Anti-Israel Aid Billboards Are Taken Down (Los Angeles area)

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A subsidiary of the CBS Corp. removed 23 billboards in the Los Angeles area calling for a stop to U.S. foreign assistance to Israel.

The Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, which sponsored the billboards, said in a statement that it received a letter from CBS Outdoor, a subsidiary of the CBS Corp., saying the contract was canceled because the coalition "used the ‘CBS Outdoor’ name without permission" in its publicity. CBS Outdoor refunded the undisclosed amount of the contract to the group, the coalition said on its Facebook page.

The coalition is asking supporters to demand that CBS Outdoor put back the billboards.

“If you support us trying to get our message of ending military aid to Israel back up on billboards in the nation's second largest city, won't you help flood CBS with phone calls demanding that our billboards be put back up and our contract be honored to the full term?” the coalition said in its statement.

MORE...

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/06/26/3099211/anti-israel-aid-billboards-coming-down

[Astrad]

1. Wow

Regardless of whether one agrees with the sentiment, they certainly have a right to advocate for it. Taking them down just feeds idiotic conspiracy theories. Bad move CBS.

[Mosby]

2. Good. nt

[aranthus]

3. Does anyone know what CBS means

when they say that the group used CBS Outdoors' name without permission? What did the group do? If they did what CBS claims, then CBS does have the right to cancel the contract, and I doubt that any kind of letter writing campaign would help get the billboards back. If CBS is just blowing smoke, then people need to find out the real reason for the cancellation and then address that.

[Mosby]

4. more info

Instead of maintaining a strictly business relationship with CBS Outdoor, it implied through its literature and fundraising appeals that CBS Outdoor actually supported its anti-Israel cause. Its petition of thanks to CBS Outdoor read, in part, "By contracting with the grassroots, nonprofit Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, this billboard company is demonstrating its support for the basic American tradition of free speech.” A coalition member’s article celebrating the Los Angeles campaign was entitled "Billboard campaign to end U.S. aid to Israel hits LA - thanks to CBS."

http://standwithus.com/app/iNews/view_n.asp?ID=2342

[aranthus]

34. Thanks.

The Coalition screwed itself.

[leveymg]

30. CBS means whatever Sumner Redstone, its owner, says it means.

Came in from Viacom with a buyout in 2000, promptly turned the whole thing to support Bush, fired Rather, installed Katie Curic, stripped out the News Division. And, Redstone is a stalwart supporter of Likud.

[aranthus]

35. The facts say otherwise.

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

None of what you have said porves that Redstone is unethical or lying, or that he was even involved in the decision. Obviously CBS took the contract to begin with. It seems that the Coalition actually did what CBS is now complaining about and that the billboard company has a fair beef.

[leveymg]

69. I stated facts. You gave your opinion and tried to change the subject. Redstone is a Neocon.

My comment is about Sumner Redstone's mismanagement and destruction of CBS. What he's done to the News Division is particularly appalling.

[azurnoir]

5. Stand with us and Howard Berman

A coalition of anti-Israel activists that calls for ending U.S. aid to Israel, Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, has run billboard campaigns in several American cities to spread its message. On June 11 it entered the Los Angeles area, setting up 23 billboards, which were scheduled to run for four weeks, with more billboards to follow. Instead of maintaining a strictly business relationship with CBS Outdoor, it implied through its literature and fundraising appeals that CBS Outdoor actually supported its anti-Israel cause. Its petition of thanks to CBS Outdoor read, in part, "By contracting with the grassroots, nonprofit Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, this billboard company is demonstrating its support for the basic American tradition of free speech.” A coalition member’s article celebrating the Los Angeles campaign was entitled "Billboard campaign to end U.S. aid to Israel hits LA - thanks to CBS."

http://www.standwithus.com/app/iNews/view_n.asp?ID=2342

Berman Slams Group for Anti-Israel Billboard

U.S. Rep. Howard Berman slammed a Los Angeles-area group for anti-Israel billboards that call for an end to U.S. aid to Israel.

In his letter to The Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, Berman (D-Calif.) emphasized the importance of providing assistance to Israel.

