Israel and United States

Introduction: the Policy Problem under Consideration
When it comes to foreign policy, there are many different issues in foreign policy that the government needs to address—from tensions regarding missile treaties with Russia to wars in the Middle East to money given to the state of Israel, which has been recognized by the United Nations as a violator of human rights for its treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank (Human Rights Watch, 2018). Of these, America’s special relationship with Israel is perhaps the most unsettling. Israel receives more than $3 billion in foreign aid from the U.S. every year, which is one-fifth of the entire foreign aid budget of the U.S., and the U.S. is further committed to giving $38 billion in military financial aid over the next several years (Sharp, 2018). Essentially, the U.S. is helping to fund a human rights violator by continuing to give billions of dollars every year to an apartheid state in the Middle East. A policy change is clearly needed on this issue if America is going to be able to have any moral high ground to condemn other dictators of states where it claims human rights abuses are conducted—like in Syria. If the U.S. is going to condemn human rights violations in one state it should condemn them in all—not look the other way because of a “special relationship” that exists.
The special relationship that exists between the U.S. and Israel has been well documented in the past (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). The AIPAC lobby has been identified by Rep. Ilhan Omar as playing a part in corrupting the democratic principles and government of the U.S. by using money and campaign funds to essentially “buy” politicians to vote in favor of legislation that benefits Israel. Omar was censored by her colleagues and peers for making this argument, which shows the extent to which one is not permitted to criticize Israel in the U.S. In some U.S. states, it is even illegal to protest Israel’s actions by boycotting the state while holding a public job. This shows how beholden to a foreign state that engages in human rights violations the U.S. actually has become.
To change the current policy towards issue, a new policy should be established, one that is based on the idea of ending all foreign aid to Israel. This would be a sign that the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. is no longer fundamentally tenable, considering the human rights violations of the former and the intention of the latter to condemn human rights violators, as it has done in Syria and other states. Ending all foreign aid to Israel would also be a good first step in cleaning out the American political spectrum; a second step would be to oblige AIPAC to register as a foreign lobby in order to increase transparency for the lobby, so that it has to show how it actually spends its money.
Underlying Intentions of the Policy
The underlying aim of the policy change is to address the elephant in the room that is America’s special relationship with Israel. The social justice aspect of this policy change is evident in the fact that the United Nations has condemned Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, its blockades, its attacks (the use of white phosphorous on children and the firing of guns on unarmed Palestinians), its bulldozing of Palestinian homes on the West Bank, and the erection of Israel settlements on land that does not legally belong to the state of Israel. By ending foreign aid to Israel, the U.S. would be siding with the UN against these and other human rights violations committed by Israel in the recent past against Palestine.
By continuing to fund Israel’s military expansion, the U.S. is siding with Israel and essentially supporting an apartheid state that engages in ethnic cleansing. It is saying to the world that it will only condemn human rights violators who do not routinely “buy off” its senators and representatives. This message should be stopped because it is opposed to any and all sense of social justice. For the U.S. to be taken seriously on the world stage, it is time to stand up to the state of Israel and condemn it for its treatment of Palestine—and that starts with stopping all foreign aid to the state.
The Suggested Policy Change
The suggested policy change is to end all foreign aid to Israel. The goal is to use that money to protect, support and assist the victims of human rights violations. Instead of that money going to Israel, it should either be used to aid Palestinians or used domestically to support America’s own infrastructure. Currently, the breakdown in spending on Israel looks like this:
· $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for offshore procurement;
· $705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92 million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
· $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
· $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
· $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
· $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program;
· and The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019 (Sharp, 2018).
The policy change would end all of this financial assistance and restore the moral high ground of America with respect to at least this portion of its foreign policy.
Discussion of the Rationale Supporting This Change
As Johnson (2011) notes, there is a need for more peacekeepers in the world. The U.S. is the nation that is in the best position to lead the world in peacekeeping missions. To keep and maintain the peace, however, the U.S. must stop funding states that perpetuate war. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on since Israel was founded in 1948. The U.S. has throughout that time always supported Israel. Because Israel can count on America’s support, it continues to abuse the rights of Palestinians. Peace is needed in the Middle East, but it will not come so long as the U.S. continues to fund the state of Israel in its quest to destroy Palestine. Hooks (1999) points out that ethnicity is the spice of life, and that when ethnicity is not respected among all peoples, it creates devastating cultural effects that undermine the humanity of all people. The ethnicity of the Palestinians is not being respected and it should be.
As Verhaeghe (2014) states, “neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us,” because “our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens” (p. 1). The taxpayers of the U.S. are already stretched so thin, as the cost of living rises—health care costs going up, education costs going up, housing costs going up, and so on. To see their tax money going to support an apartheid state that is ethnically cleansing the region is demoralizing to say the least. That money should be used to help people, not hurt them. Ethnicity is indeed the spice of life, and that spice is being thrown out by the collusion between the U.S. and Israel. It needs to stop.
Analysis of the Impact
The impact of this policy change will depend on being able to obtain credible data that can be used to measure the social, political and economic effects of the policy change. Thus, a good method will be needed. Facione (2006) states that core critical thinking skills include analysis, interpretation, self-regulation, inference, explanation and evaluation. Necessary aspects of critical thinking therefore include the need to determine the credibility of data. To analyze credible data, it will be necessary to see how the money is being spent, what the effect of the cancelation of foreign aid to Israel is in terms of the social and political fallout: does settlement building stop? Are legislators who sign the policy into law removed from office through the work of AIPAC after the lobby refuses to support them in their reelection bids? These questions can be asked to help determine the impact of the policy change. If the money previously sent to Israel is instead spent on helping Palestinians rebuild their lives or used in America to rebuild infrastructure, can the outcomes be measured? Richards (2007) explains what is meant by the idea of everyday creativity and why it is so essential: everyday creativity “is about everyone, throughout our lives; it is fundamental to our survival. It is how we find a lost child, get enough to eat, and make our way in a new place and culture. It is not so much what we do as how we do it, whether this is at work or at leisure” (Richards, 2007, p. 25). To get back our everyday creativity, the data will have to be credible, as Facione (2006) notes, which means it has to be quantitative, trustworthy, and focused on what matters.
References
Facione, P. (2006). Critical thinking: what it is and why it counts. Insight Assessments.
Hooks, B. (1999). Black looks: Race and representation. South End Press.
Human Rights Watch. (2018). Israel and Palestine. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine
Johnson, S. A. (2011). Women, Shared Leadership, and Policy: The Mano River Women's Peace Network Case Study. Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(8).
Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2007). The Israel lobby and US foreign policy. Macmillan.
Richards, R. (2010). Everyday creativity. The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 189-215.
Sharp, J. (2018). U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Verhaeghe, P. (2014). Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us. The Guardian.
Annotated Bibliography
Facione, P. (2006). Critical thinking: what it is and why it counts. Insight Assessments.
Facione (2006) states that core critical thinking skills include analysis, interpretation, self-regulation, inference, explanation and evaluation. Necessary aspects of critical thinking therefore include the need to determine the credibility of data, and that requires that one really immerse oneself in the realm of CT. Critical thinking is essentially a way of life, as Socrates showed it to be centuries ago. To think critically is to be aware of how information is formulated, where it comes from, how it is interpreted, and what inferences are made from it. Facione describes the ability to infer as being able to draw reasonable conclusions from the information that is obtained. This is just as important as being able to evaluate without bias, being able to explain without complicating the matter, and being able to analyze without neglecting anything of value or importance.
Hooks, B. (1999). Black looks: Race and representation. South End Press.
Hooks (1999) states that the real America is more than just a country of whiteness: whiteness was just the defined quality or mode by which the power structure of the ruling classes was communicated. America actually has many different races, cultures, ethnicities and people who have nothing whatsoever to do with whiteness. Hooks (1999) states that “within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (p. 21). Hooks, however, also identifies a danger with this way of viewing ethnicity as a spcie: “when race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relations with the Other” (p. 23). The real thing that needs to be done, according to Hooks, is for ethnicity to be respected because it is human and because it has value. To kill others because they are ethnically different is shameful and should not be allowed or supported.
Johnson, S. A. (2011). Women, Shared Leadership, and Policy: The Mano River
Women's Peace Network Case Study. Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(8).
In this case study, Johnson examines the role of women in creating a sense of leadership and policy that can be used to help others. Women’s roles in leading communities and in forming public policy has been overlooked for a long time, and should no longer be overlooked, Johnson argues, because women have so much good to offer. They bring a perspective and a set of experience that men miss because they are not culturally attuned to the experiences that women see, feel, have, share and understood among themselves. For this reason, and as the case study of the Mano River Women’s Peace Network shows, women can be a positive force for change. In this case study they help to effect a peace movement that is a force for good in terms of achieving a social justice objective.
Richards, R. (2010). Everyday creativity. The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 189-
215.
Richards explains that “self-actualizing people seemed happier, more fulfilled and at peace, not grasping, worried, striving, and were motivated in other higher ways” (p. 27). Whether one is an artist or is viewing art, one is essentially “tuning in” to something bigger than oneself, as Richards (2007) states: “Creative persons can be more mindfully attuned to what is happening; more consciously aware in the moment, rather than leading a habit-bound routinized life” (p. 42). It is as though they are operating on a higher frequency, listening to the voice of God as He directs their course through life with sweet melodies and harmonies.
Verhaeghe, P. (2014). Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us. The Guardian.
Verhaeghe (2014) points out that “we tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces.” The problem he identifies in this article, however, is that neoliberalism is leading people to make bad decisions about what is necessary for themselves and for others. He gives the example of the primary school teacher who is told that she must get a Master’s degree in economics before she can teach primary school in a neoliberal society. It makes zero practical sense and it will take years and a great deal of money for the primary school teacher to achieve this objective and at the end of it there is no indication that she will be any better off than she was before. The neoliberal society is obsessed with economics and does not bother to think about the humane, the practical or the prudent. A primary school teacher is not going to need a Master’s in economics to teach elementary school students. Their minds are not going to be able to comprehend anything that would be learned at the Master’s level so there is no point obliging the primary school teacher to obtain that understanding. It is simply years and a great deal of debt that is added to the increasingly challenging world of neoliberalism. Verhaeghe’s argument is that there is no need for all this added pressure. Humanity can do much better than persist under neoliberal conditions, which really have no positive impact on human society. The freedoms that people think they have today are largely illusory, and this plays into the idea of politics being an illusion because of the money factor.