Japanese Peace Bell donated to the United Nations Headquarters in New York City | Photo via Wikimedia Commons
Part XXI of the “United States-Philippines Relations and Geopolitics” Series
On April 27, 2007, this journalist wrote an op-ed piece, Iraq Is ‘Not Worth Dying For’ (Ninoy Aquino Copied the Phrase from H. Fish)”. Here’s the link to this article.
The lead paragraph said: It was Hamilton Fish (1808-1893), an American statesman, who said: “If our country is worth dying for in time of war, let us resolve that it is truly worth living for in time of peace.” He was a former Secretary of State, aside from being a representative and senator from New York. The Philippines’ Ninoy Aquino apparently copied the first half of Mr. Fish’s slogan and gave up his life (in) proving it.
Fast forward to the Israeli-Hamas War, and the lessons in the said op-ed piece remain the same 16 years and six months later.
The people of the countries in the Middle East and their leaders must genuinely understand and study the words of the late U.S. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish. Israelis and Palestinians must realize, as paraphrased, Mr. Hamilton’s advice, “If their country is worth dying for in time of war, they should resolve that it is truly worth living for in time of peace.” The same adage of his must apply to all nations in the Middle East and their backers, like the Americans, British, French, Russians, and other nationalities that are bankrolling the warring countries and factions within the region.
Why? As this column pointed out the truth and reality, it is cheaper to work for peace than to go to war. Besides, there are more pressing existential threats to mankind, like climate change, pandemics, starvation, natural calamities, and whatnot.
” … it may be best for all the donor countries to turn their military assistance and financial aid as investments in the warring countries into development funds for the local economies. However, the respective sovereignty of the countries in the Middle East must be guaranteed by the donor countries and, more importantly, the United Nations.”
Then, the people of the donor countries (that arm the nations in the Middle East and prop their respective local economies) must ask if it is worth it for their soldiers to die fighting for Israel or Palestine, as the case may be. Ergo, it may be best for all the donor countries to turn their military assistance and financial aid as investments in the warring countries into development funds for the local economies. However, the respective sovereignty of the countries in the Middle East must be guaranteed by the donor countries and, more importantly, the United Nations.
Otherwise, for the next 75 years, trillions more of U.S. dollars, British pounds, French francs, Eurodollars, Russian rubles, and other currencies will be misspent. And thousands, if not millions (heaven forbid) of lives will be lost needlessly.
Chicago-based Joseph G. Lariosa, a journalist, has endorsed the suggestions discussed in this column. However, he suggests that the International Red Cross and the Red Crescent organizations assist the United Nations in providing peacekeepers, medical corps, engineering brigades, and SWATT teams. Mr. Lariosa is the dean of Filipino-American correspondents in the United States, if not in North America. He also represents the National Press Club of the Philippines.
As to the rhetorical question posed in the last column’s heading, “Should American Taxpayers Pay for Genocidal Attacks in Palestine?” Ms. Thalia Young posted a big and bold reply: “No.” She is the Grand Dame of Tennessee’s Democratic pundits and humorists, as this columnist dubbed her. She is also the dean of religious-choir founders of Tennessee.
