An interesting alliance the United States has maintained since the end of WWII (among many), is that with Israel. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because it defines the understanding of our nation’s character to many ordinary middle eastern citizens. Perhaps it’s interesting because it is the only foreign military that receives billions of dollars in aid while simultaneously receiving the greatest amount of US vetoes against past UN Security Council’s efforts to investigate “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” they may have committed. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because after a two-week long war (between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces), where Israel lost 13 soldiers and Palestine lost over 1,400 people (SOURCE), the US government voiced a disposition of approval by continuing to provide the billions in funds that have propped up the Israeli military to such a position of global prowess.
The more one reads about the relationship between the US federal budget and the finances of the Israeli military, the more one might be more disturbed, than anything, with the general theory behind such foreign policy mechanisms that are so often utilized (in relating to any country) without much question by the American people. The bulk of the money sent annually to the Israeli military comes from what is referred to as the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. It just so happens that the Israeli military has received especially favored attention from this fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, Israel has been granted nearly $3 billion annually since the year 1985, and this number is only promised to increase by $6 billion over the next decade (SOURCE).
But let us return to the concepts behind the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. How could such a discreet portion of the State Department ever be justified in funneling billions of American dollars toward the development of foreign militaries? According to the State Department website, stronger foreign militaries can “contribute to international crisis response operations, including peacekeeping and humanitarian crises.” But what happens when these militaries contribute to ongoing humanitarian crises? (Has anyone ever heard of Gaza?). Furthermore, apparently foreign militaries can help “Maintain support for democratically-elected governments that share values similar to the United States for democracy, human rights, and regional stability.” But what happened to our founding fathers’ original beliefs that America is merely “the champion and vindicator only of her own”?? (John Q. Adams). Furthermore, according to our State Department, the FMF exists to “enhance rationalization, standardization, and interoperability of military forces of friendly countries and allies”. I’m not so sure I want “interoperability”, when our countries freedoms were founded on the rationalization that “enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, [America] would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom” (John Q. Adams). (FMF Quotes from SOURCE).
I’m aware that the relationship we have with Israel is not the only relationship we need to question. I’m also aware that the complications of our “interoperability” in the Middle East are beyond the reach of my understanding at this point. But perhaps that’s the point we need to take away with us. “Enlisting under other banners” will always entrench us in more war, more regional conflict, and more compromise when said conflicts directly contradict the strong principles of “liberty” and “equality under the law” that ought to be the things that shape our international identity. Perhaps the complicated bonds of our state department are beyond the reach of our rationalization at this point, because they negate the simplicity of the foreign policy once wish for our nation. It reminds me of how Thomas Jefferson once profoundly aspired for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliance with none”.
-E.C.Soria
Posts
I agree that "...the relationship we have with Israel is not the only relationship we need to question." If we use the same source, different article, (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32260.pdf)we dicover that the countries bordering Israel receive even more funding. In 2009 Egypt, Jordon, Lebanon, and the Palistinians received 3.688 billion to Israels 2.58 billion. The difference is an even greater contrast when we look at this per capita.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the answer? Support all of these countries, some of them, or none?
ReplyDeleteI myself lean toward none, but I will admit being biased. I have been shot at and had to dodge kidnappers in that part of the world. I don't believe I am a bigot, just not inclined to force my politics on folks that are not interested. I am also not willing to attempt to buy friendship or respect in the region.
Any ideas?
I gotta agree with you on leaning towards none. I think our forefathers have made it clear that we are supposed to maintain good friendships with other countries but be more concerned about our own welfare. Also we are supposed to be the land of the free, so the more liberty we maintain for ourselves the better we can provide for those from foreign lands who need it. I couldn't imagine all you went through, but I think that's a valid opinion to have, especially what you might've seen or experienced. Personally I rather see the Government spend these billions on education or things dealing more directly with ourselves as a nation. We still have a lot of things we need to fix here.
ReplyDeleteThe United States was forced to deal with this part of the world and it's double dealing very early in its history. Also note the attempt to form a coalition of nations...
ReplyDelete"When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
Very interesting chunk of history! I'm definitely going to look up more on that as well. Thanks for the link, comments and information.
ReplyDeleteN8,
ReplyDeleteWhile charity is always a good thing, the preoccupation we seem to have with foreign aid is at best, unhealthy. Our politicians are far too interested in buying favor with foreign powers. As E.C. points out when quoting Jefferson, “…entangling alliance with none.” We seem to have a fare number of entanglements and our Middle Eastern forays have had mixed results. While am not educated enough to even begin to have answers, pulling funding and military support as well as our attempted restraint/peacekeeping efforts, would seem to be an interesting experiment.
The Arab Nations can provide the aid and support the Palestinians require. They can broker direct negotiations and hopefully peace can be found. It’s their back yard and they seem the best qualified to deal with the issues. I fear that as long as the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel continue and the political leadership of Gaza and the West Bank refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist, peace will be elusive