The Passionate Attachment

America's entanglement with Israel

The Israel Lobby’s Tea Party Foreign Aid Conundrum

with 2 comments

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
May 22, 2012

In a May 15 JTA article titled “Lugar’s defeat raises specter of more partisanship on foreign policy,” Ron Kampeas notes that the so-called Tea Party poses an interesting conundrum for the Israel lobby:

The problem, the insiders say, is not one of enthusiasm for Israel but in how members of the party’s right wing have proposed changing the mechanisms for allocating foreign aid.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has always emphasized the importance of backing the entire foreign assistance package. The logic is multifold: Aid overall builds good will for the United States and its allies; the perception that aid to the developing world is inextricable from aid to Israel promotes good will for Israel in those countries; singling out Israel for assistance while neglecting other countries promotes unseemly stereotypes about Jewish influence; and cutting aid inevitably will likely lead to cuts in assistance for Israel, however much the current Congress supports the country.

“They want to cut everything but Israel, but in the end, if everything else is cut, assistance to Israel will have to be cut,” said the pro-Israel donor.

The logic of the lobby’s position on foreign aid was surely not lost on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when he challenged Senator Rand Paul on his budget cut plans. “You want to end all foreign aid as well, is that right?” the former editor of AIPAC’s Near East Report anxiously asked the senator from Kentucky. “What about humanitarian aid, for example, to Africa? You want to end all that?”

Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail

May 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This supports what Paul Findley said in They Dare to Speak Out, that Israel carries the whole foreign aid bill. It also answers Michael Organski’s book The $36 Billion Bargain, which uses regression analysis to show that only internationalist congress members vote for aid to Israel. His statistical argument is spurious; he has a population of votes, not a sample; there is nothing to infer, the relationship is what it is. His statistical hypothesis simply confirms AIPAC’s association of “internationalism”, as Congress construes it, with Israel.


    May 22, 2012 at 1:30 pm

  2. Thanks for the informative comment, gantonius.

    Maidhc Ó Cathail

    May 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: