What can we as Americans do?
1- US cuts off financial aid to Israel?
A nice symbolic gesture, but cutting off US welfare would not handicap Israel. Israel is owned by the richest banking dynasty in world history, and they or any one of twenty other banking dynasties could replace any gap in the Israeli budget left by the removal of US aid- measured against the huge profits collected from usury, money laundering, drug sales, rigged markets, and other financial crimes, a replacement of US aid in the Israeli budget would be like pocket change from under their couch cushions. Cutting off US welfare to Israel would embarrass them but would not curtail Israel's future plans for regional genocide.
At this point, the continued US aid to Israel seems to be necessary to Zionism mostly because it serves to humiliate the US population. Paying taxes towards the development of the crown jewel of the Zionist empire at the same time that we are paying interest to rent our own money supply from the very same criminal network, that reinforces the defeatist attitude in America that nothing can be done about Zionism by Americans even if the citizens asked for an end to that support. The US welfare continues because it's like a rattle of the jailer's keys on the prison bars. It's meant to taunt us- they can get by fine without the actual money.
2- US cuts off military support for Israel?
Might have had considerable impact if we had taken that course in the 1950's and 1960's, but in 2010, it seems to be too late. Once they got the nukes, they got the trump card. Once they assembled all their nukes, they had all they needed at a minimum to deter an attack and pretty much all they needed to menace even other nuclear-armed states. I don't see any leverage available here.
3- Can we extricate ourselves from Zionism through the vote?
No. We live in a country with a controlled media, and it is mandatory that every candidate for national office be asked the question, "Do you support Israel?"- and the answer had better be very close to an unqualified 'Yes', or the media will swarm with rabid vengeance. Opposition of Israel is now classified as interchangeable and synonymous with opposition to America itself. Such views make you a suspect, a potential enemy combatant. You can't force this debate into our political arena if even inquiring about the potential existence of an opposing viewpoint brands you as a racist or as a supporter of terrorism.
We are a crippled, docile people, disorganized mentally, swinging at phantom enemies, too dumb to even see that we are paying the bills for the gallows that we are marching towards. Genuine opposition to Zionism will remain a fringe movement in America until a very loud wake up call shocks the cattle into lucidity, and that wake up call will not come until we're on the doorstep of a total economic collapse/police state/FEMA camp future. Too late at that point, way too late. We are just so dumb. The fear against criticizing Zionism comes from a suspicion that the wrath of the system will turn on you, but don't people get it??? You're on the same road whether you speak out or not. There IS NO other road in America. It's a communal journey, to one destination.
Americans are purely media-guided creatures at this stage, and without positive reinforcement for anti-Zionist views in the media ( not just the internet ), any brief outrage against Israel that seeps into the edges of mass consciousness ( like now ) will wither on the vine. Americans can barely grasp how this fear came to be part of their daily lives, but they will continue to respect the fear-driven rule bred into them: Thou shalt not defy Israel, or you will become a target. Israel can kill and kill and kill and kill, and Americans for the most part will stay on the sidelines, begging for some pop culture nonsense or sports to distract them.
The president asked Congress last week to authorize new funding for the war in Iraq, which was not paid for in the wasteful budget recently passed in the House of Representatives. You might assume that Congress would simply approve legislation that pays for military supplies and hardware, troop wages, ammunition, fuel, food, and the like. In other words, the bread and butter items that our troops need to prosecute the war in Iraq.
But nothing is simple in Washington. Congress could not resist the opportunity to put its hands in taxpayers’ pockets by adding 20 billion dollars in completely unrelated spending to the final bill. In essence, Congress is so addicted to spending that it will use any opportunity, even a war, to spend money for every conceivable reason- however unrelated to the war in Iraq.
We must understand that America is in a financial crisis. Tax revenues are down due to the faltering economy, but congressional spending has exploded by more than 22% in just two years. As a result, annual deficits have risen rapidly, and the national debt now approaches 6.5 trillion dollars. Almost all of this new spending has been completely unrelated to homeland defense or national security concerns. The same old failed domestic agencies and special-interest pork programs have received the bulk of the dollars. While Congress should fund constitutional federal functions like national defense, our very solvency as a nation is being threatened by unconstitutional spending.
Here are some examples of what ended up in the “war funding” bill:
-$3.2 billion for an airline bailout-even though the airlines always seem to be troubled and always feel they deserve tax money. If we bail out the airlines, why not the hotels, restaurants, and rental car agencies that have been affected by 9-11 and the war in Iraq? Why not every industry that’s suffering?;
-$125 million for congressional security, to make sure members are safe even if the country is not;
-$11 million for salaries and expenses for the House of Representatives, who already approved a pay raise for themselves last Fall;
-$250 million for Department of Agriculture grants;
-$69 million for something called the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust;
-$5.5 million for the Library of Congress;
-$6.8 million for the Congressional Research Service and General Accounting Office;
-$100,000 for the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The bill also includes $8 billion in foreign aid, which is especially egregious given the state of the American economy. How can we ask taxpayers to send billions abroad with things so tough for many here at home?
The $ 8 billion includes:
-$1 billion in "economic assistance" for Turkey, even though they refused to let America use its bases to stage our assault on Iraq and have only grudgingly allowed use of its airspace;
-$700 million for Jordan;
-$500 million for Egypt;
-$127 million for Afghanistan;
-$1 billion in for Israel;
-$175 million for Pakistan;
-$170 million to train the “Afghan National Army";
and the list goes on and on. All of this is of course in addition to the standard foreign aid we send these nations and many others every year.
These are just some examples of how Congress takes every possible opportunity to spend your money, even when it should be focused on the war in Iraq. Was it really too much to ask for a clean bill to fund the president's request, a bill unencumbered by pork handouts and useless foreign aid? Apparently not even war can prevent Congress from shamelessly sticking its hands in your pockets while cloaking itself in “support the troops” rhetoric.
