Why Palestine Matters

Much of the information presented in the mainstream media is done so in such a manner that avoids context. It is presented in a manner that paints global affairs as a collection of disparate events with no history or precedent. Nowhere is this more true than with the coverage of the conflict in and over Palestine. US support for Israel is not presented in the context of its wider policies in the region. Each policy decsion in the region and each relationship is viewed independently and not part of any sort of grand strategy. The situation in Palestine is doubly worse than the other instances because the conflict there is presented in such a way as to make it almost mystical, like some sort of cosmic battle. US support for Israel is not considered in the context of its geographic location at the heart of the oil producing region of the world. It is also not considered in the context of the historical role that it has served as a broker for US power in the region. Furthermore, those who criticize Israel and its policies are either ignored or, as in the case of former President Jimmy Carter, villified.
US support for Israel exists within the context of American imperial interests in the Middle East. The same is true for its relationship with any of the other states in the region. This includes its occupation of Iraq and belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Despite the claims made by US leaders and their apologists, American activity in the region has little to do with humanitarian issues and more to do with economic and political concerns. The US is a state that acts in its own interest, just like any other state. When these interests coincide with the needs of a particular population, that is all fine and well, but when they don’t, it is simply not an issue. Morality is not a part of the equation. Put simply, this is the nature of international relations and it is within this framework that US policy towards Israel must be understood.
Historically, Israel has served as a crucial ally to the US in the region. A 1953 editorial in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz articulated its position in the region, “Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog… Israel [can] be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.” Still in the process of proving it’s value, in 1967 it helped to put down a nationalist movement that was sweeping the Arab world. The Arab nationalists sought to break away from both sides in the Cold War and chart their own independent path. In helping to crush this rebellion, Israel helped to secure continued American dominance. It was also at this time that it occupied several territories, most importantly the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, that made up what was left of Palestine. Viewed as an imperial outpost from the start, Israel’s existance provided a key motivation that allowed the nationalist movement to develop, and its expansion into new territories only furthered the anger in the region. The value of Israel as a strategic ally would mean, however, that its expansion would be supported despite its destabilizing influence. The exploitation of the issue of Palestine would also continue to serve as a means in which despotic rulers in the region could win support at home and abroad.
The criminal, racist treatment of the occupied population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to this day, giving lie to the myth of US benevolence and enflaming passions in the region. The importance of Israel as a strategic ally of the US in the region has, however, created a political culture in the US in which criticism of this support is akin to political suicide. Indeed, this past summer, as Israeli bombers, in the words of Defense Minister Dan Halutz, “set Lebanon back 20 years,” leading liberal politicians in the US lined up behind the war. Congress even voted to send emergency military aid to assist in the assault after the Israeli Defense Forces announced that they were in danger of running out of bombs. Deviation from this sort of blind support, as has been seen with the recent denunciations of Jimmy Carter, is greeted with jeers and ironic accusations of bigotry.
While one could raise issue with the conduct of his presidency, in the past several months Carter has helped to thrust the issue of Palestine and the realities of life under the occupation into the national spotlight. His best-selling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has made him a target more of mean-spirited personal attacks than of actual criticisms of his work. The mainstream media has lined up in this attack. For example, many of the recent articles about the former president tout the fact that fourteen members of the board of the Carter Center resigned in protest of the book. The articles regularly fail to mention that the board has nearly three hundred members and membership is largely a symbolic gesture of gratitude for financial contributions. Commenting at a recent speaking engagement, he lamented, “This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist.” Explaining the thesis of his book, he argued, “The alternative to peace is apartheid… And there [under the occupation], apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers.”
The dubious nature of the occupation of Palestine, accepted because of the role that Israel serves for US interests in the region, is part of the same regional policies that lead to the war on Iraq and US threats against Iran and Syria. With Israel functioning as a s a “watchdog” for US power in the region, the fate of the people of Palestine and those of Iraq are intimately linked. The repressive policies enacted against them are connected. It is part of the drive for US dominance in the region. Just as Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat, US support for Israel does not continue because of humanitarian concerns, but because of what the US can get out of the deal. Talk of an Israeli assault on Iran further illustrates this point. Despite the seemingly disjointed picture of world affairs presented in the media and by our political leaders, reality is far different. For those of us concerned about the conduct of the US in Iraq, we must understand that it is part of a wider policy. We must understand that the hand behind the violence in Baghdad is the same that is behind the repression in Jerusalem or Gaza City.
-RP