Written August 17thThe Jerusalem Post printed an article online titled “Congress Votes $37.5m for Arrow-3 Program.” Hilary Leila Krieger wrote:
Israel is on track to receive $37.5 million in US funding in 2010 for the Arrow-3 missile program, despite earlier concerns that America would cancel its funding, and the US Congress is looking to roll back a funding reduction to the David’s Sling shorter-range missile defense system following votes on Capitol Hill this week.
The defense spending bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday and the Senate version approved by the Armed Service Committee Friday also call for keeping the F-22 fighter jet production line alive and exploring the possibility of sales to foreign countries.
Israel has long sought the advanced stealth bomber, whose overseas sales are currently banned, and was chagrined when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the US would be ending the program this spring. But despite a veto threat from the White House should the planes be in the budget, the Senate and House both added in funding for several more aircraft, a major source of jobs as well as a potential strategic asset.
It is one thing for the United States to give funding to another military force but it is another thing to give $37.5 million of funding. This does not include the unspecified amount given for many other huge contributions to the Israeli military. Annually, the Israeli military receives $2.77 billion from the U.S. This amount increased recently thanks to President Obama. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to increase the allocation for the shorter-range David’s Sling program from $45.8 million to $72.9 million; that is an extra $27.1 million for short-range missile defense. That will all be delivered this year. Of what significance is short-range missile defense for the Israeli military? Within short range is Palestine, which is already devastated after more than 60 years of occupation and the recently heightened aggression and genocide against it. The missile attacks launched by Palestinians are homemade rockets which rarely land in populated areas or cause any injuries or casualties. During the Gaza massacre of December and January, only four Israelis were injured by these rockets while 1,400 Palestinians lost their lives at the hands of the Israeli military. The magnitude of the short-range missile defense buildup is not necessary. At a time of such economic hardship in the U.S. and with the national deficit expected to reach its largest amount ever, this much money could be put to a much better use. The American government’s first responsibility is to take care of Americans, not to support an internationally-recognized criminal entity. The fiduciary responsibility of the United States is owed to its citizens, and legislators are currently being irresponsible with our tax money and abandoning us when we need it most.
It would be interesting to know what motivation could have been given to U.S. legislators to pass a defense spending bill with these allocations in it. For such a cost to be distributed amongst the American people there must have been a larger benefit for the people; we should hope that our representatives would be as logical, at least. So what benefit does the United States gain by these particular actions? Is it something that the general population of citizens will benefit from or just a few groups of people in government positions or anyone at all?
If the stealth bomber is banned from being sold overseas, there must be a reason. Defense Secretary Gates “announced he didn’t support it.” The opinion of an official in a position of influence so high in the United States’ chain of command is worthy of consideration. Concurrently, why is it considerable for Israel to be exempted from a global rule? The United States has a history of favoring and being a yes man for Israel and it is time that the U.S. begins treating the citizens of the world by the founding principles of America, including that all men are created equal and have the right to pursue basic human liberties. By funding the Israeli military, America is encouraging more racism against Palestinians and fears of attacks upon other countries like Lebanon and Iran and hindering these people (and more) from enjoying life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
Krieger also says the Israeli military is “busy selling military hardware all over the planet.” For there to be customers of the Israeli military, there must be a worthwhile product. So the Israeli military has technology sophisticated enough to sell but still needs the United States to support it? It is also making money from the technology that is either funded or directly provided by the U.S. America could help itself by selling its own technology rather than giving it away.
As much money as the United States has been giving, is now giving, and will continue to give to Israelis and their military, it will never be enough for the Israelis. The amount allocated continuously increases, even while the economy in the U.S. was worsening at an increasing rate. For the Arrow-3 program, Israelis were hoping to get approximately $150 million rather than the $37.5 million. It has been noted in other sources that the U.S. pays more per Israeli capita than it does per American capita. Does that seem fair or responsible? Does America have any limit to how much money it will give away?
The supportive votes in the United States’ legislature are accompanied by the statement from the House Foreign Affairs Committee noting “its support for ‘complete accelerated co-production of Arrow missiles’ as well as calling for a report on the subject.’” Why is the U.S. supporting not only missile production but accelerated production? Again, the Israelis are clearly in military control of Palestine and have no significant threat of attack against them. Thus, a rapid missile buildup suggests further planned aggression. Why accelerate aid to international criminals when there is such difficulty accelerating the U.S. economy? It is interesting that the American legislators vote to support a foreign military program and then ask “for a report on the subject.” Voters are supposed to be educated on a subject before voting on it. When the U.S. realizes after the fact that its money is being used for crimes against humanity and that it is abandoning its own people, there will be no way to reverse the damage done.
The actions of the United States are intended to “maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge and other assurances regarding the security of Israel, according to [Foreign Affairs] committee staff.” What are the assurances other than military might? They must include economic superiority, social, and cultural superiority. Israel has succeeded in all of these areas as they strangle the life out of the Palestinian people. Why is the U.S. so dedicated to maintaining a foreign country’s “qualitative military edge”? Other allies of America do not get the same treatment and as stated earlier, the Israeli military is not in dire need of such preferential treatment as it is plenty capable of securing itself.
Representative Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas, states what many others would agree with: “It is the sense of Congress that Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Iran…” Many political advisors, experts, and foreign culture experts have explained the imminent nuclear threat from Iran to be harmless. An imminent threat is not the same as an imminent action. What evidence is there of an imminent action or even certain nuclear weaponry capability of Iran?
A final statement is that the U.S. is breaking its own ethics code and laws by providing weapons, military aid, and other forms of support to a country which uses all of the above in violation of international law, especially including human rights. What is the point of having laws which are broken by those who are entrusted to uphold them?
