Pennies for Haiti, Billions for Israel, Egypt
(CBS)
"We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax,'" Limbaugh said earlier this week. Considering the enormity of the Haitian tragedy, which is unfolding in real-time across our television sets and computer screens, that was pure Ebenezer Scrooge. Limbaugh's suggestion invited reproach from many. Even Republicans like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan expressed dismay. But making this into a referendum on whether Limbaugh has a heart of lead leads nowhere. He was doing what he gets paid to do as a radio provocateur. Besides, he relishes the attention.
Actually, Limbaugh deserves a thank you - even from his harshest detractors -because his rant inadvertently raises an important issue that demands a closer look. I'm talking about the outdated calculus of considerations Washington uses to decide how to spend its foreign aid budget. Foreign aid is a long-standing instrument of U. S. foreign policy. In fiscal 2008, the government offered financial assistance to 154 nations. Starting with the Marshall Plan (1948-1951) and the rebuilding of Europe, development assistance was viewed as a way to check Soviet growth. In the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, however, Washington refocused its foreign aid on more regional issues, and since 2001 the new emphasis has included the battle against terrorism.
But consider this: in fiscal 1998 Haiti received $106 million from the U.S, the No. 9 nation among foreign aid recipients. Ten years later, it didn't even make the top 15 list.
Compare that to the more than $5 billion paid out to Israel and Egypt.
For much of the last 20-plus years, those two nations have ranked as the biggest recipients of our largesse. (Afghanistan is now No. 2 on the list reflecting the war and reconstruction costs from our involvement there post-9/11.) This began during the Carter administration to help solidify the Camp David Treaty. Israel withdrew from bases in the Sinai and Egypt left the Soviet sphere to become a U.S. client state. The treaty held. While a cold peace prevails between the two neighbors, they remain at peace, nonetheless.
Israel has since built one of the most dynamic and entrepreneurial economies in the world. At the same time, the country is now led by a free-market prime minister who ideologically understands the risks of economic dependence. Is there any overarching reason why the training wheels can't come off?
Same question applies to Egypt. The argument you hear time and again is that U.S. aid has helped avoid destabilization. So what have we received for our investment? Hosni Mubarak has been in charge since Anwar Sadat's assassination in 1981. This is a corrupt and authoritarian regime that physically strong-arms political opponents. Some argue that Egypt would fall to the Islamists and turn rabidly anti-American if we stopped bribing them.
That's probably the best argument why it's a good time to reassess.
In a very changed world, the argument for keeping Egypt and Israel on the dole does not hold up, especially when we're paying them do what's in their best interests anyway. With the U.S. fighting back from recession and Haiti laid waste by ill fortune, here's a chance to do a lot of good without reaching any deeper into taxpayer pockets for another penny. The money's already there. Now it's up to Washington how to spend it more wisely.
Popular in Politics
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 120 Comments
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Former IRS chief: "I can't say" what led to IRS targeting
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 825 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Letter to a young scandalmonger
There, in essence, is the difference between International Socialism in the Soviet Communist style versus National Socialism in the Nazi or Fascist style.
At its root this is no different than the mysticism of the European Dark Ages or the mysticism of Jihad today. The individual is a non-person subject to Party doctrine, or else s/he is a non-person subject to religious doctrine. Whatever flaw that prevents him/her from seeing clearly (greed, original sin or whatever gibberish you prefer) requires his/her management by transcendent masters of truth (bureaucrats, theologians) who have somehow -- impossibility -- been born without such flaws.
No wonder our own Western misfits find common cause with Jihad. Their philosophy is the same: a universe without causality, a mind without clarity. The Jihadist seeks to remedy this by violence, and the misfit seeks to remedy this by appeasement.
Also if you read history you'll see that the ideas of what is commonly referred to as the "European Enlightenment" were passed to Europe via the work of Islamic Spain (al-Andalus). The government of Islamic Spain's governance is greatly respected by even Western historians who note for example the Jews of Spain had their "Jewish Golden Age" in Islamic Spain (al-Andalus) and were then subsequently harmed by the Christians "Reconquista" of 1492 and the Christian run Spanish Inquisition (targeting both Muslims and Jews in Spain) following 1492.
In addition while there are good things that came from "Enlightenment Europe" many very bad (and even evil) things emanated from Europe of this era; be it the Conquest of the "New World" and the utter destruction of the Native peoples of the Americas (many of whom had very elaborate societies like the Mayas or the Iroquois League which was the forerunner to the US Constitution), or the slave trade in Africans which built the American economy, to the massive theft of natural resources (in addition to the human slaves) in places as diverse as the Americas or even India. So trying to promote your "Enlightenment" imperialism is very sick when you look at all the death and destruction these Europeans left in their wake. And again you ignore the rule of were these "Enlightenment" people even got their ideas from to start: stuff passed on from the libraries and schools of al-Andalus (Islamic Spain).
In closing with the Western "Capitalist" system struggling before our eyes; let me quote the great freedom fighter Malcolm X- "It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, the capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely."
The intrigues of foreign powers that produced whatever sham international boundaries exist in the region, the intrigues of political powers that produced whatever sham regimes that now rule by force in the region, these do not concern us as much as the moral paralysis or philosophical corruption that permits someone outside of the region to give their endorsement -- or someone within the police state to affect legitimate discussion on an American website -- this should be our concern. It is Jihad by other means.
Also if you read history you'll see that the ideas of what is commonly referred to as the "European Enlightenment" were passed to Europe via the work of Islamic Spain (al-Andalus). The government of Islamic Spain's governance is greatly respected by even Western historians who note for example the Jews of Spain had their "Jewish Golden Age" in Islamic Spain (al-Andalus) and were then subsequently harmed by the Christians "Reconquista" of 1492 and the Christian run Spanish Inquisition (targeting both Muslims and Jews in Spain) following 1492.
In addition while there are good things that came from "Enlightenment Europe" many very bad (and even evil) things emanated from Europe of this era; be it the Conquest of the "New World" and the utter destruction of the Native peoples of the Americas (many of whom had very elaborate societies like the Mayas or the Iroquois League which was the forerunner to the US Constitution), or the slave trade in Africans which built the American economy, to the massive theft of natural resources (in addition to the human slaves) in places as diverse as the Americas or even India. So trying to promote your "Enlightenment" imperialism is very sick when you look at all the death and destruction these Europeans left in their wake. And again you ignore the rule of were these "Enlightenment" people even got their ideas from to start: stuff passed on from the libraries and schools of al-Andalus (Islamic Spain).
In closing with the Western "Capitalist" system struggling before our eyes; let me quote the great freedom fighter Malcolm X- "It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, the capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely."
Quote- The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.
...
And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."
...
There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism.
end quote.
Also in your hatred of Muslims I think you've not read that Baathism (i.e. Arab Socialism) was founded not by a Muslim but by an Arab Christian named Michel Aflaq. Also you've never spoken of why America saw the need to prop up Saddam as a dictator or other issues like the Haavara agreement or the Stern Gang! Lastly, one sick statement you make is that Arabs and Muslims in the past were allegedly "looting" what you call the alleged oil "properties" of white imperialist Europeans in the Middle East. So you are clear sick imperialist apologist, these Europeans had NO right to the oil it was the sovereign national resource of the people of that land i.e. Arabs and Muslims you sicko! What next are you going to claim that African-American slaves living in the pre-Civil War American South were allegedly "looting" their white slaveowners "property" by having slave rebellions?! I wonder if your same logic about alleged "property" prevails in this case involving Western imperialists.