Yaron Brook on Israel Aid

[Justin Mallone]

Yaron brook said on Facebook:

> I have always advocated for ending all US aid to Israel (and every other country). Israel does not need it and it actually is harmful.
>
> Give Israel moral & political support and sell it weapons. Otherwise leave them alone.
>
> This article presents an argument consistent with my views:

He linked this article: http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/06/maybe-rand-paul-was-right-about-aid-to-israel/

I replied with the following:


Yaron, as a fellow Objectivist I must emphatically disagree with your statement, and I think your timing of this statement raises troubling issues as well.

1) There are common misunderstandings about the nature of “aid” to Israel (e.g. the false view that Israel receives a bunch of handouts when much of U.S. “aid” is in the nature of a military alliance from which we receive reciprocal benefits). Even if people might argue about the value of giving Israel aid, I think it’s difficult to argue that aid to Israel is like aid given to tinpot dictators to keep them in line or to African countries where it might simply serve as spoils between warring factions. Even if you are personally aware of the nature of the aid Israel receives and the distinctions I raised, your statement above (especially since you write that you want to end U.S. aid to Israel “and every other country”), will be read in the context of common misunderstandings and thus help perpetuate them.

2) Even if there were a case for an eventual gradual phasing out of even military “aid” to Israel, to do so in the middle of actual violence against Israel would constitute abandoning a good moral democratic U.S. ally in the middle of armed attack against it. This would be unconscionably immoral by itself and would hand a huge PR victory to global anti-semitism. Maybe you didn’t mean “end aid right now” but making your statement in the middle of violence against Israel, without even any qualification as to the timing of your suggestion, is irresponsible at best.

3) The article you linked, which you said “presents an argument consistent with [your] views”, counsels appeasement and lets anti-semites off the hook. You’re the executive director of ARI, so I don’t think I need to tell you what Ayn Rand thought about appeasement. The article says:

> “And why not get rid of one of bludgeons used by anti-Israel propagandists? Inevitably these days, Hamas boosters like Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan—and many others—suggest that aid makes the United States complicit in the imagined nefariousness of the Israeli Defense Forces.”

So because anti-semites and their sympathizers weave fantasies of the imagined evil of the IDF — which by the way undertakes practically SUPERHUMAN efforts to avoid civilian casualties — the U.S. should change its aid policy?

> “It allows journalists to treat pro-Israel advocates as a Jewish Fifth Column actively undermining American objectives. “

No, the journalists own anti-semitism or desire to cater to anti-semitic viewers/readers is what enables them to endorse a “Fifth Column” narrative. Such people aren’t going to stop talking about a “Fifth Column” just because we stop cooperating with Israel as a military ally and friend (though it is possible they might take a break from it to gloat for a while at destroying the U.S. - Israel relationship.)

-JM

[Justin Mallone]

On Aug 7, 2014, at 4:44 AM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 12:24 AM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7 August 2014 04:54, Justin Mallone just...@gmail.com

>> You could make an anti-foreign-aid argument using the Gaza war. It
>> would go like this. Hamas are trying to kill Israelis. They are also
>> trying to destroy the liberal democratic state of Israel to establish
>> a brutal theocracy on the same territory.
>>
>> Currently foreign aid to Gaza is used to build schools and stuff like
>> that where rockets are cited.
>>
>> We should stop paying for such establishments to be built. It might
>> also be a good idea to destroy all of these structures and withdraw
>> all of the aid officials (e.g. - the UNRWA).
>
> You're talking about UN aid to the Palestinians. The "aid" to Israel as part of a mutually beneficial alliance is different. Does ANY of it go to Palestinians?
>
> The "aid" people object to about Israel, that Yaron Brook was attacking, was the good non-aid. Not the giving money to dictators/terrorists/etc type (which he equates as the same thing as the Israel "aid" since he wants to abolish all "aid" and doesn't differentiate)


Yaron replied to my comment.

> • Yaron Brook See my posts below regarding my views of appeasment, anti-semitism and what should be done in the ME.
> Like · 6 hrs
> •
> Yaron Brook I agree with you that the article is flawed. It is not the reasoning, but the conclusion re that aid is bad for Israel that I agree with.


I don't think his reply is at all satisfactory.

1. I don't think a vague citation to his FB wall, which has tons of unrelated stuff to wade through, really addresses my points.
2. He specifically said "This article presents an argument consistent with my views." Arguments means reasoning. He didn't say "this article has a conclusion consistent with my views."

I'll note that he's edited his initial thing to add the bit in parentheses:

> This article (while I disagree with some of what is written) presents an argument consistent with my views:

This is not good enough at all.

-JM

[Lulie Tanett]

Yeah. I think the appeasement stuff is kinda tangential and maybe threw him off because it's a Rand issue he's defensive about. (Plus is kinda meta. Surprise surprise he responded to that part!)

The important point he didn't address was: 1. suggesting America withdraw aid to Israel will be misleading to most people (without extra clarification), and 2. withdrawing aid to Israel harms the war effort (mostly via bad PR).

