Article published January 12, 2009
Why is U.S. foreign policy hostage to Israel?
THE ongoing carnage in Gaza raises some disturbing and sobering questions for the people of conscious everywhere, and that includes Toledo. At the time of this writing, close to 700 Palestinian men, women, and children had died and three times as many had been injured.
The pivotal question is why Hamas, the ruling Palestinian faction in Gaza, resumed firing rockets into Israel after six months of relative calm following a cease-fire put in place in June.
A cease-fire requires a lack of hostilities between the parties. On Nov. 4, Israel, in clear violation of the cease-fire, went into Gaza and killed six Palestinians who Israel declared were terrorists. That incident and an ongoing siege and blockade of Gaza were enough reasons for Hamas to resume hostilities against Israel. It was retaliation plain and simple. Israel has been preparing for this onslaught for the last six months and chose this time because George W. Bush is still president.
Ever since the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the dismantling of illegal Jewish settlements from Gaza in September, 2005, the area has been under siege. A total blockade has turned this narrow coastal strip of land into a virtual prison where 1.5 million inhabitants depended on the trickle of humanitarian aid allowed by Israel. Mary Robinson, the former United Nations high commissioner for human rights, called the ongoing situation in Gaza the destruction of a civilization. Her comments were made during the cease-fire.
In January, 2006, Hamas won elections in Gaza in a fair and impartial vote. The United States had, at the behest of Israel, declared Hamas a terrorist organization. As such, they were denied their legitimate right to govern and to have the cooperation of the international community. If fighting for one's dignity, one's land, and one's freedom is terrorism, then most countries that became independent in the post-colonial era got there through terrorism. Even Israel's establishment as a sovereign state was based on many acts of terrorism against the British and the native Palestinian population. There is an extremely thin line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. All one has to do is to look at the life of Menachem Begin, a terrorist turned prime minister of Israel.
It is no surprise that most Arab governments have sold their soul at the altar of the United States and Israel. Every time there is an incident like Gaza, and there have been innumerable in the past decades, they get together to make phony noises of solidarity that result in nothing. At a recent press conference at the United Nations, the Arab ambassadors went through the usual hand-wringing and expressions of frustration at their inability to effect change. Missing in the whole macabre spectacle was a conscientious Arab journalist with a sturdy pair of shoes.Why is American foreign policy hostage to Israeli whims? It is for historians and writers such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, former Congressman Paul Findlay, former President Jimmy Carter, writer Norman Finkelstein, etc., to analyze the phenomenon, which they have done at their peril. The question, however, begs for an answer. Why does an Israeli cause become an American cause? And why does a Congress elected by the people of this country become beholden to the interests of a foreign country?
Israel is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Its survival is not threatened by rag-tag bands of so-called terrorists. At the heart of Israeli actions is the determination to hang on to the occupied lands. All peace initiatives on a two-state solutions are bound to fail because of the dominant role the Israeli right and the militant settlers play in Israeli politics. They are loath to give any land back to the Palestinians.
In the end Israel would rather see a fragmentation of Palestinian society reminiscent of apartheid South Africa, and allow them a measure of watered down and wholly dependent self-rule.
Surprisingly, a great majority of the world has endorsed a two-state solution along 1967 borders in the form of U.N. General Assembly resolutions. All Arab countries have endorsed it. Even Hamas has expressed its willingness to accept that broad solution. The only countries voting against the resolution are the United States, Israel, Australia, and an atoll of small island nations in the Pacific.
And finally, where are the moderate voices of American Jewry? While there is a vigorous debate inside Israel about occupied lands, there is hardly any dissent in this country. Given the history of last 60 years, there must have been a few occasions when the people of conscience could have spoken out against the policies of Israel. Instead, they always found reasons to blame the victims or remain silent.
One of my Jewish readers put it succinctly when he said, in private of course, that if he ever raises a voice against Israel policies he will be crucified.
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
