上周，参议院就一项决议进行了投票，该决议旨在迫使国务院提交一份关于以色列在约旦河西岸暴力行为的报告。这项立法要求国务院在30天内报告接受美国安全资金国家的各项人权状况。如果国务院未能按时提交报告，这些资金将自动停止发放。
Last week, the Senate voted on a resolution would force the State Department to produce a report on Israeli violence in the West Bank. The legislation would require the State Department to report on human rights in countries receiving American security funds within 30 days. If the department fails to produce a report in time, those funds halt automatically.
约旦河西岸的暴力事件受到一些议员的特别关注，这是有充分理由的。首先，这种暴力行为已达到“历史最高水平”，并“威胁到大规模暴行的发生”。其次，美国有能力阻止这种行为。虽然约旦河西岸的袭击通常是由以色列定居者实施的，但以色列政府却在纵容这些罪行。出于政策考量，以色列政府避免与定居者对抗，甚至为他们的袭击提供武器。
West Bank violence is of particular interest to some lawmakers for good reason. For one, that violence has reached an “all-time high” which “threatens mass atrocities.”Second, the United States has the power to stop it. While West Bank attacks are typically committed by Israeli settlers, Israel’s government enables these crimes. It avoids confronting settlers as a matter of policy and even arms their attacks.
这就是为什么以色列人权监督机构“以色列人权组织”（B’Tselem）将定居者的袭击定性为“国家暴力”。作为以色列最大的资助国，美国完全有能力向该国施压，要求其改弦更张。
That’s why Israeli human rights watchdog B’Tselem characterizes settler attacks as “state violence.”As its largest benefactor, the United States could pressure that state to shape up.
这一点显得尤为紧迫，因为越来越多的美国人正成为受害者。自2022年以来，至少有9名美国公民在约旦河西岸遇害。没有一名肇事者受到追究。这是一个令人震惊的趋势：一个由美国资助和武装的外国政府，在杀害美国人后却无需承担任何后果。你可能会认为议员们会一致迫切地寻求答案，但你错了。
This is all the more pressing because Americans are increasingly the victims. Since 2022, at least nine U.S. citizens have been killed in the West Bank. None of the perpetrators have faced accountability. It’s a striking trend: a foreign government, funded and armed by the United States, killing Americans without repercussion. You’d think lawmakers would unanimously be desperate for answers. But you would be wrong.
该决议最终以47票对51票未获通过。除了宾夕法尼亚州参议员约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）这一不出所料的例外，民主党人普遍支持该决议。该法案只需几张共和党人的赞成票即可通过，但最终仅获得了一张，即来自肯塔基州的参议员兰德·保罗（Rand Paul）。由于该决议的命运掌握在共和党人手中，共和党党团几乎全员一致地投下了反对票。
The resolution failed on a 47-51 vote. Democrats, with the sole and unsurprising exception of Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, universally supported the resolution. All it would’ve taken was a few Republican votes to pass. The measure only got one: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. With the resolution’s fate resting in Republican hands, the conference closed ranks almost to a man.
这对共和党而言是一次严峻的考验。这个标榜“美国优先”的政党本有绝佳机会来彰显其爱国立场。这项决议正是他们向全世界证明：美国民众的生命远比维护某个外国的形象更为重要。这本该是易如反掌的事——决议仅要求提交一份报告，而由特朗普政府领导的国务院出具的报告很可能也只是敷衍了事、避重就轻罢了。这份报告绝不会揭露什么足以动摇以色列在美声望或严重损害美以同盟关系的真相。这完全是一次毫无风险的机会——一个在道德上无可挑剔且政治上毫无代价的立场选择。
It was a gut check for the GOP. The party of “America First” had a golden opportunity to affirm its patriotism. The resolution was their chance to show the world American lives take precedence over laundering a foreign country’s image. And it was a layup. The resolution simply required a report that, coming from the Trump State Department, probably would’ve been a whitewash anyway. It wouldn’t be some revelation that shattered Israel’s popularity or irreparably damaged the American-Israeli alliance. This was a freebie — a morally obvious and politically costless stand.
在国内，很难想象会有人反对调查美国公民在海外丧生的真相。向选民解释自己为何投赞成票也并非难事；相反，若投票反对，反倒会让人质疑其对国家的忠诚。
Domestically, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could object to seeking answers regarding American deaths abroad. Explaining to your constituents why you voted yes wouldn’t be hard. If anything, it’d be hard to explain voting no, which calls your loyalty to this country into question.
