Monday, 28 October 2024

Israeli Economy Not So Great

As Israel are finding out Genocide isn't cheap because it costs money to drop bombs on refugees sheltering in schools and hospitals but luckily for them they have Uncle Sam footing the bill although to be fair to Joe Biden, he is complaining that they are using it to bomb refugees sheltering in schools and hospitals while he willingly hands over money and weapons to allow them to continue doing it.
With America shovelling the best part of $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel every year, this doesn't completely cover the bill and with Israeli military spending ballooning to $5 billion economists are saying the end of the war could come more to Israeli stuttering economy rather than any moral reason as social programs are neglected in favour of the military.
Last year the Israeli government spent $27.5 billion on the military last year according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute or 5.3% of GDP, beaten only by Ukraine's 37% of GDP fighting off Russia’s invasion.
In the last year Israels economic output shrank 5.6%, the worst performance of any of the 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the call-ups and extensions of military service are threatening the labor supply and tourism has completely tanked.
Moody’s Ratings has lowered the Israeli government’s credit rating two notches to Baa1 or a moderate credit risk as the debt has risen to 62% and can be expected to hit 80% if the fighting continues for another year and Israel maintains a military presence in Gaza as expected.
The credit downgrade will lead to higher borrowing costs, cuts to public services and higher taxes according to a former head of Israel’s central bank and The Israeli Manufacturing Association claimed that people like me, who happily boycott Israel goods, has cost it a 5% drop in the Israeli export economy.
Obviously Palestine and the West Bank will need to be completely rebuilt when the war ends and nations are offering to fund it but no so much Israel with only America seemingly keen to fund them but it gives Benjamin Netanyahu something to think about besides his place in the Hague cell awaiting him for war crimes.

9 comments:

Not really a blog said...

being attacked and eliminated by Persians, Arabs, and Muslims that hate your nation also isn't cheap...

Falling on a bruise said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Falling on a bruise said...

Performing Genocide is obviously more expensive and even your tax dollars courtesy of American tax payers are not covering it.

Not really a blog said...

your definition of genocide allows a drug gang member shooting a member of a rival drug gang to be called genocide. meaning the definition you use is useless and you only use it because it substantiates your viewpoint. you would ignore it if you support Jewish people instead of supporting hamas and their supporters.

genocide is the attempt to completely eliminate a body of people. clearly Israel is not trying to kill all arabs, persians, Muslims. Israel is not trying to eliminate any nation. in fact, i know you don't like truth, but Israel gave back a lot of territory.

you also ignore that Egypt doesn't care about the people in gaza, except to keep them in gaza. Egypt kept the people in gaza from crossing into Egypt. also, iran doesn't help the people in gaza, oh except they provide weapons and ammunition to hamas!!

and if the people in gaza didn't enable hamas to plan and execute attacks from civilian sites Israel would not be using their military against the area. but you ignore reality so you can use a useless definition.

your approach on this is one reason why the form of government advocated by the left is bad. the left want to create a clumsy, broad laws lacking the ability to adjust for realistic circumstances. it is also why the un is useless and is ignored by any and all nations that have the power to support their own agenda.





Anonymous said...

Not my definition, it’s the UN and was written by….have a guess.

Not really a blog said...

how does the source make it a good definition?

Anonymous said...

Who would have a better idea if it, a Jew who lived it or an American who never?

Anonymous said...

An Israeli Jew or a Christian American that should say.

Not really a blog said...

your argument is irrational. instead of examining the result, you examine the source and ignore the fecklessness of the outcome... irrational.

your logic goes like this:
dogs chew bones,
so dogs know more about bones than others;
dogs chew sticks,
so dogs chew sticks and bones and know more about both;
dogs say sticks and bones are the same,
so there can be no disputation about bones and sticks...

what if the dog is wrong?

fyi, the dog isn't always correct...

i don't care about the source of any thought or action unless it passes three tests:
- there is/was a significant motive
- what was done aligned with the motive
- how it was done results in attaining the motive

creating a definition of genocide that includes any and every case of violence (aka, two drug cartels trying to eliminate each other) is not a useful definition.