“We are the leading voice in the international community, and have the world’s most powerful military, yet your organization would have us abandon our closest ally in the Middle East and allow its deterrent capability to wither on the vine,” Berman wrote to the group, which posted its billboards in the San Fernando Valley. “That is not the way to demonstrate international leadership.”

Berman noted in a follow-up statement that aid to Israel was a top legislative priority for him. He is battling fellow Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman for the seat in California’s redrawn 30th Congressional District. Both are Jewish and both are known for their pro-Israel stands.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/158421/berman-slams-group-for-anti-israel-billboard/#ixzz1yvUol9uA

[King_David]

18. Who would support these radical loons ?

Certainly none of the Democratic party representatives and its even seen as a liability to those seeking election.

Good !! These extremists are being marginalized,as they should be.

It is good that they supplied us with all CBS' contact info so balanced moderate people may express our support for their actions. As I have done...

[azurnoir]

19. so I take it you do not believe in free speech?

do balanced and moderate people advocate against free speech? do balanced and moderate people attempt to silence those with whom they disagree?

[King_David]

21. These guys are radical loons,

Good that they violated their contract with CBS (Quelle surprise!)

Good that none of the Democratic Party reps support these idiots.

Nothing to do with free speech.

But good these offensive anti Zionist billboards were removed.

[azurnoir]

22. regardless of what politicians support or do not support them they still have a right to free speech

but seeing as how your Australian I really should not expect you to understand US laws

[King_David]

23. I suspect I do understand US laws

Much more so than a majority of Americans do.

[azurnoir]

27. then tell us which law allows the limiting of free speech and under what circumstances? n/t

[King_David]

32. That's not relevant

What's relevant is the trashy anti Zionist billboards were taken down , legally , not in violation of any free speech laws but because these radicals violated the terms of their contract .

Kol Hakavod.

[azurnoir]

33. you mean you perhaps actually do not know?

but what the heck as long as the speech of those I disagree is stifled it's all good? oh exactly what terms of their contract did they violate?

[King_David]

38. Nope that's not what I mean at all

Keep trying.


Violations : http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=12760

[azurnoir]

40. yes I posted SwU complete claims along with a bit about Howard Berman you replied to that post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113412755#post18

The claim made by CBS that their name was used without permission seem spurious to me. after all CBS did allow the billboards to be posted

still a nice goal post change guess you do approve of free speech being thwarted after all ?
the original subject was indeed free speech

[Ken Burch]

56. How was the contract violated?

CBS knew what they'd be posting.

[JDPriestly]

66. A private billboard company does not have to give anyone free speech.

Only the government has to allow free speech, and the government did not take down the billboards.

Los Angeles has a very, very large Jewish population. CBS billboards may have good business reasons for refusing to put up billboards that are very likely to offend a good-sized portion of people in Los Angeles.

I personally support Israel.

[azurnoir]

67. another "only the government......"

already had that discussion though

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=12845

they did not refuse they did put them up and then took them down under some spurious claims that's the problem

[JDPriestly]

74. If I own a billboard company -- a private billboard company -- I get to decide

what signs I am willing to put up. That's all there is to it.

If I own a store, I get to decide what signs I put up. The government can require me to put up certain signs, but it can't order me to put up or not put up signs based on the political content of the signs. This is true with very few exceptions.

If you live in a condo or belong to a homeowner's association, there may be a board that tells you what you can and cannot put up as a sign, but other than that, on your own property, on your own billboard, you get to decide.

There are limits to your right to put up any sign you want, but I can't imagine anyone requiring you to allow people to put a sign with a political message that you don't like.

Please cite any authority or law you know of that would allow someone to require a billboard company to put up a sign that is likely to be offensive to a lot of people. I don't think there is one.

[azurnoir]

75. here is the problem as a business owner your prejudices do not allow you to decide

who to sell to or not but in this case that is not even the question CBS did sell its services to this group and then withdrew it under spurious claims when it came under fire from a noisy ProIsrael group and a government official (Howard Berman)

[JDPriestly]

90. The answer for the group whose billboards were removed is to hire a different

billboard company. Although, I think they will have a hard time finding one willing to put up those billboards in Los Angeles.

