In this paper I stray from discussing the usual "U. S. Response to Terrorism" issues — though this one seems to be strongly related. The world's eyes, especially those of conservative Christians in the United States, are focused on the disturbing events in Israel and Palestine. This seemingly implacable situation has the conservative Christians convinced that the rapture must be near with the time of tribulation soon to follow. Will the Arabs unite in an all-out war to destroy Israel? Will the United States step in to defend her?
Perhaps we should really ask if the United States, addicted as she is to foreign oil, can afford to take on the Arab world in a third world war. Or will our foreign policy continue to waffle on the issue, trying to please two irreconcileable sides locked in an ancient conflict? Will we [gasp] actually sacrifice the nation of Israel to our own energy dependence? Should we continue to protect Israel when it runs counter to our own national interests? Is this really our concern anyway?
I'd say that if you look at this historically you come to some surprising conclusions; albeit conclusions that may not help us decide what to do now. Let's begin at the beginning...
"Isaac and Ishmael" I hear someone say. Granted, the dispute we're witnessing is a very ancient dispute, but I doubt it's that simple. First of all, I seriously doubt that all Arabs are directly descended from Ishmael. It seems quite likely that descendants of Lot (Moabites and Ammonites), Esau, Abraham's sons through Keturah (the woman he married after Sarah's death), and possibly a few others would be included. Secondly the current crisis is far more related to our own actions in 1948 than to Abraham's philandering. "How's that?" you ask.
It seems that at the urging of American Jews in the wake of World War II we decided to try to undo what the Romans did (with some justification, you could argue) in AD 70. Yes, the Israelites do have a more ancient claim to the land than do the Palestinians. But if ancient claims are to be the rule, the Native Americans' claim to this land is far less ancient than Israel's, so most of you, along with me, had better start packing our bags for Europe or Africa.
Actually, it seems that we have shown the interlopers (the Palestinians, I mean) the way. How did we take over this land and effectively shut down takeover attempts by the original inhabitants? Through genocide. We waged war in many ways against the Native American until there were so few left they couldn't put together an effective resistance.
The difference between us and the Palestinians is that we had a collossal technological advantage. That allowed us to couch the genocide in relatively "civilized" approaches. The Palestinians, being at a technological disadvantage have had to resort to the warfare of the desperate: suicide attacks. That leaves them open to the charge of terrorism, a term used to demonize our enemies. Therefore we feel justified in approaching the issue in such a blatantly prejudicial manner. To see what I mean, imagine reading the following news story:
White House
President Bush lashed out today at U. N. Secretary General Kofe Annan saying the U. N. was encroaching on U. S. sovereignty when it called for an arms blockade.
Bush's comments came in response to a speech Annan made at U. N. headquarers in New York yesterday, calling on Russia and the European Union to establish a naval blockade to prevent further shipments of U. S. arms to Israel. The speech followed last week's interception by a Russian submarine of a shipment of arms near the Straits of Gibralter and allegedly bound for Israel. The Russians have claimed the weaponry, which included small arms and grenade launchers as well as anti-missle systems, came from the United States.
"The United States must cease its actions which incite the Israeli's to further violence against Palestinians," Annan said in his speech.
"The United States has the right to support its ally in the Middle East," Bush said today, in comments made during a Rose Garden photo opportunity. He refused to confirm or deny that the intercepted shipment had come from the United States.
The exchange comes as opposition to the administration's policy in the Middle East has come under fire from political opponents....
Hard to imagine? Yet we raised a big stink when a shipment of arms allegedly bound for the Palestinians was intercepted recently. If we let the Israeli's arm themselves, isn't it unfair to refuse equal armament to the targets of those weapons? Or have we decided to turn the tables and help the Israelis do to the Palestinians what we did to the Native Americans?
Seen in that light is it any surprise that the Arabs, whom we have fought and died to keep in the military dark ages, want to crash our planes into our cities? And why, when we are so dependent on the oil these Arabs ship to us, do we continue to support Israel in so biased a manner?
I think there are two reasons. First there's the prophetic interpretations of evangelical Christianity that require a literal nation of Israel for those prophecies to be fulfilled. Second, we and our closest allies, the British, had a major hand in carving out land for the nation of Israel. It seems to me that if the leaders of that day had possessed half a brain they could have predicted the current Middle East impass when they tried to redraw the world map with little, if any, input from Arabs.
There's something to be said for loyalty, but I think it's an overrated virtue. In our imperfect world loyalty is often expected to cause us to accept the misbehavior of our friends and leaders. But when those friends and leaders start taking advantage of our loyalty to continue their transgressions I think the loyalty is no longer a virtue but a liability. So if Israel is counting on our loyalty to allow her to continue her oppression of the Palestinians then there is little moral obligation to continue that loyalty.
Conversly, we helped to make this mess; we have a real moral obligation to resolve it with as little loss of life as possible. The question then reverts to where I started. Can we overcome our addiction to foreign oil enough to take a truly neutral stance?
Perhaps God (the fates, or whatever power you believe runs the universe) has seen that netrality is impossible. So he has put us in this conflicting situation so that our competing interests will have the same effect on our actions as true neutrality would. But if the resulting hesitance on our part to take decisive action leads to additional bloodshed he might not be very forgiving.