> 2. He specifically said "This article presents an argument consistent with my views." Arguments means reasoning. He didn't say "this article has a conclusion consistent with my views."
>
> I'll note that he's edited his initial thing to add the bit in parentheses:
>
>> This article (while I disagree with some of what is written) presents an argument consistent with my views:
>
> This is not good enough at all.

It's common that people link to articles they don't fully agree with. It's often, but not always, good to include where you disagree with an article, but I don't think it appeases badness if you don't, except in certain circumstances where it does seem like you're condoning the thing. HOWEVER:

Here, Yaron said, "***It is not the reasoning***, but the conclusion [...] that I agree with." and then said, "This article [...] ***presents an argument*** consistent with my views", which is a contradiction.

Argument and reasoning are synonymous, conclusion and reasoning are not.

So it seems like Yaron is evading?

But I think this is from not thinking about it too much and wanting to defend himself from "you're not a good Objectivist" meta, which isn't super important (it would be better if he took it more seriously and realised he was contradicting himself, but that's a flaw in him rather than his argument).

I'm curious what he thinks about the content of your post, the first 2 points.

--
Lulie Tanett

[Justin Mallone]

He sanctioned an article ("This article presents an argument consistent with my views") that counseled appeasement. That's not remotely even "kinda meta" IMHO -- it was part of my substantive criticism of what he said.

> Surprise surprise he responded to that part!)

"Responded" barely <<

> The important point he didn't address was: 1. suggesting America withdraw aid to Israel will be misleading to most people (without extra clarification), and 2. withdrawing aid to Israel harms the war effort (mostly via bad PR).

BTW I don't think the HUGE, SERIOUS MORAL ISSUE of the Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute sanctioning a pro-appeasement article (without, initially, any clarification or qualification), is an unimportant point AT ALL.

Consider that the sanction was the ONE THING he felt the need to EDIT about his statement (adding a qualification denying the article complete sanction).

>> 2. He specifically said "This article presents an argument consistent with my views." Arguments means reasoning. He didn't say "this article has a conclusion consistent with my views."
>>
>> I'll note that he's edited his initial thing to add the bit in parentheses:
>>
>>> This article (while I disagree with some of what is written) presents an argument consistent with my views:
>>
>> This is not good enough at all.
>
> It's common that people link to articles they don't fully agree with.

It's common and it's bad to link something and say basically "I agree with this" and then not take responsibility for it. It blocks paths forward (see Personal Individual Responsibility bullet point under Good Answers): http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward

> It's often, but not always, good to include where you disagree with an article, but I don't think it appeases badness if you don't, except in certain circumstances where it does seem like you're condoning the thing.

This was such a circumstance (where there was condoning).

And I think that linking stuff in a condoning way, but with some plausible deniability if people refute specific points, is a common evasion tactic.

> HOWEVER:
>
> Here, Yaron said, "***It is not the reasoning***, but the conclusion [...] that I agree with." and then said, "This article [...] ***presents an argument*** consistent with my views", which is a contradiction.
>
> Argument and reasoning are synonymous, conclusion and reasoning are not.
>
> So it seems like Yaron is evading?

Yes.

> But I think this is from not thinking about it too much and wanting to defend himself from "you're not a good Objectivist" meta,

"You're not a good objectivist" (and then getting mad) is one way to take it. Another way is "You're the ARI President so I don't have to explain the immorality of appeasement to you at length." Another way is "You're not a good objectivist" (but then engaging with the substance because you're an advocate of reason and so should have kick-ass args for all your positions).

> which isn't super important (it would be better if he took it more seriously and realised he was contradicting himself, but that's a flaw in him rather than his argument).
>
> I'm curious what he thinks about the content of your post, the first 2 points.

I'm guessing maybe he (or his intern) thinks he's too high status for lengthy FB debates with random Oists.

Incidentally, check out the fool who replied later in the thread and thought that we give $300 billion/year in aid to Israel (we give 3.1 billion in latest budget):

> Corinne Holeva Yaron Brook is right about this. No one is more pro Israel than I am. I think that Israel should obliterate Hamas and any terrorist organization within her borders including Fatah. I strongly believe Israel has a legal right to her original League of Nations mandate borders and should be sovereign over Gaza, Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem. I don't think she should have given up the Sinai. One doesn't come further right than I am. However, Israel has a robust, thriving economy and if she can afford her own military defense and her existence does not depend on the US handing her a check for 300 billion dollars a year, then she would be much further off without it. Israel needs to be in a position of being able to ignore the Obamas, Kerrys and any other anti semitic politician that may come along in the future. Israel could be much more consistent in defending her right to exist if she were completely independent of foreign aid.
> Corinne Holeva I think all foreign aid is one of the roots of all evil in the world today. We need a modern day Ragnar.


She thinks, correctly, that her view (based in part on very incorrect facts) is compatible with Yaron's.

-JM