This is in part a response to Alia's earlier entry on white phosphorus, as well as a larger discussion piece.
AMNESTY International, in a report issued on the recent conflict in Gaza, has claimed that white phophorus shells manufactured in the U.S. were by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the 3-week war. According to an article published in The Times,
Amnesty said that they had found shells with the marking PB-91K018-035, a lot number which indicates that they were assembled by Pine Bluff Arsenal (PB) in October 1991. [...] In another instance, Amnesty said that it found fragments of an AGM114 Hellfire missile, made by the Florida-based Hellfire Systems, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, that had been fired at an ambulance, killing three Palestinian paramedics and a boy in Gaza City on January 4
As the United States begins to engage with Arab countries in the Middle East, as well as Israel and the Palestinian Fatah Party, it becomes more and more problematic that the U.S. has provided Israel with a wide array of armaments. It becomes harder and harder to claim that one is trying to resolve a conflict in a bipartisan, peaceful manner when the same country citing the need for diplomacy is at the same time providing the arms for the conflict. For years, the U.S. has provided Israel with guns for their army.
Can the U.S. continue to support Israel with weapons while sustaining a message of peace and reconciliation in the region? In light of its being at least indirectly responsible for human rights violations, should the United States be the leading negotiator in the region? Finally, should the U.S. continue to provide military, or for that matter, any support to Israel?
I just found this article on Haaretz, and while I'm not sure if it has already been posted, I think it is pertinent to the questions you raise about U.S. support for Israel:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070318.html
Despite the increased role the U.S. is taking in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, these kinds of ongoing monetary pledges ($30 billion for the next 10 years) do not project an image of impartiality. Another article from The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty) reports that Amnesty International has been pressuring the U.S. to suspend military aid to Israel, but to no avail.
I can only agree that the deep historical ties between the U.S. and Israel makes it more difficult for the U.S. to be a principal mediator in the conflict -- This kind of support probably does not lend the U.S. much credibility in the eyes of Palestinian groups, who may feel already feel marginalized in the peace process. However, U.S. relations with many neighboring countries are still tentative at best. On one hand it is understandable why the U.S. does not want to jeopardize relations with its strongest ally in the Middle East (Israel), but at the same time perhaps stepping back and cultivating a more impartial image will give the U.S. more legitimacy in negotiations with other Arab countries.
I, too, believe that the United States needs to stop funding Israeli's military. While it may risk the strength of our relationship with Israel, I think it will send a positive message about the US around the world. It will seem (and hopefully, will be true) that we are more interested in sponsoring peace rather than war. This may put the US in better standing with other Middle Eastern countries, and make our need for Israel as an ally less pressing.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the U.S. has pledged a considerable sum of monetary aid for rebuilding Gaza, I have to agree that the long history of financial/military support given to Israel precludes the notion of American "neutrality" in the conflict.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that by now Israel has accumulated such a vast store of weaponry and developed such a strong military that they really do not need America's help anymore. I don't see why, from a practical point of view, we continue giving them military aid. America has given itself the role of "protector of civilization". So is it not implied that if anything serious were ever to happen, America would immediately rush to Israel's defense, just as we would to the defense of any "civilized" (i.e. European) country?
What really troubles me, though, is that I can't see when this pro-Israel bias is going to change. Perhaps it's naivete, but I was hoping Obama might be able to shake things up. This article from the front page of today's NY Times suggests otherwise, though:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
It seems that the Obama administration intended to name Charles W. Freeman Jr. (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia) as chairman of the Ntl. Intelligence Council, but Mr. Freeman chose to withdraw from the running because of intense pressure on the White House from pro-Israel lobby groups. Freeman has not been afraid to criticize Israel's actions in recent years as well as America's blind support of the country: "Israel is driving itself toward a cliff, and it is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people."
Now more than ever we need people with fresh perspectives and experience working with Arab governments. Clearly the current U.S. policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not gotten us anywhere, so why do members of both major parties cling to it so tightly? It amazes me that as complex as this situation is, it seems to be one thing that both Republicans and Democrats often take the same intractable position on.
I posed the question Monday night if the 30-some percent of U.S. Foreign Aid given to Israel has been given to produce, supply, or aid the state with weaponry. As a group, I think we all disagreed and assumed that other initiatives were given to the aid money provided. However, a website that details the use of foreign aid spent by countries proved me wrong...
ReplyDeleteIn the obvious interest of strengthening Israel's security and maintaining the country's military edge over neighboring militaries, the U.S. Congress has been providing Israel annually with FMF grants that represent about 23 percent of its overall defense budget. Israel's 2006 military budget is estimated at 7.4 billion dollars!
According to the Congressional Research Service, FMF levels are expected to increase incrementally by 60 million dollars a year to a level of 2.4 billion dollars by 2008 compared with 2.2 billion dollars in 2005.
The website also states that Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid every year since 1976.
Additionally, the United States provides Israel with billions of dollars worth of weaponry, and has for decades... In connection to the white phosphorus sales, recent military sales to Israel include propulsion systems for fast patrol boats worth more than 15 million dollars from MTU Detroit Diesel; an eight-million-dollar contract to Lockheed Martin for high-tech infrared "navigation and targeting" capabilities for Israeli jets; and a 145-million-dollar deal with Oshkosh Truck Corp to build more than 900 armour kits for Israeli Medium Tactical Vehicles, alongside an assortment of those legal-but-not-so-usuable chemical weapons.
In December of last year, Lockheed Martin was awarded a 29.8-million-dollar contract to provide spares part for Israel's F-16 fighter planes. Because of these grants, Israel has one of the world's largest fleets of F-16 fighter planes, made in Fort Worth, Texas and also in Israel by Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Today, Israel has a total of over 378 F-16s, considered one of the world's most advanced fighter planes, alongisde 117 F-15s, 94 Skyhawks, 110 Phantoms... All supplied by the United States of America!
oops. Forgot to give you guys the link to my site. It's the Congressional Service Reports website. A great place to get the dirt on what our country has spent a lot of tax dollars on as well. Enjoy!
ReplyDeletehttp://opencrs.com/
That's really interesting. What's odd is that we never hear about these breakdown in the U.S. mainstream media. It's a little weird knowing that there is so much of our money being spent on stuff we just don't necessarily know.
ReplyDelete