The recent decision by the U.S. to freeze virtually all foreign aid, with the exception of military assistance to Israel and Egypt, raises serious concerns about America’s commitment to its “America First” policy and its moral standing in the global arena. If the U.S. genuinely seeks to end conflicts and promote global stability, continuing to fund these two nations—both of which play controversial roles in the ongoing Gaza crisis, is counterproductive and undermines America’s credibility.
Hypocrisy in the Pursuit of Peace
If the U.S. is truly committed to ending the war in Gaza and promoting global peace, then the continued funding of Israel’s military operations contradicts that goal. By providing billions in military aid to Israel, the U.S. is indirectly enabling the ongoing assault on Gaza, which many international observers have condemned as genocide against the Palestinian people. This funding supports airstrikes, occupation policies, and forced displacements that not only prolong the conflict but also deepen anti-American sentiment worldwide.
Similarly, Egypt, which has positioned itself as a regional mediator, is complicit in efforts to push Palestinians out of Gaza and into tent cities in the Sinai Desert. This forced displacement plan, allegedly orchestrated in cooperation with Israel, would further destabilize the region and create a long-term humanitarian crisis that the U.S. would eventually have to address. Why should U.S. taxpayers continue funding a country that betrays its historical commitments to Arab solidarity and instead aligns with policies that dislodge an entire population?
AIPAC’s Influence: Is It Still Relevant Under Trump?
Under previous administrations, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has played a major role in securing bipartisan support for Israel, lobbying aggressively to ensure continued military assistance. However, with Trump’s nationalist and transactional approach to foreign policy, AIPAC’s influence might be waning. Trump’s “America First” doctrine implies a recalibration of U.S. foreign aid, questioning long-standing commitments that don’t yield direct benefits for the U.S.
While AIPAC’s influence in Congress remains strong, Trump’s independent approach means he may not need them as a political tool to maintain his base. If Trump is indeed focused on securing a legacy of peace and disengagement from costly foreign entanglements, the continued unquestioning support for Israel, without conditions, risks undermining his credibility. Was AIPAC instrumental in Trump’s election? Not entirely. His rise was driven by populism and nationalism rather than pro-Israel lobbying, suggesting he can afford to take a more balanced stance without fearing political fallout.
Continued Funding Fuels War, Not Peace
The billions of dollars funneled into Israel’s military effort under the guise of “defense” actually perpetuate the cycle of violence in the region. The U.S. should reconsider whether military aid aligns with its strategic interests, especially when public perception increasingly views such support as complicity in war crimes. If Trump truly wants to be perceived as a disruptor of the status quo, he must take a firm stand against enabling these conflicts through financial support.
For Egypt, ongoing military aid does little to advance U.S. interests beyond maintaining the fragile peace treaty with Israel. The Egyptian government, despite receiving generous U.S. support, continues to suppress democratic freedoms, engage in human rights violations, and play a passive-aggressive role in regional conflicts. What does the U.S. gain from funding such a regime beyond outdated Cold War-era policies?
The Perception Factor: A Strategic Liability for Trump
Trump’s leadership thrives on perception, and aligning with regimes accused of genocide or betrayal could tarnish his global image. He must recognize that the American public, especially younger generations, are increasingly critical of unconditional support for Israel. Social media campaigns and grassroots movements have shifted public opinion, making blind military support a political liability rather than an asset.
If Trump wishes to be seen as a pragmatic leader who puts “America First,” he should demand tangible returns on investments, such as real peace efforts and humanitarian commitments, rather than continued military escalations. Why fund destruction when the U.S. could instead invest in regional stability and economic development initiatives that serve long-term American interests?
Strategic Alternatives for U.S. Policy
Rather than continuing military aid to Israel and Egypt, the U.S. should consider alternative strategies such as:
Conditional Aid: Linking financial assistance to concrete steps towards peace, including a ceasefire and an end to settlement expansions.
Regional Development Initiatives: Redirecting funds toward rebuilding efforts in Gaza and regional economic partnerships that promote long-term peace.
Diplomatic Leverage: Using aid as a bargaining chip to encourage both nations to pursue genuine peace negotiations rather than further entrenchment.
Conclusion: Time for a Policy Shift
If Trump is serious about prioritizing American interests and ending unnecessary wars, he must take a hard look at the continued funding of Israel and Egypt. The U.S. cannot claim to be a broker of peace while simultaneously funding military campaigns that perpetuate violence and displacement.
It is crucial for Trump’s administration to be smart and strategic in handling this issue, ensuring that America’s financial resources are used to foster genuine peace, not to sustain war machines and betrayals. Ending or restructuring aid to these nations would send a powerful message that America is no longer willing to bankroll endless conflict and will instead focus on constructive engagement that aligns with U.S. interests and values.
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment