Anderson: What we didn’t learn after September 11

By Joshua Anderson

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Often, when a foreign entity acts contrary to the wishes of the United States, government officials will declare that entity is a source of instability in the region. This official rhetoric labels them impediments to peace.

In reality, they’re more often than not impediments to the supposed U.S.-led global order. If our focus on elements of destabilization around the globe were really about peace, then we would have forces on the ground in the West Bank, confronting the extremist settler movement, which affects the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, and exacerbates the instability of the Middle East and the world.

It has long been known that Israeli settlers often terrorize the civilian population of Palestine, burning olive groves, vandalizing property, among other things.

This past September witnessed the advent of the settler movement turning on the Israeli population. An Israeli professor critical of the settler movement was greeted with a pipe bomb in his home.

After the removal of a group of these settlers from the so-called “House of Contention,” the following week witnessed the rampaging of settlers and their allies throughout the West Bank town of Hebron. True to form, after having been forced to abide by the law, they tore through the city, terrorizing residents and vandalizing property. What is noticeably absent from the news accounts in the American media is that these events occurred on Palestinian territory.

Israeli settlement of the West Bank is the greatest impediment to peace, and the refusal to halt construction is the clearest sign of Israel’s true intention: the eventual annexation of the entire West Bank.

American universities are embedded with a system of organizations that tacitly support the settlement endeavor. “Birthright” programs explicitly aim to foster a “personal attachment” with the land, hoping such an attachment would lead to immigration, and yet another soldier in the demographic wars of the occupied territories.

The settlers, whose fanatical claim that God has given them the right to steal land at the expense of the livelihood — and lives — of those they have stolen it from has led to a 60-year occupation and an astounding loss of life. This sort of behavior is not tolerated by fanatic Muslim extremists, so why is it OK for extremist Jews?

The settlement movement is a terrorist movement. Because of a conviction that God has given them the land, they are tightening their grip on the land with the support of Israel and the United States.

We shouldn’t underestimate people who believe a mandate from God supersedes the lives of innocent people — any American who paid attention on Sept. 11 should be able to tell you that.

— — Anderson is a Perry junior in creative writing.

Comments

Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...

I agree that Palestinian TERRORISTS do a lot of atrocious suicide bombings and murders on innocent Israeli civilians, GW, but does that excuse the treatment of Palestinian CIVILIANS? You've ignored every specific point in this letter.

December 11, 2008 at 1:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

BCohen (anonymous) says...

While I disagree with a lot of how Israel is characterized in this column, to argue that what is happening in Palestine is related to 9/11 is inaccurate and inappropriate. This has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or al Qaeda. It has to do with an ongoing dispute over who can control/live in the West Bank.

December 11, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

unsympathetic (anonymous) says...

You can tell the author is majoring in CREATIVE writing, and not substantive writing. Go ahead, generalize all day, and by all means, don't cite sources or give proof for anything- you'll still be considered legitimate.

December 15, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

selliott (anonymous) says...

Well, even if the author generalizes I still believe the core of his ideas are correct. Have you heard that former Prime Ministerial candidate and Israeli hero Avraham Burg has renounced Zionism. He points out too quickly that Israelis who didn't own the land more than 60 years ago are too eager to take back that which Jews (not necessarily their ancestral Jews) lost a millenia ago. I think that ultimately their needs to be a one-state not two-state solution. Think about it - if Israel continues to define its citizenry as Jewish is it truly democratic? The democratic values that the United States Supreme Court calls fundamental, freedom, liberty, privacy all that hooplah goes out the window when Arabs are denied their rights. And, if we ultimately want their to be democratic nations all over the Middle East, showing the Arabs the benefits and not the costs of democracy would go a long way in improving conditions.

December 22, 2008 at 5:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

selliott (anonymous) says...

And, Israel isn't the only democracy, Lebanon has democratic government (they elected a radical terrorist group) and so does Palestine (Hamas swept elections) so if you meant to say, pro-Western democracy, then yes, Israel is the only one. However, we have asked he other countries to be democratic, they comply, and their people elect people who hate us. That's the real problem here, is getting radical Islam out of their governments. It happens with settlers stopping what their doing and leaving the West Bank and Gaza, Syria stepping back and letting Israel breathe, Iran being forced out of play, Lebanon stabilizing the Heights and its Southern regions, and the United States stopping its military technology handover to Israel.

December 22, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement