Being Oppressed dosn't justify Oppressing others

Some may bristle at the analogy, but its point is an important one to recognize if there is ever to be a resolution in the sixty year conflict between Israel and Palestine.  For many decades prior to the 1990's, there was already a worldwide consensus against the South African National Party and its policy of apartheid.  So why did it take so long to end?  The answer may lie in the fact the it was only a near-consensus, as Ronald Reagan made the United States the world's lone holdout.  In 1983, Reagan's state department labeled the African National Congress a terrorist organization (Chomsky).  Former ANC leader and Nobel Prize winner Nelson Mandela was on the United States' Terrorist Watch List as recently as 2008 (USA Today).  It wasn't until after Reagan's term ended that US policy finally changed, after which apartheid ended quickly.  Still, as early as 1958, South Africa's foreign minister told their US ambassador that even though rest of the world hates our government and we are an international pariah, as long as we have the United States as our one ally, we will always have legitimacy (Chomsky).  Sound familiar?

Little can happen internationally without US approval; so even if the United States is the only nation on the UN Security Council to reject potential Palestinian statehood, they alone can block it.  As with South Africa, US policy will likely need to change before a resolution can be reached.  There is something inherently silly in the United States playing the role of an "impartial mediator" between two intractable sides, when there in fact there should be a real impartial party monitoring negotiations.  Palestine should be on one side of the table, with both Israel and the US on the other (Chomsky).  Though both sides have been incredibly violent and Palestinians are hardly blameless in this saga, only one side has the armed backing of the world's preeminent militarily power.  This is actually an understatement, as Israel has received more direct military aid from the US than any other nation over the last sixty years (Congressional Research Service).  To put it in less abstract terms, nearly 1,500 Palestinian children have been killed by Israel in the last decade, almost ten times the number of Israelis (Catherine Cook).

Those supportive of Israel contend that such force is necessary because of the aforementioned isolation it has in the region.  Israel is surrounded by states that do not recognize its existence, some publicly advocating its destruction.  Thus, it must have the means to defend itself against those who wish it harm.  Playing the part of an Israeli supporter, James Carroll asks, "What would America do if rockets were being fired from Tijuana into San Diego?"  As for Israel's embargo on goods entering Gaza, they argue that weapons could be brought in for Hamas (which now governs Gaza) to use against Israelis.  Also, many view criticism of Israel as simply antisemitism.  Though supporters would not refer to it as an "occupation," they would say that the Bible promises the land to the Jews; that they are simply returning after being kicked out, chased all over Europe, and having six million of their people murdered.

While we should all be sympathetic to the Jewish plight historically, the tables have now been turned - the oppressed have become the oppressors.  If any group should be able to identify with the suffering of another, you'd think it would be the Jews.  Though it is true that for the first time in their history, the Jews have a home.  They incredibly control a place where they are no longer a forsaken people - a doomed race waiting to be killed by everyone else.  Perhaps it is difficult to ask anyone to completely let go of that very real emotional component dating back thousands of years.  As an ethnic Jew myself, I can appreciate this mindset.  Still, two wrongs still don't make a right; and being oppressed doesn't justify oppressing others.

Remember the San Diego/Tijuana example?  This time wearing the hat of a Palestinian supporter, Carroll rebuts it with another American analogy: "what if the South Bronx, say, were an open-air prison, with residents forbidden to enter or leave?"  But just in case you're still not pessimistic enough about the chances of a peaceful resolution, I'll leave you with a riveting quote proving the even Israel's first prime minister David Ben-Gurion saw the situation as hopeless:

"Why should the Arabs make peace?  If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel.  That is natural.  We have taken their country.  Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them?  Our God is not theirs.  We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?  There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?  They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country.  Why should they accept that?"

Corporations make for Lousy People

For as long as there has been a United States, there has been a constitution bearing the three words "We the People."  Not content to merely write these words, its authors even wrote them in giant letters as if to signify their importance.  The Bill of Rights soon followed; it's first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech to those people.  However, even back then there was heated debate over what constituted a "person."  Compromises were struck to resolve these disagreements such as declaring slaves three-fifths of a person; so much for "all men are created equal" - itself an already unequal statement given its gender implications.  In terms of rights though, full voting citizenship was strictly reserved to the white, the male, and the property owning.  We've come a long way since then, but have we actually gone too for in the other direction?  Do we now grant undue rights to parties that are literally not human?

Citizens United is a conservative film-making nonprofit, yet their documentaries are not the reason history professors will be referencing them one-hundred years from now.  Rather they will be remembered for their monumental Supreme Court case against the Federal Election Commission (FEC); its 2010 decision drastically altering the American political landscape for the foreseeable future.  Prior to this verdict, large organizations such as unions and corporations were limited in the amount of money they could contribute to both specific candidates and issue advertising.  But by ruling that these caps violated the first amendment by restricting their right to free speech, we not only find that money now equals speech - but that corporations now equal people.

Conservatives and supporters of the ruling take the "abridging freedom of speech" language in the first amendment and apply it to large monied entities such as corporations, which are technically run by people - specifically people with a right to free speech.  They argue that it was unconstitutional for the FEC to prevent Citizens United from releasing a documentary that was critical of Hilary Clinton at the height of her primary campaign; that veritable muzzle infringing upon their freedom of speech.  Penning for the majority, Justice Scalia contented that supposed liberal groups such as the Sierra Club are also technically not individuals, yet there is precedent for them being grated first amendment protections nonetheless (National Review).  In other words, why draw a distinction between them and a corporation?  Supporters also raise the point that it is not the governments place to meddle in campaign finance; that if we remove all regulation, a la barriers to speech, well will all be freer for it.  The electorate has the capability to, and should be allowed to, decide matters for themselves the argument goes; as opposed to some parties being relegated to having only a partial voice.

Some parties do have only a partial voice all right, but it sure isn't corporations.  The fact that the actual individuals who work for these conglomerates (including their billionaire CEOs) can buy as large a slice of the political process as they want is bad enough.  But the idea that they can now use their bottomless corporate coffers on top of that is about as unjust as is humanly imaginable.  Far from leveling the playing field by giving everyone an unencumbered voice, it rather lets those with the most money (corporations) completely drown out all other voices.  How can a non-cooperate interest compete with the financial resources of a Fortune 500 company?  It simply can't, thus it may cause future disillusionment in the political process amongst all but the most affluent; a feeling of powerlessness that is extremely dangerous given how it can give way to nationwide apathy.  This lack of engagement and tuning-out only serves to give more power to those already at the top of the food chain.

GE has a larger gross domestic product (GDP) than all of New Zealand; Chevron's is bigger than the Czech Republic; Exxon Mobil's greater than Thailand and Wal-Mart's eclipses Norway (Business Insider).  Is it any wonder that a record four-billion dollars was spent on the the 2010 midterms? (US News & World Report)

In the wake of what it sure to be a heated presidential election in 2012, the prospects for even a modest reduction in corporate campaign influence is about as likely as a Gary Johnson/Buddy Roemer GOP ticket.