That's because they would offend a lot of other advertisers. Maybe they could find a very small billboard company??? The billboards are not going to be well received in Los Angeles.

[aranthus]

113. That's not entirely true.

Hostility to BDS or the don't sell weapons to Israel (but excluding everyone else) crowd, isn't a prejudice. It's a policy and political choice. Second, given the nature of what's being sold,, there's a first amendment issue. The owner has a free spech right to sell or not sell advertising space.

Question for you. Would you be complaining if this was done to a pro-Israel group? How about a church advertising against homosexuality? My point is, are you really for free speech, ordo you just like the cause of the anti-Israel crowd.

[azurnoir]

114. an antigay billboard could be a hate crime depending to what was said and state laws

so pulling that one would be okay the first one should be allowed to stay regardless unless it included an antiArab message

[aranthus]

121. Not under any hate crime staute that would pass the Constitution.

Speech is speech.

[aranthus]

70. So does CBS.

It's their billboards until they sign a contract to rent them to someone such as the Coalition. They can rent or not rent them to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If they think that this group breached the contract, then they have the right to terminate the rental.

[Scootaloo]

54. I find my tax money going to kill Palestinians slightly more offensive than billboards

But I guess my ethics aren't your ethics.

[Shadowflash]

78. Yup.

Our tax $$ should be going to a LOT less countries. Israel and Pakistan are two of them.

There are people here in the US and abroad who need the help more and will use it for more positive purposes.


And, no, I don't hate Jewish folks. I just dislike what their government does with MY tax money.

[King_David]

88. Mine are the same as the Democratic Party

And their reps and supporters.

[Ken Burch]

93. Actually, yours aren't.

Most Democrats don't support the Occupation. Few if any defend the illegal settlements.

They support Israel's existence(as I do), but not the ultra-right and anti-peace "Eretz Yisroel" agenda that you essentially support...an agenda that isn't actually good for Israel.

[King_David]

99. 'and anti-peace "Eretz Yisroel" agenda that you essentially support...'

Your too much.

But most people see your posts for what they are.

[Ken Burch]

100. That's what your support for the settlers is all about

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

backing the settlements=not giving a damn about peace. It really is that simple, because there can't be peace AND the settlements.

See ya later..."QJ".

[King_David]

102. Support for settlers huh?

This is my last reply to you.

I am joining the ranks of most other posters in this forum.

Enough of your fabrications.

Enjoy.

[Ken Burch]

104. I fabricated nothing

You've constantly defended the settlers and the settlement project.

If you're putting me on "Ignore" for telling the truth...fine. You're doing me an honor.

Nothing you support in the West Bank is good for Israel...or Israelis...or LGBT people, Israeli or not.

And you never did say why you have an Australian flag in your posts.

[azurnoir]

112. So you do not support the settlers?

even the ones you have in the past referred to as your "brothers and sisters"?

[King_David]

115. Do you beat your children? nt

[azurnoir]

116. Nope I certainly do not beat my children, now back to my question..........n/t

[King_David]

122. Are you asking: If I am a Settler Supporter ?

Should I ask : Are you and Ken Burch antisemites ?

Are these questions DU members ask each other ?

[Scootaloo]

103. I dunno. I think most Democrats are offended by deaths more than billboards

I guess I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

[Ken Burch]

55. They had a right to use the billboards to express their opinion

The fact is, sending the money means keeping the war going for the rest of eternity. It means giving up on any hope of peace.

[aranthus]

71. Only so long as they abided by the terms of the rental contract.

If they are in breach as CBS claims, then CBS can terminate the rental. This isn't really a free speech issue. It's a contract issue.

[Shaktimaan]

46. Free speech?

This is not a free speech issue.

The government did not force anyone to remove the billboards. They were privately owned and rented out under contract. They are not obligated by free speech laws to put up anything and everything. Free speech PROTECTS speech from government intrusion, it doesn't mean that billboard owners have no say in what gets printed on their property.

[azurnoir]

49. so only the government can interfere with free speech? sorry the Washington state court disagrees

Today, a Washington state court dismissed a lawsuit brought against the Olympia Food Coop by StandWithUs and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

[The] court dismissed the case, calling it a SLAPP – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – and said that it would award the defendants attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions. The judge also upheld the constitutionality of Washington’s anti-SLAPP law, which the plaintiffs had challenged.

