Loving America, and willing to right many wrongs

On the road to Bangor is a sign saying: “Honk if you love America”. Over a period of several weeks I have yet to hear anyone honk. Perhaps if the signmaker’s “love America” sign was more carefully written it might have more of an effect. Perhaps the signmaker is concerned with the treatment of minorities or with the abuse of the environment, or with the lack of health care or affordable housing? But most likely he is expressing anxiety over 9-11 and defense is his real concern even though poverty and the distorted values of our corporate culture is causing this country far more anxiety at this time. Loving implies empathy toward the one who is loved while love of greed and power are a perversion of love. One would think that people who really love America love the land, love clean air and love clean water. Although we like to love that which is best in the country we seldom love the blemishes because that demands a change of attitude and a large investment.

A paleontologist recently wrote that it took America 65 million years to develop its vast resources and only a few hundred years to squander them. Given our skewed values in the present time we must ask if it is necessary for America to spend half its budget on defense? Can America sustain one half trillion dollars a year for the military and $70 billion more on a possible war with Iraq and an additional $100 billion more on Israel (51% of all foreign aid) as has been done in the past 30 years?

There have been 45 settlements since Sharon came to power on land that does not belong to Israel. Tens of thousands of Israeli citizens and thousands of Israeli military have had peaceful demonstrations to show their resistance to Sharon’s invasion and occupation of the West Bank. A recent article by an Israeli journalist observed that Sharon foments terrorism by bombing each time peace talks are about to begin because it is to his benefit to have hundreds of millions of dollars flow into Israel from the U.S. It is also to his benefit to provoke chaos so that more settlements can be established. When an American representative such as Secretary Rumsfeld endorses this policy by stating that Palestine is a “so-called occupied land” his insensitivity and arrogance is astounding unless his statements are meant to escalate the crisis. Arousing the fury of the Arabs is to the advantage of like-minded autocrats because violence is what keeps power hungry people in power. A carpenter friend of mine said “if your only tool is a hammer all your problems are nails”. If America and Israel continue to see Palestine in terms of military solutions then they will continue to use their hammers. But the result will be that the aspirations of the coming generation of Palestinians will be to procure a larger hammer. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons and unless the American public speaks out against this miserable strategy it will continue to the next generation.

The Iraq and Palestine situations are inextricably linked although the present administration is trying not to link them. Why would this administration undertake attacking Iraq despite the fact that most of the world is opposed to such action. Perhaps the major reason was revealed in an interview reported in The New York Times on July 30 with James Schlesinger, a member of the Defense Policy Board. He said “…our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place.” But since American credibility is at stake in Palestine why switch from one failed endeavor to another.

According to archaeologists Palestinians have lived in Palestine for more than 3000 years. At one time they co-existed with Israelis. Why then are Americans interfering in an age old rivalry? It is quite possible that if fewer weapons were being supplied to Israel an accommodation would have been worked out years ago. But America has not allowed a level playing field. As a result terrorist organizations among the Palestinians apparently feel they have no way to defend themselves other than the terrifying use of suicide bombing. In recent studies of terrorism experts have noted that humiliation, rather than poverty, is the chief cause of terrorism. How would it be if Americans placed 200,000 people in settlements in Canada and then claimed they had a right to use air strikes against Canadian cities if some frustrated Canadians retaliated against Americans.

Is it the fear of appearing anti-Semitic that keeps the mainstream media from reporting fairly on the debacle? If this is so then why is so little attention given to the Israeli peace movement which can hardly be construed as anti-Semitic or Anti-Israel? Can American policy makers continue to ask its citizens to love policies that are so unfair? America has often stood up for the underdog, but Israel in this instance is not the underdog.

Shortsighted strategies in which future generations are put at risk are not good policies and do not represent love of peace or love of country. Force reacting to force seldom works against indigenous populations. It never worked in Northern Ireland despite Britain’s funneling of $4 billion a year in aid and it never worked in Vietnam and it will never work in the Middle East.

Hugh Curran teaches in the Peace Studies Program at the University of Maine.