With Good Reason

The term ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ is so common that a generation has grown up thinking this is a normal state of affairs - with no real consequence outside the Middle East.

Throughout the course of recent Mid-East history, the struggles on this relatively small piece of ancient land have been closely watched for different reasons. Biases on this subject have become even clearer since the American War on Terror emerged from the ashes of September 11 2001.

Both globally and within North America itself, there are different views on modern Israel - for instance, Catholics have tended to see the regime as oppressive to Palestinians - although recently the Church seems to be warming relations, or at least toning down rhetoric. Evangelical Christians see the existence of the Jewish state as integral to their faith. For Jews themselves, Israel provides a geographical link to the origins of Jewish culture - and provides a ‘homeland’. For Muslims, Israel is clearly viewed as an aggressive regime illegally occupying and colonizing Palestinian-Arab lands.

As a distant observer, Israel presents a unique dichotomy. It does not cleanly fit our world’s post-colonial evolution; the move away from European empire-centred cultures, towards regional indigenous diversity (or at least to the ’strongest of the indigenous’). On the one hand, Israel is often viewed as direct proof that modern American imperialism is alive and well - often also lumped in with some kind of Zionist global conspiracy. On the other hand, Israel is clearly in existence because of an innate drive shared by many Jewish people - who see themselves as ‘indigenous’ to that land. This migration push - often referred to as the Zionist Movement, grew while Palestine was under Britain’s brief control in the aftermath of WWI.

The unprecedented scale of anti-Semitic manifestation during WWII further added to this momentum. The UN and Britain tried to come to a solution, a brief war followed, and again two more wars up to 1973, Israel survived, many Palestinians left for refugee camps, many were occupied in Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel has maintained military capability to keep the status quo since. The terms state-terrorism and terrorism have been applied to both sides.

Despite the duality of this conflict, a glaring fact ‘on the ground’ is that Israel currently holds the military, economic, and political power, it can thus ‘dictate’ the terms of peace, negotiation, or lack thereof. It can also conduct state terrorism, although the modern communication era does limit how much of this it can do overtly.

The enormous complexity of this conflict is beyond the scope of this post. However, some obvious issues that need to be reconciled are: 1) Each side’s short term strategies 2) the Legality of Israel’s borders under International Law, and 3) the demographic and geopolitical reality of the Middle-East.

This year, we are witness to an additional factor in the Israeli-Palestinian debate: the current American Presidential election. In the past, a pro-Israel stance was a ‘rubber-stamp’ for any campaign that wished even an outside shot at victory. However, this year, Black Liberation Theology has front and centre status - and this theology favours the Palestinians as oppressed people (just as it favoured the oppressed South Africans under Apartheid).

Barak Obama’s campaign has relentlessly and aggressively been targeted by out-of-context sound-bytes made by his pastor - Dr. Jeremiah Wright. One of these sound-bytes identifies Israel as a state terrorist. There is no doubt Rev. Wright is very animated in his sermons, however, linking this to Barak Obama is more than just a stretch.

John McCain also recently made reference to the Israeli-Palestinian theme…pointing out that Hamas (the Palestinian militant group in control of Gaza) “favours Barak Obama.”

This calculated bias against the Obama campaign clearly shows the power of the pro-Israeli lobby in America. It would be reasonable to expect that should Obama receive the Democratic nomination, media attack strategies will highlight any and all possible pro-Palestinian tendencies.

A rise in the viciousness and frequency of such attacks - including attempts to label Rev. Wright as a dangerous extremist - is illustrative of a terrible fear within the pro-Israel lobby. The prospect of a more unbiased US Administration and a ‘two-sides-to-every-argument’ approach towards this conflict.

Should this tactic be successful - and somehow contribute to Obama’s loss (either against Clinton or McCain), it would be a true shame for the entire world - and would help continue this festering conflict in perpetuity. The likelihood of a peaceful settlement over time will decrease as generations harden their irreconcilable positions. Without peace, demographic and geopolitical trends will surely boil over and ‘force’ a resolution that is more balanced (or permanent). If the conflict has to wait for this ‘boil-over’, the consequences will be far greater than we can even conceive of now. This is a fact nobody seems to really want to face.