U.S. abets Mideast strife
Christopher Benedict was unfairly criticized by letter-writers Abel, Treece and Starr (Dec. 30). They stand aggression on its head, insisting that Israel is merely defending its borders and citizens. Undeniably, Israel has been the aggressor since the 1930s-40s. Yet, like Gaza today, Palestinians still resist the expansionist settler-state.
Look to the Pentagon for answers. Israel Defense Forces wouldn’t be blowing Gazans to smithereens without Pentagon approval. Israel: the big nuclear-armed cop on the Middle East block. But for billions of dollars supplied by our U.S. Treasury and U.S. religious organizations annually, the Israeli government would make peace with its neighbors.
Jewish friends sometimes refrain from any criticism of the state of Israel, but I wonder how faithfulness to one’s religious beliefs includes unquestioned loyalty to Israeli military and political leadership. While Gazans are dying in disproportionate numbers now, isn’t it morally responsible, lawful and timely for Congress to slash all taxpayer-supported funding for the IDF immediately?
Modern Israel was created by imperialist schemes, at first British, now the U.S. What would Israelis dream of without U.S. meddling, advanced weaponry and endless money, living without fear of Palestinian residents and Arab neighbors?
Before material like this gets published in say the Spokesman-Review I tend to get “restricted” phone calls on my cell phone. Presumably the individual(s) calling believe that what they publish will prove annoying enough that I will comment on it. Generally, that does prove to be the case. However in Mr. Armsbury’s case, he isn’t so much annoying as just flat out ignorant. So let us explore a few reasons to say that.The British led Balfour agreement created the modern state of Israel in 1948. Isreal, until the latter 1940s did not even exist as a state, it was all understood to be the nation of Palestine. And Palestine, as we all know, was mostly populated by those of Islamic faith. The fact that Jewish settlers began moving into Palestine no doubt since the latter 19th century stemming from flight of that people from countries hell bent on persecuting them strictly on their religion and race alone; I will imagine that there was an uneasy peace between Muslims and Jews for a stretch of decades until after World War 2 and the breakup of the British influence in the Middle East, those Jews who survived the Holacaust and wished a state of their own fought for by bullets and voice a right for a state called Israel carved out of Palestine itself.
Before that time, the world had what I call a real anti-semite problem. Precisely, anti-semitism as it relates to Jews. Never mind that their Arab cousins are racially Semite too. Quite frankly, while Christians did have some heartburn over Arabs as the infidels polluting the long abandoned “holy lands” (abandoned long since by the Jewish population) and went into crusades against them; Arabs probably never saw the sort of special hatred reserved for what Christians would ultimately call “Christ killers,” the Jews. And I highly suspect that Armsbury has that particular background. Or he would not now make the argument and falsely, that Israel should have no monetary support and be forced to live in peace with its Arab and Palestinian neighbors who never wanted peace in the first place with Israel.
There are plenty of history books on the subject of the creation of one of the youngest nations on Earth today: The state of Israel. I would certainly suggest picking them up at any library, book store and even Amazon.com for a thorough lesson in history on the Jewish state. Whereas, Armsbury obviously did not wish to source his letter before spouting.
After the Balfour agreement, Israel did come under attack at various times by Egypt and Arabic nations. The first modern terrorist groups to form, being Islamic extremists, did so in reaction to the Jewish state. They would make use of any weapon, any means most foul to not only decimate the Jewish population but also to uncreate the Jewish state. Yes, there have been aggressors all right, and they are the people that Armsbury now argues are dying disproportionally in this latest “all out war.” When I listened to the whiner on the behalf of his fellow Palestinians and Hamas (terrorist organization) on CNN, I am quite sure the fellow would be quite cheered by a letter such as this published in the Spokesman-Review. That there are Americans around who’d be more than happy to listen to the spin doctoring from extremist Islamic groups then further the lies in letters to the editors, protests and etc. Have these same people forgotten that Palestinians were cheering 9/11/2001? Only because this country became a “friend of Israel” was it possible for 3,000 people to be targeted for death by an Al Qaeda that used “Israeli aggression” as a primary cause for murdering people who quite frankly had nothing to do with it.As we enter into the 8th year of that tragic time how quickly do people forget? I have no cause to support terrorists who chose violence over and above addressing any greivances they may legitimately have on the political stage. No doubt the Palestinians did have some legitimate greivances. They were displaced. But instead of their fellow Muslims assisting them in getting new homes, new lives and etc. because that might mean actually having to reconcile with that usurping state they had no desire to recognize—Israel; they chose not to ease the suffering of their fellow Muslims and aided in the feeding of their hatred instead. Under the circumstances, Israel has never been at peace with its Islamic neighbors because they never wanted peace with Israel.
Nor will cutting off money for one party: Israel, facilitate a peace process with Hamas. It can’t happen.
My answer to the whiner speaking on the behalf of his fellow Palestinians is this: When you want peace, then you will have peace. When you can reconcile with your neighbor, Israel, then and only then will Gazans and etc. have a home they can call their own. Until you let go the hatred, there can not be a “two state” solution.