In the years following the Second World War, the United States realized it might need what has been called a ?strategic asset? in the Middle East. And yet, Israel itself is not America?s main concern in the region. Rather, the main interest lies in the petroleum reserves of the Middle East, especially in the Arabian Peninsula. In 1945, the US State Department noted:

?These resources constituted a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history . . . probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment.?

Since usurping Great Britain?s position as the main foreign power in the Middle East, America?s foreign policy has been directed towards keeping this prize.

Not surprisingly, America?s blind pursuit of the oil ?prize? has led it to giving almost unilateral support to Israel. Israel has been helping the United States by ensconcing the region in a military infrastructure in the hopes of protecting and maintaining access to Western oil supplies. But at what cost? Israel has received more military and civilian aid than any other client-state of the United States: by the end of the twentieth century, the amount of this aid totaled around 100 billion dollars. Israel continues to receive about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America’s entire foreign aid budget. And all of this continues amidst skyrocketing oil prices, a falling dollar, a looming recession, and a mounting national debt that is on the verge of collapsing upon itself.

How exactly did Israel position itself as a ?strategic asset? of the United States? To properly answer this question, some background knowledge of Zionism is required. The stalwarts of the Zionist movement understood that the success of the Jewish state was contingent on the sponsorship of what they termed to be a ?Great Power.? After World War II, the United States became the ?Great Power? of the Middle East. And by 1951, three years after the establishment of the State of Israel, its leaders were ready to tie Israel?s existence to the opportunistic intentions of the Western powers.

This is what the Israeli newspaper Ha?aretz had to say in 1951:

?Strengthening Israel helps the Western powers to maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog. There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of US and Britain. But if for any reasons the Western powers should sometimes wish to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighbouring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.?

1951 also seemed to be the year in which radical nationalism was to sweep across the Middle East. That same year, Dr. Mossadeq, Iran?s new radical nationalist leader, nationalized British oil interests. Israel?s statement of intent could hardly be more apposite. Indeed, Israel would become the Western watchdog of the Middle East. Israel?s cooperation with clandestine CIA operations, along with its ?intelligence?-gathering activities, would cement its place as the definitive American client-state in the Near East.

President Bush has insisted on supporting Israel, although he has not clearly stated his reasons for doing so. And while Bush may just be following a fateful example, there is some insight to be gleaned from Reagan?s tactless admission in 1981:

?with a combat-experienced military, Israel is a force in the Middle East that actually is a benefit to us. If there were not Israel with that force, we?d have to supply that with our own, so this isn?t just altruism on our part.? (Mideast Observer, 1981).

Essentially, Israel is the military arm of the United States in the Middle East ? and it is probable that if Israel did not have its own defense forces, a significant US troop presence would exist in the region, free to act in whatever manner desired to secure energy reserves, while the rest of the world ?closes their eyes.?

External links:

US State Department Report on Foreign Aid to Israel

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Now this brings out the next question, who is a terrorist? Throughout history the stronger nation in a conflict, always calls a group of rebels terrorists. However, if the rebels succeed and overthrow the oppressing government they are called freedom fighters. The United States itself is a great example. Throughout the American education system we learn that the founding fathers were great visionaries, and overthrew the oppressive British government, and became independent. But, the founding fathers are never regarded as terrorists, which according to denotation of the word, they were. The founding fathers tarred and feathered British soldiers and loyalists, they caused disruption with trade and hurt Great Britain economically, and they all thought it was just, because they were trying to become an independent nation. This is exactly the mindset of terrorists today, the so-called terrorists in the Middle East, and in the Islamic world, are committing these acts, not because, in the words of George W. Bush, “They don’t like the freedom that Americans have,” but because the want their own freedom, and they do not want to be oppressed by the US and their allies.

The main ally of the US that commits oppression in the middle east is Israel, and for the past century, the Israelis keep on oppressing the Palestinians, and the Palestinians try to fight back, and since the US is the worlds strongest power, it can determine which group is justified in their terrorism and which group is not. Since the Palestinians are fighting against and ally of the US, they are labeled as terrorists. However, if one is objective, and just looks at the statistics, since September 29, 2000, 4, 604 Palestinians have been killed while 1,033 Israelis have been killed.² As they say, the numbers don’t lie, in reality the Israelites are the true terrorists. They are the ones committing oppression, but the spin of the media is totally different.

Some may say, violence leads to more violence, as Gandhi stated “an eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind.” Some people might even use Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as exemplary individuals who changed the world with non-violent protests. They may say why the Palestinians don’t try that instead of killing in the streets. However Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi had two things that the Palestinians don’t have, they had partial support of the government, and more importantly they had the press and the ability to relay the horrific acts and oppressions that are done to them by the Israeli army. All the news that comes out of Israel is censored by the Israeli government so even though the oppression is being committed it is not being heard. To get our attention the Palestinians, have to do very extreme acts. but how would you feel if your house was bulldozed with you family inside?³

*DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL THE STATEMENTS ABOVE I WAS MERELY PRESENTING AN ARGUMENT WHEN DEBATING TERRORISM FOR A CLASS

1. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism
2. http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/stats/deaths.html
3. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0206-05.htm

]]> http://www.envisionmore.net/what-is-terrorism/feed/ 1