...

Well, the liberals will love it because it is using our money without our agreement (something like taxation without representation?).

I am sure it will be arranged that the money the UN has to pay ultimately comes from you guys.

But the numbers will still look the department look bad.

And it will be a way for the US to subsidize Israel without making it look as if they give money to Israel at all.

Another reason the left will love it since they hate Israel (more on that in a bit).  A way to take our money without consent, spend it on what they want, without our consent, for something that makes them "feel good".

SideBar:  could the animosity the left (in America and perhaps Europe) feels for Israel be related to their failed experiment?  Israel started out as a grand socialist experiment (kind of what Communism was supposed to be), and the whole nation failed at it.  They are still partly socialistic, but they have embraced capitalism to the hilt, and have thrived from it.  So in effect they are laboratory proof that the left's goals and ideals just plain do not work.

Whatever works for them is fine with me.

I think my idea is a totally excellent solution.

It will just be a shock for them when it costs the UN 300,000 million dollars a year.

I doubt it. They don't know that Zionism is a socialist ideology.

That's why the keep talking about Israel having had "American support" against the poor Arabs. They believe Israel was some kind of American colony. They don't know that Albert Einstein was watched by the FBI because he was a Zionist, that the US were not at all happy with the socialist experiment as you call it.

Europeans don't know about that history either. It's not tought in German schools, for example. Socialism is taught, but Zionism, a rather huge part of socialism, is not.

The narrative is that racist right-wing Jews invaded and stole Arab land.

It cannot be that a bunch of socialists bought land and tried to farm it in collectives.

And while Israel has embraced capitalism (any socialist society should be capable of change), I would not call the experiment a failure. When Israel was socialist, she was still capable of supporting herself. And while comparatively few kibbutzim survived, towns are still organised in a much more community-based way than in Europe and America and many socialist ideals (brotherhood, no-one left behind etc.) still exist to some extent.

You must know the song "Hava Nagila". It's refrain is "awake brothers" ("3uru achim") with "brother" meaning "comrade". It's the same refrain you would have found in the songs sung in official festivals in the Soviet-Union and eastern Europe.

It is an irony of history that Rothschild funded a socialist experiment but it just goes to show that solidarity among a nation outways ideology. The socialists were capable of building a country. I don't think capitalism could have done it so quickly.

I would not be too sure about the Liberals. Listen to this, it is only a minute long.

First the Arabs expel the Jews from "Arab" lands and they flee to "Palestine".

Now the Europeans take over and want them to flee to Poland.

What's waiting for them in Poland?

Polish Sausage and Lech Walesa.

Alternatively the Arabs can go back to, what did we call it, Arabia.

What is waiting for them there?  Sharia and burquas?

Oil, apparently.

The only thing that makes Israel valuable land is the Israelis.