然而，共和党人还是投了反对票。这其实并不出人意料：共和党时常违背自身“美国优先”的口号。不过，此次反对的明目张胆程度仍值得注意。其他违背“美国优先”原则的行为至少还有某种可辩解的余地——尽管这些借口难以令人信服。比如当前对伊朗的战争：反对者称政府甘愿承受战争带来的巨大国内代价，实则是把美国利益置于次要位置；但政府及其支持者则辩称，这场战争对保障美国安全至关重要，因为伊朗对美国构成了生存威胁。
Yet Republicans voted no anyway. This wasn’t out of character; the GOP regularly undermines its own “America First” branding. It was nonetheless notable, though, for its nakedness. With other violations of “America First,” there is at least some deniability — however implausible. Take the ongoing war on Iran. Opponents have cast the administration’s ready willingness to bear the entanglement’s immense domestic costs as putting America last. But the administration and its supporters argue that this war is necessary for American security, which Iran threatens existentially.
这种说法固然站不住脚，却至少算是一种可争论的说法。哪怕只有一丝可争议的空间，也足以成为某种说辞。
That’s wrong; but it’s a story. A shred of contestability can go a long way.
特朗普总统决定取消对阿根廷的援助暂停令，转而提供200亿美元救助资金。这一举动背后同样存在类似的“文字游戏”。从表面上看，此举实在不妥：就在美国民众生活艰难之际，政府却拨出巨额资金去扶持一个财政管理混乱的外国政府。不过政府也有说辞：这也是“美国优先”的体现——这笔资金属于战略性贷款而非无偿援助，目的是遏制中国影响力，维护美国在其“后院”的主导地位。
Similar mental gymnastics were at play when President Trump waived his aid pause for a $20-billion bailout of Argentina. The optics were undeniably poor: sending huge sums to keep afloat a fiscally reckless foreign government as Americans languish. But the administration had an answer. This too was “America First” — a strategic loan (not handout) to counter Chinese influence, maintaining American primacy in its “backyard.”
至少他们是这么宣称的。当然，你也可以对此提出异议。总之，当时确实存在某种说辞能将这一举措与共和党的民族主义主张相契合。
Or, at least, that’s what they claimed. Feel free to dispute it. But there was some narrative that reconciled the move with the GOP’s nationalist marketing.
而关于涉以色列的决议案，则根本找不到任何说得通的理由。共和党人纯粹是在偏袒某个外国势力罢了。在此情况下，“美国优先”的说辞根本站不住脚，事实就是如此。
With the resolution on Israel, there simply isn’t one. Republicans are just nakedly taking the side of a foreign power. No “America First” story is even the least bit plausible here. It’s exactly what it seems.
上周的投票并未引起太多关注，但它对保守派运动而言意义重大。这次投票无可辩驳地证明：共和党人所喊的“美国优先”口号毫无实质意义。这一口号根本不代表他们真的致力于将本国及其民众的利益置于首位。倘若这一口号真有半点实际含义，相关决议理应获得压倒性通过才对，但事实并非如此。这个口号空洞至极；即便那些鼓吹“美国优先”的人自身并无任何损失可遭殃，他们也根本不会遵守这一原则。
Last week’s vote largely flew under the radar. But it was highly consequential for the conservative movement. It proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their rallying cry is hollow. “America First” doesn’t denote any genuine commitment to prioritizing this land or its people. If it was even the least bit literal, the resolution would’ve passed resoundingly. But it didn’t. The pledge is remarkably devoid of content. Even when America First-ers have nothing to lose, they won’t abide by it.
人们常批评左派使用空洞的口号，但在美国政坛上，没有哪个口号比“美国优先”更空洞了。埃利亚斯·库里是密歇根大学法学硕士，现居弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿，是一名自由撰稿人。他还拥有伦敦政治经济学院的公共政策硕士学位。
You often hear people critique the empty sloganeering of the left. But there is no slogan in United States politics more empty than “America First.”Elias Khoury is a University of Michigan law graduate and freelance writer based in Arlington, Virginia. He also holds a graduate degree in public policy from the London School of Economics.