What are Palestinian refugee camps REALLY like?
The answer to all of your questions is YES. Palestinian refugee camps are not the plastic tents actual refugees in Congo, Sudan or Syria have to manage with, they're actually just poor neighbourhoods, with cement and stone buildings, sewer systems, paved roads, stores and markets, etc. Then why, you may ask, are they still called "refugee camps"? Well, see, the Palestinians, being as special and entitled as they are, have an entire UN organization dedicated to their "refugees", called UNRWA. UNRWA provides them with everything a municipality is supposed to, but it does so for FREE, since it relies on donations and parts of the UN budget. The titles of "refugees" and "refugee camps" helps the Palestinian preserve their sorry state and get aid from UNRWA instead of developing self reliance and initiative that isn't violent.
Why is Israel receiving tons of aid from the U.S.?
It’s only military aid, it worth 3.8 billion$/year and many Israelis want it to stop for many good reasons.85% of the aid, according to the aid deal, are must be spent in the US. This means more weapon is being bought from the American weapon industry and less chances for the Israeli one to develop itself.The US have saying on Israeli weapon deals. Because of that Israel had often to curb many billion dollars arm deals. For instance, Israel had to violate billions of dollars deals for selling UAVs and Falcon airborne early-warning system to China, compensating the Chinese with nearly half billion$ for that, because of American pressure. BTW, the US immediately then after sold the China similar systems.The American aid consists 1% of Israel’s GDP. It became less and less important in economical terms.It gives us bad reputation. We could be friends without giving or taking money. We have enough shared interests and values. Israel should be independent of any economical aid.
Will US ditch Israel if it became self-reliant on oil? The perception is that the US is using Israel to control its interests in the Middle East.
The American policy towards Israel has nothing to do with oil. So no.Middle East != oil Israel has no oil. It's not close to any oil. There is no connection whatsoever. There are more complex issues underlying the policy.Updated question details:The intent of the question was to brain storm if after US became self reliant on oil, whether it was still necessary to maintain the Israeli relationship to control the oil producing nations.You confuse Israel holding its own with them dominating the whole region, which they don't. Sure you don't want to mess with them, but their power does not really go far beyond their borders (Entebbe and Osirak not withstanding).Israel does not in any way control relevant oil producers. Of those Israel had major squabbles with, neither Jordan, Syria or Egypt are strategic oil producers that the US want to keep under control. Nor are they actually being controlled. And for sure not by Israel.The commitment to Israel, if anything, can be a weak spot in US strategic interest in the region, as the 1990 gulf war has proven. When Saddam targetted Israel with Scuds the US had a hell of time trying to keep Israel out of the war and keep the coalition together.So again, the US relationship with Israel has next to nothing to do with oil, directly or indirectly. Therefore no, the US would not withdraw if they became independent from oil.
Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200.?
OK you have some good arguments and if you are Jewish I understand your anger. But the Mossad and IAF claim they thought it was an Egyptian vessel. The Egyptians were using boats that were so obsolete they might as well have been frigates. I think the Mossad are liars. Your right that there are a lot of Palestinians are maniacs who would kill anyone who is not Muslim. The bottom line is though is that The USA should not arbitrarily send tax dollars to the Israeli government that has been guilty of massacres and duplicity. Its none of our business. Your right on about the PLO not taking a sweet deal to insure its own existence but I think the US and Israel has some culpability for the corrupt PA leadership.
Why does the U.S. give out billions in foreign aid while it is in debt?
The U.S. gives relatively little foreign aid. It looks like a lot of foreign aid because of the following equation:(A little effort + big international interests) X (a huge economy) X (a huge population) = a fair amount.But relatively, we’re pretty stingy. Less than 1% of the budget goes to foreign aid. The largest chunk of that goes to Afghanistan: it’s targeted toward rebuilding that country in a way that heads off a renewed Taliban takeover and further terrorist threats to the U.S. coming from there.The rest of the foreign aid budget goes for a mix of strategic and compassionate purposes. See U.S. foreign aid: A waste of money or a boost to world stability? Here are the factsThe U.S. ranks toward the bottom of developed countries in terms of how much foreign aid it gives per person and per total income. As shown in the chart below:Annual Foreign Aid Spending per CapitaSource: (my chart based on data from List of development aid country donors - Wikipedia)So, the premise of the question, that the U.S. gives a lot of foreign aid, is mostly false. What about the implication, that we ought to direct that money to reducing the national debt instead?The foreign aid budget is $31 billion, out of a federal budget of $4.1 trillion, or about zero point seven percent (0.7%) The total massive national debt is currently $21 trillion. If the debt didn’t keep going up, and we just used that federal aid budget to pay it off, we could be debt free in a mere 677 years.Oh wait, the Trump tax reform from last December is scheduled to add another half a trillion to one point three trillion to the debt over the next ten years. Here's how the newly passed GOP tax bill will impact the economy, businesses, the deficit, and your wallet. So 677 years won’t be enough.But does saving money from the foreign aid budget actually save any money at all? Here’s what Defense Secretary Mattis had to say:"If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately," Mattis said, before members of Congress at a National Security Advisory Council meeting, the US Global Leadership Coalition notes."So I think it's a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene," Mattis continued. Mattis once said if State Department funding gets cut 'then I need to buy more ammunition'