Should_the_Us_Support_Israel

Running head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS: SHOULD THE US SUPPORT ISRAEL' Critical Analysis: Should the US Support Israel' University of Phoenix Critical Analysis: Should the US Support Israel' When the State of Israel was first established in 1948, the United States (US) recognized the government of the new Jewish homeland thereby welcoming her into the family of nations (Geselbracht, 1997). From then until now, the US has been a consistent ally and staunch supporter of Israel, providing financial aid, weapons for defense, and political validation without fail. Consequently, since then and until now, a debate has raged among numerous countries, political and religious factions, and even everyday American citizens about whether or not the US should support Israel as it has and as it does today. Any conversation on the topic can result in a variety of arguments based in religious or moral beliefs, financial sensibilities, political differences, and more. The complexity of the situation in the Middle East as a whole and Israel in particular is deep and seems never-ending, and depending upon the opinion being considered, is also connected on various levels. World terrorism, oil dominance and control, American imperialism, and even anti-Semitism all seem to find their ways into the debate from time to time. In researching both sides of the debate regarding whether or not the US should support Israel, two things become immediately clear. First, finding two articles that take positions in direct opposition to each other, countering point by point, is nearly impossible due to the deep complexity of the argument and the layers of intellectual and emotional passion devoted to the subject. While many seemingly opposing positions connect on one or two points, there seem to be endless nuances that color opinions on the subject and tend to disconnect whole articles from each other much more definitively than they connect those articles to each other. Second, virtually no material seems to be available on the subject that is supported in full or even in large part by specific factual information. The articles discovered during research and presented here on US support of Israel are largely the authors’ opinions and do not present factual information in a linear, logical fashion to support the statements and assertions made or to convince the reader, on an intellectual level, of the validity of the arguments. In his article, “U.S. Aid-Lifeblood of the Occupation,” Matt Bowles presents a variety of arguments against the US supporting Israel, centering primarily on political, financial, and humanitarian points and presenting his information forcefully and directly as statements of fact. Bowles (2002) begins, “Israel has maintained an illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories) for 35 years.” He is addressing a political aspect of the argument represented as fact in a straightforward, almost dramatic fashion. Nowhere in the article, however, does he substantiate this claim. Other political discussion centers on what he calls the “special relationship” between Israel and the US, describing Israel as a “proxy army” to aid in controlling oil resources in the region and to manage indirect US relationships with other countries clandestinely (Bowles, para. 13,15). Bowles never provides documentation for any of these claims. He raises his financial arguments beginning with the amount of monetary aid the US has given Israel, claiming amounts ranging from $3 billion to as much as $6 billon annually in direct and indirect aid (Bowles, para. 8), but never specifically identifies sources or provides specific references to support the numbers. Without offering any information on US aid to other countries for comparative study, Bowles points out that the amount of financial aid the US provides to Israel is “unparalleled in the history of U.S. foreign policy” (Bowles, para. 6). Finally, in order to present his humanitarian arguments, Bowles likens Israel to the former apartheid state of South Africa (Bowles, para. 1,23). No definition of apartheid is provided and therefore, no definitive information to support this comparison is present in the article. Conversely, in “Why America Must Support Israel,” Bruce S. Thornton asserts that the US should support Israel for reasons of political and social relevance grounded in principle and morality. He describes Israel as the “only liberal democracy in the whole Middle East” (Thornton, 2002, para. 5) but like Bowles in his US aid arguments, Thornton does not supply any information on other Middle Eastern countries for comparison. In another instance, after describing the supposed characteristics and principles of society under a liberal democracy, again without any documented source, he contends that Israel violates some of those principles without citing examples or documentation to validate his contention (Thornton, para. 4). In the same paragraph, Thornton points out that the freedom of speech enjoyed by an Israeli Arab in Israel would not be present in “any other Arab state” (Thornton, para. 4). He fails, however, to provide specific examples or any supporting information about the lack of freedom of speech in Arab countries: he simply states that it does not exist. Later, in his lead-in paragraph to his morality argument, Thornton boldly represents as fact that the source of the Arab-Israeli conflict is “the Arab attempt to destroy Israel” (Thornton, para. 6). No facts are presented in the article to support this statement. Lastly, in the context of his conclusion of his moral argument, Thornton states as fact that “if Palestinians stop killing Israelis, Palestinians will stop dying” (Thornton, para. 10) and that the Oslo accords failed (Thornton, para. 10), while citing no sources of evidence to support either claim, and offering no definition of the Oslo Accords or what constitutes their failure. In fact, the majority of information presented by Bowles and Thornton in their respective articles is opinion. Thornton has not substantiated one piece of information that is represented in his article as fact. Bowles, while using numbers and the names of several organizations in his arguments, also fails to provide primary or secondary sources to support his statements. This is not to say that either or both authors are lying or creating false information, and there may indeed be documentation available through research to validate their claims. The authors are effectively employing the technique of using context to state opinions or personally drawn conclusions as fact, blurring the lines between the emotional and the intellectual, between truth and fiction, and between fact and opinion. Bowles seems especially gifted in propagandizing his statements. He tells us with an air of authority, but without an iota of proof, that “Most Americans do not realize the extent to which this is all funded by