Ross Abbott recently wrote a column on the Israel/Gaza conflict that continues to transpire in the Middle East. Abbott pointed out that Gaza continues to suffer greater civilian losses and that the U.S. should revoke Israeli support for humanitarian purposes.
Despite the high number of casualties in Gaza, Americans are subject to polarized news reports that favor Israel instead of Gaza. I fully agree with Abbot’s discussion of polarized news reports, and furthermore, I commend his articulate understanding of “D.C.’s unwavering support of Israel.” I want to point out that much of that “unwavering support” is influenced by the almighty American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is among the largest and wealthiest lobbying organizations in D.C. AIPAC headquarters is located just seven or eight blocks north of the Capitol Building. Should a congressman or congresswoman desire financial contributions toward their upcoming midterm election, some sort of adherence to the wishes of AIPAC may be in order!
Near the end of Abbott’s column, he stated that U.S. neutrality in this conflict would “broker a lasting ceasefire” between the two entities. Could we really decrease human casualties through ceasefire if our country declared impartiality? This argument is incomprehensible. We would only witness an increase in Israeli civilian casualties, a widening discord between the two entities, and more boisterous, polarized news reports.
I would question the fate of Israel if the U.S. had not contributed to the creation of the Iron Dome; a technological masterpiece that intercepts the rockets that are infinitely delivered from the good-hearted terrorists of Gaza. The Iron Dome has saved many civilian lives and is an example of how collaborative efforts between the U.S. and Israel maintain civilian safety.
Abbott pointed out that Gaza has experienced far more civilian casualties than Israel, which is correct. Bear in mind, however, that Gaza will work diligently to increase their own civilian casualties in an effort to politically castrate Israel.
For example, before Israel fires a rocket on Gaza, fliers and phone calls from Israel are sent out to civilians to vacate the area. To our dismay, some journalists have found that Gaza leaders will actually populate areas where these warnings have been elicited in order to increase civilian casualties. In this scenario, the public eye may be led to believe that Israel is the instigator of human casualties when the real instigator is Gaza.
I am the first to admit that this letter is insufficient in its effort to describe Middle Eastern strife. Israel, Gaza and the United States have a deep and profound relationship, and an attempt to outline its historical complexity would be equivalent to a 100 page dissertation. However, I hope that this infinitesimal summary will shed light on why U.S. neutrality is incorrect in our avowed craving to diminish human suffering in the Middle East.