In a court hearing last Thursday, lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP argued that the court should grant the defendants’ Special Motion to Strike and dismiss the case because it targeted the constitutional rights of free speech and petition in connection with an issue of public concern.
“We are pleased the Court found this case to be what it is – an attempt to chill free speech on a matter of public concern. This sends a message to those trying to silence support of Palestinian human rights to think twice before they bring a lawsuit,” said Maria LaHood, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2012/02/27/olympia-food-coop-wins-anti-slapp-motion-court-dismisses-standwithus-lawsuit/

[Shaktimaan]

59. sigh

anti-slapp laws make it illegal to violate someone's free speech by threatening them with a lawsuit. Obviously people aside from the government can restrict one's right to free speech, say by threatening to kill them or whatever. Nothing of that sort even remotely applies to the subject we're discussing.

[azurnoir]

64. IMO CBs's reaction or over reaction is suppressing free speech as CBS could have

simply made a statement known as a disclaimer that said they did not support the message that this group was promoting and as a subsidiary of CBS broadcasting they should be familiar with those types of disclaimers and it seems that the involvement of a US government official in the incident could be taken as added pressure

[aranthus]

72. CBS has the right to respond to the breach in any legal way it wants.

It could do nothing. It could re-negotiate. It could cancel the contract.. It could sue for damages. Given what it was complaining about, CBS could reasonably conclude that a disclaimer by CBS (or even by the Coalition) would not have been enough to make up for the original misuse of CBS' name. CBS isn't suppressing free speech.

[azurnoir]

77. yes it is by appearing to bow down to a known pressure group like SwU

and a government official , the breach of contract is SwU's claim CBS has not yet spoken out publicly on this or is SwU now CBS's official spokesman?

[aranthus]

79. I don't care about appearances. It's the truth that counts.

Once the Coalition breached, CBS had the right to cancel the contract. Given the multiple ways that the Coalition attempted to falsely portray CBS as supporting the Coalition, CBS had every right to boot them from the billboards. It's not stifling free speech. It's merely responding to a gross over reach by the Coalition.

[azurnoir]

81. has CBS confirmed that or made its own public statement ? or is SwU CBS's spokesman?

if CBS has made its own statement apart from SwU's then please post it

[aranthus]

82. Here is a report of the CBS e-mail posted by one of the Coalition participants.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4133214005711&set=a.1334238513073.51167.1144370737&type=1&theater

[azurnoir]

84. still quite a spurious reason IMO

but for some success by any means will do, SwU has succeeded in its goal which is silencing criticism of israel this time or for the time being, I wonder if the last of this has been heard and if CBS's contract was indeed broken do you have a copy?

[Shaktimaan]

106. no.

CBS isn't suppressing their speech. It simply is not allowing their medium to be used. They are still free to put their message out there. CBS is under no obligation to let them use their billboards.

The difference is that suppression involves the prevention of someone's speech anywhere. If I don't like what a dinner guest is saying at my table I can ask him to leave without having suppressed his freedom of speech.

[azurnoir]

109. ah except CBS did allow their medium to be used it was after pressure from a Congressman and SwU

that CBS latched on to the spurious reason of breach of contract to pull down those billboards

[Shaktimaan]

110. doesn't matter.

It's not violating anyone's first amendment.

CBS isn't preventing anyone from making the statement. They are merely not allowing their billboards to be used for that purpose. Unless CBS is doing something else that restricts this statement from being spoken in ANY form, like threatening to sue them or have them arrested if they keep distributing this content, then there's no violation.

[azurnoir]

111. Really now

CBS changed its mind after coming under pressure from a Congressman and a pressure group but its not censorship? I would think Howard Berman's involvement could change that

[Shaktimaan]

117. that's not the argument.

I said that it wasn't a first amendment violation.
It's not.

The fact that they changed their minds under pressure from congress would support my version. If it was a 1st amendment violation they would reverse course under pressure from the courts.

[Ken Burch]

53. It isn't moderate to send $30 billiion to the Israeli war machine(editing to correct figure)

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

It's an unquestioning endorsement of the status quo and a declaration of opposition to peace.

