and what it has to export to pay for stuff like that.
>>> Now one can legitimately raise questions about any of the allies we may associate with and argue that others would
>>> be preferable. But in the modern world one cannot adopt your attitude of let them all fend for themselves. Madness
>>> lies in that direction.
>> Not madness so much as complete impracticalility.
> I won't argue with that. But, in my opinion, anyone who lives in a world of impracticality is mad.
Thats not madness. Thats just a mad thing to do.