The death of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat last week once again brings the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the international forefront. The Bush administration finds itself in an uncomfortable but familiar role as peacemaker for yet another intractable, ancient, and deadly Middle East conflict. The popular press and political world both accept without question the notion that the United States is somehow responsible for resolving any and all conflicts around the globe, but especially in Palestine.
We conveniently forget, however, that American tax dollars militarized the entire region in the first place. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.
Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, many Muslims hate the United States despite the billions we give to their governments.
It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.
Respect for self-determination really is the cornerstone of a sensible foreign policy, yet many Americans who strongly support U.S. sovereignty advocate interventionist policies that deny other nations that same right. The interventionist approach that has dominated American foreign policy since World War I has produced an unmitigated series of disasters. From Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, American military and economic meddling has made numerous conflicts worse, not better. Washington and Jefferson had it right when they warned against entangling alliances, and the history of the 20th century proves their point. The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.
Congress recently plunged headlong into its summer appropriations period, making decisions about how to spend nearly two trillion dollars in 2002. Every year, Congress considers 13 massive appropriations bills that fund the federal government, and every year I'm amazed by the staggering amounts spent. The real problem, of course, is that so much of the spending funds agencies and programs not authorized in the Constitution. I especially object to foreign aid spending, which clearly is unconstitutional under the enumerated powers clause. In short, Congress has zero authority to send your tax dollars overseas, and the Founders would be dismayed by the extent of our intervention in the affairs of foreign nations. Yet few in Congress or the media ever question the wisdom of sending literally billions of U.S. tax dollars overseas.
Last week Congress approved two separate appropriations measures that fund the State department and various foreign operations. Both are replete with foreign aid spending that either fails to achieve policy goals or actually harms American interests. The carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy never works; we only end up with dependent allies and increasingly hostile enemies (who resent our failure to fund them). The State department bill contained nearly $1.7 billion in UN funding; $844 million for U.S. dues payments, and $850 million for so-called "peacekeeping"operations, which really are acts of war. I offered amendments to block this UN funding, which were supported by more than 60 of my colleagues. However, far more support is needed to end U.S. taxpayer funding of that most anti-American organization.
The foreign operations bill similarly sends a whopping $15.2 billion overseas. Here are just a few examples of how your money is being spent:
-$2.8 billion for Israel, and $2 billion for Egypt. Our ongoing aid to both Israel and various PLO countries only serves to intensify the conflict in the region. U.S. money has been instrumental in the incredible militarization of Israel. Why are we fanning the flames of this ancient conflict?
-$676 million to continue the failed drug war in Colombia. Time and time again, we have seen our drug interdiction escalate violence in Latin American countries. Our military aid could easily spark a war.
-$768 million for the former Soviet republics, which are politically unstable and armed with the nuclear arsenal of the USSR.
-$600 million for Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo, despite the failure of our previous UN-led intervention in the region.
-$90 million for electric power plant construction in North Korea. Why are we building power plants for brutal communist dictatorships?
Millions for Iraq, Cambodia, and Sudan, all of which have oppressive governments. Do we really think the citizens will get the money?
-$1.4 billion for the IMF and World Bank, which simply make bad loans to questionable governments at U.S. taxpayer expense.
-$753 million for the Export-Import Bank, which subsidizes big U.S. corporations by giving risky loans to foreign buyers of American exports, again at the expense of taxpayers.
It's ironic that Congress is sending more money abroad even as the U.S. economy limps toward recession. Those foreign aid dollars should have been returned to taxpayers to spend, save, invest, or donate to charity. In the fight against big government, we should start by demanding that Congress abide by the Constitution and stop sending U.S. taxpayer funds overseas.
Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.
The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don’t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It’s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we’re not the ones suffering.
Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.
Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.
It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.
The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.
The situation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank territories deteriorated into virtually all-out war in the past week, with both sides escalating the rhetoric and the violence. The continued leadership of PLO Chairman Arafat seems doomed. The administration now finds itself in an uncomfortable but familiar role as peacemaker for the Middle East conflict; Presidents from Carter to Clinton have tried and failed to create lasting peace. Yet while our diplomatic efforts are well-intentioned and needed, we must resist efforts by the UN and some in the administration to go beyond diplomacy and impose our political will in the Middle East.
Remember that American tax dollars have been instrumental in the incredible militarization of the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in Palestinian hands. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid, though debatably well-intentioned, only intensifies the conflict.
Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. So while Israeli Prime Minister Sharon understandably touts his close alliance with the U.S., many average Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other.
Just as our money never satisfies Israel, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. Foreign aid or not, the Islamic world sees America as a constant aggressor in the Middle East. Muslims resent our role in bringing the Shah of Iran to power, and they resent our permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. They view our ongoing bombing and sanctions campaign in Iraq as wholly unjustified, believing it harms innocent Iraqis but not Saddam Hussein. They especially resent our tremendous financial support for Israel. In the eyes of many Muslims, to be at war with Israel is to be at war with America.
It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement in this deadly and ancient dispute. We cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. "Solutions" imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.
Respect for self-determination really is the cornerstone of a sensible foreign policy, yet many Americans who strongly support U.S. sovereignty advocate interventionist policies that deny other nations that same right. The interventionist approach that has dominated American foreign policy since World War I has produced an unmitigated series of disasters. From Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, American military and economic meddling has made numerous conflicts worse, not better. Washington and Jefferson had it right when they warned against entangling alliances, and the history of the 20th century proves their point. The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. If we care about the self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian people, and if we care about the Constitution, we must adopt a neutral, diplomatic role in the conflict and stop funding both sides.