Sending the money without interruption is the same thing as endorsing everything Bibi does and being against an end to the war.

[Bradlad]

73. Oh yes!

There's nothing the American people (speaking through their congress-critters) want more than never-ending war in the world - but especially in the ME. </sarcasm>

[Ken Burch]

89. Well, we've been arming both sides in a regional dispute for decades now.

That's not a strategy for peace.

[Ken Burch]

92. also, that's NOT how you do the "sarcasm" smiley.

you put a "colon" on either side of the word "sarcasm".

[Swede]

6. Disarming Israel,what a brilliant move that would be.

These folks aren't thinking long term,are they.

[azurnoir]

7. who said anything about disarming Israel?

apparently you do not understand the difference between not giving Israel 30 billion dollars and disarmament, you do realize Israel has a thriving arms industry of its own. and exports arms to other countries?

[Swede]

8. Crippling Israel is short sighted.

You do realize that?

[azurnoir]

9. Israel a country with its own armament industry one that exports arms would be crippled

without US funding? Are these Israeli companies or Israel itself welfare clients of the US?

[Swede]

11. Think of it as a price of peace.

Israel is not the only recipient of aid.

[azurnoir]

12. News Analysis: Israeli arms industry a major economic engine

Israeli defense sales in 2010 totaled 7.2 billion U.S. dollars, making the small nation the world's fourth largest exporter.

Defense officials released the figure in an official report ahead of the Paris Air Show, which is scheduled to open on June 26. A bevy of Israeli firms hope to garner even more sales at the show, after a string of recent successes.

Most of the sales are from four leading companies: Elbit Systems, Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI), Rafael, and Israel Military Industries, a Defense Ministry statement said.

Strong points of Israel's arms industry include unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles, smart munitions, military and civilian aircraft avionics, weapons platforms and structural upgrades for foreign governments and private clients.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/20/c_13938425.htm

[Swede]

14. Think of it as a price of peace.

They are surrounded by enemies armed to the teeth.

[azurnoir]

16. are Israel's enemies armed with nuclear weapons?

like Israel?

[Swede]

24. Thank god they're not

Cause Israel would be a hole in the ground if they were.

[azurnoir]

25. would it be? and which neighboring country would have bombed Israel? n/t

[Swede]

26. Which one wouldn't?

nt

[azurnoir]

28. you did not answer my question and let me clarify I asked which (specifically) neighboring

country would nuke Israel, if only it could? Or are you claiming all Arabs are genocidal towards Israel?

[Swede]

29. You did not answer my question and let me clarify I asked which (specifically) neighboring

wouldn't nuke Israel,if onlly it could?

[azurnoir]

31. and your point in repeating my comment and pretending to ask a question is

or is it an avoidance tactic? your answer seems to indicate you believe every Arab country surrounding Israel to be genocidal is that the case?

[Swede]

41. Answer the question.

nt

[azurnoir]

42. Lol demanding aren't we so can it be taken that you believe and are stating that all Arab countries

surrounding Israel have genocidal intent towards Israel?



eta the answer IMO is Jordan but I'm sure you will refute that as they are afterall Arabs and IMO you've made your feelings quite clear or perhaps you should explain how you do not think all Arabs surrounding Israel are genocidal towards Israel ?

[Swede]

43. Most of your posts end with a question mark. Go back and check.

The Arab countries that are legitmate multiparty democracies won't.

[azurnoir]

44. yes because I'm asking you questions, questions usually end with a question mark

and Lebanon is a democracy so in your opinion Lebanon would not?

[Swede]

45. Lebanon doesn't control events within it's borders.

nt

[azurnoir]

47. so you believe that someone would secretly have a nuclear bomb in Lebanon?

without the government knowing it or anyone else for that matter?

[Swede]

48. Some would know,others not.

Israel would of course know whose it actually is and act accordingly if it was used.

[azurnoir]

50. geez this is sounding more like a John le Carre' novel every second n/t

[Ken Burch]

65. Jordan, obviously. Lebanon. Egypt has its own problems

You can't assume any longer that the Arabs are obsessed with Israel to the exclusion of everything else. It isn't good vs. evil anymore(as if was for a few weeks in 1948 and not again afterwords).