U.S. aid, nor do they understand the specific economic relationship the U.S. has with Israel” (Bowles, para. 3). He describes the condition in the region as “the desperate plight of the Palestinians” (Bowles, para. 21), uses buzz words such as imperialism and globalization, chosen specifically to alarm the reader, and cleverly misuses the term apartheid, immediately identifiable to the reader as negative, to describe the Israeli government (Bowles, para. 1,10,21,22). Thornton is not as heavy handed in his application of propaganda techniques. He uses a more subtle approach, such as challenging the reader’s commitment to principles when he states “ . . . Israel demands our support—if we believe in the principle, as we say we do, that such a society is the best way for people to live” (Thornton, para. 5). In another statement, he writes about Israelis killing Palestinians but then writes about Palestinians murdering Israelis (Thornton, para. 6), a subtle juxtaposition and word substitution that demonizes the act of killing only when performed by Palestinians. The quality of the authors’ respective arguments appears to differ and this opens those arguments up to challenge and doubt. Bowles’ introduction is so decidedly bold and one-sided at the outset that a reader may instinctively resist such forcefulness. His arguments focusing on financial aid to Israel seem credible at first, until he states, “Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid . . . it is safe to say that Israel's total aid (direct and indirect) amounts to at least five billion dollars” (Bowles, para. 8). The vague and tentative nature of these quantifications drains away the credibility he is attempting to build. Bowles’ arguments about the relationship between the US and Israel and his discussion of Israel as a US military stronghold (Bowles, para. 15) ultimately damage the article’s credibility. His assertions degrade quickly into a convoluted hodge-podge of manipulation, intrigue, and foreign policy, approaching conspiracy theory status. The idea that Israel was subsidized by the CIA, became a US surrogate for supporting death squads, and supported genocide (Bowles, para. 15,16) sounds like a Hollywood movie plot and simply does not seem consistent with logical knowledge of the country. Thornton’s arguments are considerably less substantive in detail, with no numbers or statistics, undocumented or otherwise, employed to illustrate specific points in the article. In fact, there are few if any specifics in Thornton’s article. He simply puts forth the proposition that supporting Israel is the right thing to do, making simple arguments distinguishing between aggression and self-defense, killing and murder, and morality, freedom, and terror. Both Bowles and Thornton’s credibility suffers from the lack of verifiable sources for their points and the propagandist nature of their writings. Bowles, a National Field Organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has published works in a number of magazines and journals with a liberal or left wing bias (ColoradoLaw, 2006, para. 1,2). He is also identified as a founder of Stop US Tax Funded Aid to Israel Now (SUSTAIN) on the Israeli-Palestinian Procon.org website (Israeli - Palestinian ProCon.org, 2005, para. 4). While not revealing the basis for his bias, this information indicates that the bias in his article against US support of Israel ties directly back to his work. Thornton’s biography on the Fresno State University website states that he has a BA in Latin and a PhD in Comparative Literature, has published several books and articles on topics related to his field, and written articles on contemporary subjects that have been published in a variety of magazines and journals (fresnostate.net, 2006), a number of which could be considered conservative or right-wing. The bias in Thornton’s article in favor US support of Israel does not appear to stem from his chosen field, but may be informed by a conservative perspective indicated by many of the publications he has written for. Based on the article content and the information on the authors, Thornton’s writing seems to stand out as more convincing but not necessarily more credible. His lack of detailed information and documented support for his statements does not take away from his ability to express his opinions and I did not find myself immediately questioning his points as I did when reading Bowles’ article. In this particular case, I believe the familiar axiom of “less is more” works in favor of Thornton’s piece in comparison to Bowles’ writing. From the first sentence of Bowles’ article, he clearly has an agenda, and his use of specific information without supporting documentation registered immediate doubt in my mind and caused me to question each point. In conclusion, my opinion on the question of whether or not the US should support Israel was not changed as result of this analysis; however, my perspective on the subject is broader and better informed. As I stated initially, the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East in general and the question of US support for Israel in particular are very complex subjects. The long history of debate does not seem to have improved the situation or resolved any of the specific issues involved. Layers of emotional, religious, political, and personal passions and beliefs make it difficult to simplify the question or draw definitive lines between the right and the wrong of it. What is clear is that based on critical analysis, these two articles express the authors’ opinions and do not necessarily find their basis in fact. If these two articles are representative of the majority of writing available on the question, and I believe they are, then the best possible result from further reading and research will be a further broadening of perspective on prevailing opinions and increased insight into reasons why the question is so contentious and difficult to resolve. References Bowles, M. (2002) "The United States should stop supporting Israel." Current Controversies: The Middle East. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from Gale. University of Phoenix-main account. ColoradoLaw. (2006). ACLU hosts talk on post 9-11 policies and Bush's wiretapping program. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://lawweb.colorado.edu. Fresnostate.net. (2002). Biographies. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.fresnostate.net. Geselbracht, R.H. (1997). The United States and the recognition of Israel: A chronology. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www. Trumanlibrary.org. Israeli – Palestinian ProCon.org. (2005). Israeli-Palestinian ProCon.org. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org. Thornton, B. S. (2002) "The United States should support Israel." Opposing Viewpoints: Israel. Ed. John Woodward. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from Gale. University of Phoenix-main account.