military-industrial complex working fine

From a story in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz today...(boldface is mine)

A ministerial panel headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made a final decision Thursday to purchase 20 new F-35 fighter jets, despite opposition from a number of senior defense officials over the high cost of the deal.

Barak gave his go-ahead last month to purchase the jets in a deal valued at around $2.75 billion. The first planes are expected to arrive in 2015.

The Israel Air Force, however, will have to make do with considerably fewer planes than the 75 originally sought. The entire deal will be funded by American military...

...Negotiations dragged on for more than two years amid several disagreements; many revolved around the IAF's demands that Israeli-made systems be installed for specialties such as electronic warfare and communications. Israel also wanted to expand the plane's capacity to allow it to carry Israeli-made missiles.

The Americans declined, however, insisting that the deal was a "closed package" and none of the components could be altered.
In any case, the F-35 will give the IAF outstanding radar-dodging capabilities that allow preemptive strikes against enemy states with advanced air defense technologies.

So it's more weapons paid for by the United States and built by the United States going to Israel. The only real argument was over which country's weapons manufacturers would get to jump on the money train.

Note the pre-emptive capability. This is the heart of the "Bush Doctrine" that got us into the mess of Iraq and, since Israel does as it pleases with U.S. weaponry, may get us into another mess.

Interestingly, at the moment, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton is pleading with Netanyahu to stop the settlements, even if only temporarily. From another story in the same issue of Haaretz today...

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Israel on Thursday to extend its freeze of construction in West Bank settlements, telling Channel 10 in an interview that such a move would be "extremely useful" in advancing peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Clinton, who was visiting the region this week for a second round of direct talks between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamain Netanyahu, suggested extending the partial freeze for even a limited amount of time...

So the try for peace is a poor relation to the arming of Israel. Both are regular features in the Middle East. The difference is that the arming goes on successfully year in and year out, while the "peace process" fails to even stop the settlements, let alone make any headway toward justice for the Palestinians. Israeli pilots fly, Palestinians die.

Are you a hip-hop fan? Here's a hip-hop video that makes a statement about terror.

US, in debt, sends billions to well-off Israel

It's no news that the United States is heavily in debt. Not only does the Treasury owe trillions but citizens are also in near record levels of debt.

Did you know that Israel is doing quite well? In a list of countries by external debt per capita, the US is #14 and Israel is #27 and that was in 2007.

It's no news to Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and are continuing to cost billions. The removal of Saddam Hussein was a tremendous service to Israel. Are they helping to defray U.S. military costs? No.

And what's more, we supply Israel with the means to make things even worse for the United States by exposing our hypocrisy and enabling Israel to use the arms we supply it to oppress the non-Jewish civilians over which it has total control. Since both the Palestinians and the Jews have equal claims to the land, how can it be seen as anything but unjust for the US to uphold only one side politically and financially?

In 2007, the Unites States increased the amount of funding for Israeli military power to a record $30 billion over 10 years. Remember Israel has a population about that of the greater Chicago metropolitan area. This money we send for weapons goes to a country that strikes at civilians with the weapons it buys, that unilaterally strikes at neighbor countries when it thinks they may be building a threat, that keeps its army in occupied territories enforcing unequal rights for Israelis over Palestinians. Bellicose is the word. Now the talk is of a unilateral attack on Iran.

Does Congress debate the wisdom of this tremendous weapons funding? No.

Does Congress ask any questions on how U.S. supplied weapons are used when civilians are attacked? No, instead it speaks of Israel having a "right to defend itself", then accepts without question any action Israel declares as defensive. No other country on the planet is treated this way by the United States.

In the article linked above, it states that Israeli worries must be put to rest by giving it far more military aid than the US gives to any other country in the region.

Does Congress debate this concept? No.

My fellow Americans, this is done in your name with your money. Why do you put up with it? As long as you remain silent, the Israel lobby and the weapons manufacturers lobby will have their way with Congress. As will every lobby, they know exactly what they want - to pick your pocket - and it depends on you and me not caring enough to oppose them.