Neither sides' weaponry or army can claim purity or superiority anymore. It's all just killing for killing's sake now-none of it is self-defense anymore.

Face reality.

[Ken Burch]

63. The days when you could assume that the other countries in the region are always crazier than Israel

are gone and gone forever. Nobody's weaponry is any morally purer than anybody else's there now.

All the killing is now equally wrong. None is heroic and none makes anything better.

[Ken Burch]

62. The weaponry they have now is ENOUGH

They don't need anymore.

Weapons aren't good for Israel. Neither is the fetish that's made of the army there. Both are corruptions of what Zionism was meant to be about.

[azurnoir]

15. In addition you do realize it was George W Bush who promised Israel $30 billion?

Obama inherited that from him

[Ken Burch]

61. There's no way it needs THAT much(editing to correct false figure).

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

And while we're at it, let's not send any more war money to anybody ELSE in the Middle East. It's time to admit that building up everybody's armies there hasn't achieved anything.

Peace is peace...the status quo in Israel/Palestine isn't peace, and peace cannot be made through Israeli OR Palestinian military "victory&quot neither of which could bring anything positive or progressive).

[aranthus]

83. There's no way that it is $30 billion a year.

It's $30 billion over ten years.

[Ken Burch]

86. Even then, there's no way they need THAT much

that's a massive level of funding for implements of death.

[Ken Burch]

60. Sending $30 billion dollars over ten years to support more killing(editing to correct the figure)

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

(which is the same thing as supporting the settlements, the Occupation and everything that country has ever done to Palestinians and supporting it without question)is what's really short-sighted.

The Israeli government doesn't NEED $30 billion dollars to buy more means of slaughter. It has enough already. Sending it more is the same thing as saying "we're against peace".

[Mosby]

76. its 3 bil per year for 10 years, not 30 bil per year

Your being duped by the creative financial analysis (lie) that this group is using.

[Ken Burch]

87. I stand corrected on the number

but it's still an insanely high figure and an endorsement of intransigence.

[shira]

10. Is there anything you don't agree with when it comes to Mondoweiss advocacy? n/t

[azurnoir]

13. what are you talking about?

fact shira I rarely read Mondoweiss unless its posted here but your soundbyte does sound good I guess

[shira]

17. Why do you rarely read Mondoweiss? n/t

[azurnoir]

20. Just not on my radar so to speak, I like +972 far more it provides a variety of writers n/t

[oberliner]

36. 972mag actually has much less variety of writers

In fact, it's pretty much only Israeli voices there.

Mondoweiss features writers from around the globe.

[azurnoir]

37. whatever I still like +972 more

BTW does Phil Weiss include them in every issue yes he does have a variety but of the 28 articles on his front page Weiss wrote 12 of them himself, that's why its his blog you see

actually I'm finding this humorous the nearly Pavlovian response of some here is amazing ding ding

[oberliner]

39. Glad you are enjoying yourself

BTW, I like 972mag more as well.

In fact, I loathe Mondoweiss if that hasn't been made clear.

[azurnoir]

51. oh I'd have never guessed at you r feelings about Phil Weiss's blog

for myself I just don't read personal blogs that much anymore

[Ken Burch]

94. Probably because, despite your claims

she isn't unquestioningly in support of whatever Mondoweiss support(I don't read it either...actually, YOU seem to read it far more than either of us).

So now, you need to give that particular smear a rest when it comes to azurnoir.

[Scootaloo]

57. When Israel pays their share of US taxes, they can get their share of the US monetary pie

What's good for Peurto Rico, the Marina Islands, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and other US territories should be good for Israel, too, don't you think?

[Ken Burch]

58. Even without any more military aid

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Israel would still have a massive war machine.

Sending them $3 billion a year for years to come to murder Palestinians is the same thing as opposing peace.

Israel has the fourth-largest war machine in the world-it doesn't NEED any more military aid.

The implements of death it has now are enough.

[Swede]

85. $3 billion a year.

nt

[Ken Burch]

91. Still an insane amount

Israel is militarily secure already.

