Being Sunday afternoon, more like morning for me, you would think that I would rather use 300 words about something trivial and easy to confront. This is not the case this Sunday. Because I want to speak my mind and express myself politically, I will speak about one of the more pressing issues affecting the world today. I now look at the US and where we find ourselves among other nations. Much of our policy in the last thirty years or so has been focused on Southwest and Central Asia. We continually look to these areas and we accuse many of their governments of humanitarian rights abuses. Generally, these accusations are mostly directed at anti-US political groups such as Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Justice and Development Party of Turkey, Hamas, etc. However, our government rarely acknowledges abuses done by our allies, namely Israel.
Much of our concern with Israel deals with trying to protect its sovereignty and maintain them as an ally in our war on terror. Our government continually bickers with countries such as Iran, Syria, and Egypt to recognize Israel's place in the Middle East and we wonder at why these countries cannot accept this reasonable proposal. At the same time, we reject their demands to create a state for Palestinians. These people have been driven from desirable lands, fenced in (or out), and now could lose even this unfavorable status if it were not for their allies, Syria, Iran, etc. Now why can't we accept a two- state agreement? Media has brought us to think that the issue is too complicated and delicate, that the Palestinian side wants more than they have and that the sovereignty of Israel will still not be accepted. This is not true. In 1989, the United Nations consisted of 154 member nations that decided on this issue. It called for these things: 1-Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied since 1967, 2-cancellation of measures to annex these territories, 3- placement of these territories under jurisdiction of the UN, temporarily, 4-solution to Palestinian refugee problem, 5-freedom of Palestinians to worship at their holy places in Palestine, 6-Security Council arrangements for security for all states in the region (including palestine). The world, or 151 nations of the world agreed to this settlement that recognized the state of Palestine as well as Israel. The dissenting three were the countries Israel, the United States, and Dominica. Because the United States is on the Security Council, any result was blocked. Now there are 191 member states of the UN and the consensus on this issue has remained stable. Whenever this issue is addressed, there again is the world voting for the settlement, and always the same dissenting against it. Since 1989, the additions to the dissenting side are the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Tuvalu, and Palau. This stance that we have taken speaks for itself.
Before I go further on this issue, I would like to address a specific question that myself and many others have pondered, and I would like your comments on this. Is criticism of Israel anti-semitic? When I discuss this question among friends and peers, they often try to accuse me of such a thing. I have no problem with the Jewish religion or the people that practice it. I am directing my criticism at a political and national entity. Let me end this post with another question. If I criticize or attack the American/ European genocide of Native-Americans and the takeover of their lands, am I being Anti-American? Anti-European? Anti-Christian?