Op-Ed
A Special Relationship
Email: 
Share: 
Entitling an event “The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter” is bound to be provocative and that’s exactly what Professor Norm Finkelstein will be speaking about at Cornell this Thursday. Why the so-called “media lynching?”
Former President Carter has been attacked by politicians, media outlets and university professors for the views he espouses in his most recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. For his work, Carter has been called a liar, a plagiarist and an anti-Semite.
Those that deviate from the pro-Israel rhetoric here in the United States often face this vitriol from critics. Those who stand up for the rights of the Palestinians are attacked for “hating the Jews” — as I was accused of at a recent Collegetown party — and told that we are at best uninformed, and at worst, bigots. Even wearing a keffiyeh, a scarf often worn in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, results in dirty looks around campus.
The U.S. media refuses to present unbiased coverage of the situation in the Middle East. When a suicide bomber carried out an attack in Eilat last month, it was a headline story. However, the Israeli revenge for the attack — four deaths, six home demolitions, 20 injuries and 43 seizures — was not covered. This is to say nothing of the daily oppression within the Occupied Territories.
Non-U.S. news sources like the BBC are consistently less biased. For example, the BBC correctly identifies Hamas as a “militant group” rather than a “terrorist organization.” Even the media within Israel allows for more debate than within the U.S. The question begs to be asked: Why is the debate within the U.S. so tightly constricted?
In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, presidential hopeful Barak Obama said, “We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel.”
It is this “unique” relationship that prevents any mainstream debate on the issue of Israel and Palestine. Obama’s shifting position on the issue is telling. Although he at one time spoke to the need for an even-handed approach to the conflict and also attended Palestinian events in the Chicago area, his recent speech to AIPAC told a completely different story.
As Shmuel Rosner, a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, reported, “At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.” No politician has won a national office without passing this Israel litmus test.
Why is the U.S. so dedicated to this relationship?
Some would have you believe that it is because Israel is the only “Western-style” democracy in the region. However, a cursory look at the history of U.S. foreign policy shows us that America has consistently supported non-democracies and has played a role in overthrowing popularly elected governments that wouldn’t cooperate with the U.S. The friendly relationship with the regime in Saudi Arabia and the recent agreement with North Korea regarding nuclear weapons are only a few examples.
Others say it is because Israel is a Jewish nation surrounded by Muslim states that wish to — as in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad’s often-quoted mistranslation — “wipe Israel off the map.” This ignores the fact that Israel, with only .001 percent of the world’s population, has “the fifth most powerful war machine in the world,” as Frida Berrigan and William Hartung wrote in Foreign Policy in Focus in July 2006.
The real reason for this relationship lies in the U.S.’s plans for the Middle East. The U.S. has several purposes in attempting to dominate the region. First, it wants to have control over the vast natural resources in the area — including oil and natural gas. These resources are limited, and the U.S. ruling elite wants to be in control of these supplies when we reach peak capacity and prices skyrocket.
In addition, the U.S. wants to prevent the rise of any competing superpower that might challenge its dominance. Currently, China is looking to increase its influence in the region by, most recently, making deals with Iran.
Allowing any other country to rise to the status of superpower would be detrimental to plans of complete control of the Middle East.
Israel clearly plays a special role for the U.S. in its conquests in the region. Ha’aretz correctly describes Israel as “a watchdog … a ‘little loyal Jewish Ulster’ in a sea of Arab hostility.”
The U.S. provides massive amounts of aid to Israel. Since its creation, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid, with conservative estimates placing total direct aid at $105 billion. In exchange, Israel eagerly carries out tasks that the U.S. can’t perform, itself. “The U.S. funnels weapons through Israel when it wants to evade congressional bans on aid to repressive regimes … [and] subcontracts training of death squads and terrorists to Israel,” left-wing journalist Lance Selfa explains.
What are the consequences of this “unique” relationship?
If the relationship is good for the U.S., shouldn’t we support it? The problem is that this relationship is only beneficial to a small portion of the U.S. — the ruling elite. Those who head our largest corporations and hold our highest elected posts benefit from control of the region’s precious resources, not the average American. Every dollar the U.S. spends on attempting to establish and maintain dominance over the Middle East is one less dollar going to schools, healthcare and decent wages.
In addition, the U.S.’s relationship with Israel has blinded Americans to the horrors occurring in Israel every day. Recently, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, issued a report on the Israeli human rights record, accusing Israel of colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation, along with “multiple war crimes.”
The horrific assault of Nablus this past week is just one small example. Israeli soldiers in armored vehicles and bulldozers invaded the West Bank city early last Sunday. Homes were occupied and hospitals were declared closed. A curfew was imposed, stranding residents in their homes and preventing them from attending work or school. One unarmed man was shot dead simply for going on his roof to check on a water supply. This is the terror that we are prevented from discussing.
Obama was right — the U.S. does have a “unique” relationship with Israel. Unfortunately for us, the relationship benefits the few at the expense of the vast majority of Americans, and the people of Palestine.
Laura Taylor is a senior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be contacted at lat34@cornell.edu. Kind of a Big Deal appears Tuesdays.
60 years ago, you would have
60 years ago, you would have been a Stalin fan. When it comes to the Middle East, you are just as blind and just as gullible as those who refused to see the evils of the Soviet Union for what they were.
Gee, call me old-fashiioned, but I prefer living in a world where a free, democratic country is the only superpower, and do not look forward to the day when a large, repressive, commuinist nation becomes one (and, apparently in your ideal world, they do so with the assistance of a fanatical, repressive, Islamic country).
The irony is that if you were living in either of these utopia and wrote similar things about those countries, this would be the last article of yours we likely would ever read.
I also am impresssed by yur defense to the charge that you hate Israel; viz. I hate Israel and the United States.
"The U.S. media refuses to
"The U.S. media refuses to present unbiased coverage of the situation in the Middle East."
If anything, mainstream US publications like the New York Times lend legitimacy to Palestinian terrorists by relabeling them as "militants." They are terrorists because they launch rockets into residential neigborhoods, where they also detonate explosives packed with such items as ball bearings coated with rat poison, to kill as many extra innocent Israeli civilians (men, women and children, among them often Arab Israelis) as possible by causing them to bleed to death.
"This is the terror that we are prevented from discussing."
Who's preventing you from dicussing it? You have been doing so with complete freedom nearly every week in your column. In America, we have complete freedom of speech and expression (as do all Jewish, Arab and Christian Israelis). If you are really worried about infringement upon that right, look no further than the Muslim dictatorships you so avidly support. Barak Obama, like any politician, wants to get elected and attain power. As such, he is echoing the overwhelming American sentiment in favor of Israel, even among democrats.
"If the relationship is good for the U.S., shouldn’t we support it? The problem is that this relationship is only beneficial to a small portion of the U.S. — the ruling elite. Those who head our largest corporations and hold our highest elected posts benefit from control of the region’s precious resources, not the average American."
Economic reasons are certainly not why a strong majority of middle class Americans support Israel. We support Israel because, like the United States, Israel is a Western democracy whose citizens are under attack by brutal and maniacal terrorists. These terrorists are backed and financed by radical Islamic leaders who seek to use scapegoating of the US and Israel to maintain and grow their power and wealth. We love freedom and despise those who threaten it. We ally ourselves with others who are in our shoes.
Also, unlike our European counterparts, Americans have the conviction and moral grounding to stand up to radical Islam. Taylor's intent here is clearly to turn middle class and liberal wariness of big corporations and special interest groups against Israel. Like Carter, she is seeking a way, some angle to erode American support for Israel, since that will help in the destruction of Israel, the endlessly-proclaimed mission of the Palestinians and their Arab brethren.
Reality
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad’s often-quoted mistranslation"
It was labeled a mistranslation by a vehemently anti-Israel professor and Israel haters have seized on it as if the case is proven. Why, if it was a mistranslation, did Iran not seek to correct it immediately? They do have embassies all over the west. Why was the speech made with a backdrop showing an hourglass with the Israel flag falling to the bottom and the US flag already there? Reuters has defended the original translation of the speech so there is at least some doubt. Why has Iran continued to make the threat?
This proves the writer's intense bias. As for stifling debate, that may be her interpretation but it's at least equally true of EVERY interest group. Try saying anything related to Muslims - except to condemn the moderates - and see how fast you receive threats and lawsuits.
It seems to me that the Laura Taylors seek to promote hatred against Israel and are trying to silence their opposition.