A nuclear Iran is a very scary thought. The radical regime oppresses its own people, its previous President — let’s face it, dictator — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a vocal denier of the Holocaust, and constant threats toward the Jewish state of Israel have become the status quo.
The question “What is the United State’s role in protecting its ally Israel” has been floating around in the news, and I have a very simple proposal: it is not the job of the United States to police the world and serve as an imperial power in the Middle East.
The two main security threats that get serious press attention are the Iranian nuclear program and the Israeli-Arab conflict. Pertaining to Iran, it is understandable for the United States to watch out for their security interests.
Iran has a very strong presence in South America, especially Venezuela, and Iran’s long-range missile systems make an attack on the U.S. a possibility.
The United States’ getting involved because they feel their country’s security is at risk is a perfectly acceptable reason for economic, political, or even military options. What is not acceptable, is America using the excuse it needs to protect Israel.
Simply put, when Israel feels its sovereignty and security is at risk, Israel will defend itself, and has every right to do so. For example, in 1981 Israel successfully bombed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor because it felt a threat to its existence. Now, 30 years later, we might all agree it was a good idea to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons, but the United Nations and the United States alike condemned Israel’s act of defense at the time. More recently, in 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria. With all the bloodshed during the massacre in Syria, we could only imagine how dangerous President Assad would be with nuclear weapons.
In regards to the Israeli-Arab conflict, why is America even in the picture? Why should America be able to tell the Israeli or Palestinian Arab people what is in their best interest? Why does every “peace negotiation” happen in Washington D.C, Camp David, Oslo, or anywhere outside of Israel?
In addition to being an obstacle to the peace process, I would even argue America has hurt both sides. America has been propping up the corrupt Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, to establish sovereignty in the region where in fact, the Palestinian Arabs as a whole tend to support Hamas over the PLO, as seen in the last election the Palestinian people had in Gaza.
From the Israeli perspective, America has been forcing false peace resolutions on Israel, which time and time again hurt the Israeli people. The Oslo “peace” process has almost erased a 3300-year-old history of Jews living in the ancient Hebrew city of Hevron. Foreign pressure from America and the European Union were significant factors in the Israeli government forcing the removal of over 8000 Jews from Gaza, a region which became a launching pad for over 10,000 rockets into Israel.
And even with the constant rocket attacks, fear of invasion from the hostile Arab world, constant acts of terrorism within Israel, the American government has the audacity to try to pressure Israel into giving up more land, releasing more terrorists and giving more concessions, all in the name of a false peace and a “Two State Solution.”
Israel is a country smaller than the state of New Jersey. Israel is a country facing unique problems only people who have lived there can understand.
That is why Israel is responsible for its own problems, for its only security, and its own survival. If America wants to get involved in the Middle East, then President Obama can work with Congress and become involved, but this involvement is for US interest and must not be blamed on Israel.
Daniel Narvy is a third-year political science major. He can be reached at email@example.com.