- Philosophers are often renown for two things: their
ability
to think logically and their irrelevance to public discussion and debate.
I am hoping to buck the trend a bit here by using my training in thought
to offer a practical solution to a complex issue before the public. The
issue is that of how to respond to the unfolding crisis in Israel and
Palestine.
The solution is this: end all aid to Israel. Not just military aid. All
aid. Not just all aid until Israel ends its military occupation....All
aid. Period.
-
- There are several simple, but compelling reasons, for
Americans to support such a proposal. First and foremost, by squandering
the aid we have given Israel over the years (nearly five billion dollars
a year, including incidentals) in the massive violation of the human
rights,
autonomy, and dignity of another people, Israel has forfeited any claim
it might have to that aid. Regardless of the individual acts of desperation
and terrorism that some Palestinians commit, the overwhelming
destructiveness
that Israel has performed on the Palestinian people for the last
thirty-five
years demonstrates that its goal has always been, and remains, the
dominance
of another people. The U.S. should not be aiding Israel no more than it
should have been aiding South Africa under apartheid, Iran under the Shah,
Iraq's Saddam during his war with Iran, Cambodia under Pol Pot, or
Indonesia
during its campaign against the East Timorese.
-
- Second, there are plenty of better ways to use this aid
than that to which it has been put by Israel. We are still in a recession
where money for education, health care, homelessness, and other necessities
is lacking. Putting our money there is far better than wasting it on a
country that chooses to spend it on the oppression of another people. If
we are to spend the aid overseas, then let us spend it fighting AIDS in
Africa or offering grants for infrastructure in Latin America.
-
- Finally, aid to Israel is against any conception of U.S.
interests that one would want to hold, whether one is conservative or
liberal.
It subverts the conservatives' attempts to build a far-reaching
international
campaign against terrorism. It subverts the liberals' desire to direct
U.S. policy toward upholding general human rights standards. By introducing
tension with European and Arab countries, isolating the U.S. in the United
Nations, and diminishing the perception (and reality) of the U.S. as an
honest world broker, aid to Israel runs counter to U.S. goals and short-
and long term interests.
-
- In offering arguments for a position, philosophers are
often beholden to consider objections one might raise to their views. After
all, as my students often remind me, there is always another side to every
issue. Let me look at the other side, then, by offering the following
common
objections and then replying to them.
-
- First objection: Why not
withhold or reduce aid to Israel until it leaves the Palestine and then
reinstate it? Isn't that more fair than just cutting aid off
completely?
-
- Reply: A state that seeks
U.S. aid should show a legal need for it and definitely not be acting to
threaten U.S. interests. Israel, as I have argued, does not contribute
to U.S. interests. And if Israel leaves Palestine and then believes it
needs aid, it can request it and have it considered. Given what Israel
does with U.S. aid, it obviously doesn't need any now.
-
- Second objection: The
proposal
is too radical. Americans won't want to go that far in criticizing
Israel.
-
- Reply: The reason Americans
have not displayed more outrage has less to do with any deep ties to Israel
than with the one-sided view of the Middle East they have been presented
with. Americans have shown, in the cases of Somalia and Kosovo recently,
and Ethiopia before that, a surprising ability to act on conscience and
to empathize with those who suffer needlessly. What is required here, then,
is a more balanced coverage of the Middle East, not a watered down proposal
for what to do about it. If the U.S. media begins to pay due attention
to what Israel has done in Jenin, that would go a long way toward remedying
the problem.
-
- Third objection: Israel needs
the aid. Withdrawing such a large sum all at once without promise of
reinstatement
would place an immediate and undue hardship on Israel.
-
- Reply: Israel has had
thirty-five
years to consider their actions; that seems to me plenty long enough. The
longer a criminal uses my support to commit crimes, the more urgent it
becomes that I stop supplying that support.
-
- Fourth objection: The
proposal,
because of its sweeping character, will generate anti-Semitism.
-
- Reply: First, there are
always
anti-Semites; anything critical of Israel will attract them. The proposal
itself is not anti-Semitic, regardless of what supporters of Israel might
say about it. Instead it is the kind of proposal that ought to be applied
to any nation that acts as Israel does. We ought to judge Israel not by
the fact that it is thought to be a Jewish state (misleadingly so,
considering
that it is 20% non-Jewish). To treat Israel this way is either
anti-Semitism
or its opposite. We ought to judge Israel the way we ought to judge all
nations that are candidates for foreign aid: by how it acts.
-
- Given that aid to Israel supports a policy that runs
afoul of basic human rights, wastes billions of dollars a year in taxpayer
money, and is inimical to U.S. interests, we ought to end it. It is, as
philosophers like to say, the reasonable thing to do.
-
- Todd May is a Professor of Philosophy, Clemson
University.
By courtesy & © 2002 Todd May Copyright © 2002Media Monitors
Network. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
|