[Swede]

95. $3 billion is a whole ten dollars per American.

What would an all out middle east war cost?

[Ken Burch]

96. It's not as if it's this OR war.

You could have a chance of ending this(it wouldn't be the whole thing, but it can't happen unless this happens)If Israel were to stop treating the Palestinians as they treat them.

That has to happen...and sending Israel billions of dollars to purchase implements of death is the worst possible place to MAKE it happen.

All sending Israel more military aid does is to encourage that country's leaders to never change any of the things they are doing. Sending them that aid simply prolongs the conflict and preserves an intrinsically unjust status quo.

[Swede]

97. That's your opinion. Mine is a war as soon as Israel is seen as weakened.

They are being bombarded with hundreds of missles this past week. Probing for a weakness.

[Ken Burch]

101. $3 billion is actually $1000 per American.

And the amount per American isn't the point. The point is it's an insane amount of weaponry.

The way to make Israel secure is to end the status quo in the West Bank. The Arab countries CAN'T make peace until Palestine is a state. And you know it.

[Swede]

105. $3 billion divided by 300 million equals ten.

Gaza proves that Israel will never let Palestinians to control the West bank,until the Palestinians have a stable moderate government. Imagine Tel Aviv 8 miles from the fanatics,and Jerusalem surrounded by them. Missles,missles missles. Then the Israelis would crush the Palestinians,back to square one,but with a lot of death and destruction. And you know it.

[Shaktimaan]

107. higher tech weapons...

means less battlefield deaths and lower rates of collateral damage.
Do you oppose that?

[Ken Burch]

108. Serious negotiations in which the Palestinian side was treated as equal

would reduce battlefield deaths and collateral damage even more.

All more military aid really does is encourage Bibi and Co. to be arrogant and intransigent.

And really, why SHOULD that country always get more of a free pass on military aid than ANY other? It's not as if Israel is infallible among the nations...and it's not as if they're always right and the Palestinians are always wrong.

[Shaktimaan]

118. you do not know that.

Serious negotiations in which the Palestinian side was treated as equal would reduce battlefield deaths and collateral damage even more.

Where's your evidence? Thus far, every serious negotiation has resulted in more terrorism and greater violence. Now, if more military aid would enable Israel to build more bomb shelters or a better early warning system for qassams or even finish their missile defense initiative, then why would you argue against it? There are plenty of defensive uses for that money and plenty of uses for it to make weapons more precise, thus minimizing casualties.

Hey, renouncing terrorism would also have the same effect but the Palestinians have not done that yet. And cutting military aid will do absolutely nothing to alter Bibi's stance regarding the Palestinians.

All more military aid really does is encourage Bibi and Co. to be arrogant and intransigent.

So you are willing to allow more innocent Israelis and Palestinians die in the service of preventing Bibi from getting any more arrogant? That sounds kind of arrogant itself.

[azurnoir]

119. so negotiating with the Palestinians results in more Israeli deaths according to you

and yet Netanyahu says he is ready for more negotiations hmmmm

[Shaktimaan]

120. correlation does not equal causation. np

[Ken Burch]

52. So much for free speech in L.A.

There was nothing offensive about those billboards. It's just as legitimate to advocate a cutoff in U.S. aid to Israel as it is to advocate any other position in this country.

The fact is, nothing in Israel will change as long as its leaders can assume that we'll subsidize them no matter what. Pushing for an aid cutoff is the only way to get them to stop building the criminal, immoral, and anti-peace West Bank settlements.

If we keep just sending the money, Likud will be in power forever and only a noble progressive minority there will actually ever come out for peace.

Sending the money forever means giving up on peace forever.

[aranthus]

80. It has nothing to do with free speech The promoters breached the contract.

So CBS cancelled it.

[David__77]

68. These groups would have an easier time if they weren't specifically targeting aid to Israel.

If they instead were critical of that, and of aid to Egypt and perhaps other regional states, then it would be a different matter. We do know that there are anti-Semites that must be isolated and opposed - we must not strengthen them unwittingly.

I believe that US aid should be used to support international trends of peace and economic development.

[azurnoir]

98. oh you mean just like who is that again let me think...............Ron Paul? n/t