The Moral Hazard

The US send billions in aid to Israel each year. The amount of this aid is an order of magnitude greater than the amount of aid given to any other country, on a per person basis. The "subsidy" is necessary, we are told, becuase Israel is under constant attack.

This may be ture, but we should be award that there is a moral hazzard associated with such aid in that, if the conflict ends, so does the money.

The result is predictable. When economics dictate that the conflict can't stop, steps will be taken to ensure that the conflict continues.

For example, during a peaceful protest of the wall in Israel the following took place:

During the clashes, undercover security forces mingled with the demonstrators and began to throw stones at the soldiers and police, demonstrators said. The undercover security forces had provoked the police and soldiers into opening fire with rubber bullets and tear gas. The demonstrators said they had not thrown stones at the soldiers and police.

That is, Israeli agents went into the Palestinian crowd and started throwing rocks at the Israeli police. You may need to read that two or three times.

The IDF admits this took place. They only contend that they were not the first people in the crowd to throw rocks. Yeah, right.

And if it happened this one time you can be sure it is normal procedure. It is what the Israeli agents are trained to do.

So, it is not correct to simply say that Israel is not committed to peace. They are, in fact, committed to prolonging the conflict. The US subsidy of the conflict virtually ensures this outcome.

While our policy has always been one sided, the Bush administration has taken it to a new level of unaccountability. He is owned lock, stock and barrel, by the neocons. We will see no efforts by Israel to come to peace until America exerts a more firm hand.

The incident is covered more thoroughly here.