The US has been supporting the Israeli terrorism in the Middle East since 1948

"U.S. policy on the Mideast is virtually directed by Tel Aviv."

Nearly in 1978, the CIA published an article written by Senator James Abourezk in PENTHOUSE, in which he discussed briefly the historical conflict of Israeli state creation and the significance of the Arab Israeli conflict to the United States. This article also demonstrated some facts considering the long-term relation between the US and Israel. So, let's dive deeper.

Imperial Britain and France betrayed the aspiring Arabs

In the late 19th century, Palestine began to experience a profound transformation upon the emergence of the Zionist movement. This movement was leaded by people who claimed to search for a safe place for Jews away from the European oppression. Those leaders decided that Palestine was the best place to establish a new Jewish state. However, the aspirations of the Zionists largely marginalized the presence and rights of the indigenous Arabs.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically. In 1916, Britain and France secretly decided to divide the Middle East, outlining a plan to dissect the region into zones of influence after the expected defeat of the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, the European Imperial Powers ensured the Arabs their freedom if they cooperated in defeating the Ottoman Empire.

Just a year later, in 1917, the Balfour Declaration emerged, wherein Britain expressed the intention to support the creation of a "home for the Jews" in Palestine. This promise, made during the chaos of World War I, contradicted earlier assurances given to the Arab populations, who believed that their support against the Ottomans would lead to their own liberation and self-determination.

Fast forward to 1947, the United Nations sought to resolve the escalating tensions in the region. They proposed a partition plan that allocated 56% of Palestine to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about 30% of the population at that time. The plan was met with outrage from the Arab community, who felt that their rights were overlooked, and their homeland unjustly divided.

Then, on May 14, 1948, the declaration of the State of Israel shook the foundations of the region. It came as a shock to Palestinian Arabs, who viewed this act as the ultimate betrayal. The day after the declaration, conflict erupted, leading to the first Arab Israeli War and profound changes in the demographic makeup of the land.

The rule of Deir Yassin massacre in establishing Israel

The Deir Yassin massacre occurred on April 9, 1948, in a Palestinian village near Jerusalem. The operation was carried out by two Jewish terrorist groups, the Irgun and the Stern Gang, amidst the backdrop of escalating conflict between the Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine. The timing of the attack coincided with rising tensions as British forces prepared to withdraw from the region, which created a vacuum that intensified hostilities. The aim of the assailants was to spread fear among the Arab populace and cast an impression that control over the area was firmly in Jewish hands.

As the assault began, the attackers moved through the village, utilizing automatic weapons and explosives. They targeted homes indiscriminately and engaged in fierce gunfire with local Arab defenders, escalating the violence to a brutal scale. Eyewitness accounts report horrific scenes of shooting, where inhabitants—men, women, and children—were not spared. Reports indicate that the attackers tossed dynamite into houses, set them ablaze, and shot anyone attempting to escape or surrender. The actions of the Irgun and Stern members were characterized by extreme violence, resulting in the deaths of approximately 100 Palestinians that day, with the numbers varying based on different historical accounts.

Following the massacre, the perpetrators sought to conceal their actions. They shoved some of the bodies into a well and attempted to dispose of others to hide the scale of the violence from international observers, including representatives from the International Red Cross. The news of the massacre spread quickly across Palestine, instilling overwhelming fear among the Arab population. This atmosphere of terror contributed significantly to the broader exodus of Palestinian Arabs, with an estimated 700,000 fleeing their homes in the ensuing turmoil of the 1948 Arab Israeli War.

The consequences were devastating for the Palestinian population. Hundreds of thousands found themselves displaced, forced to flee their homes, and many became refugees, a status they have still not been able to shed. The establishment of Israel, hailed by some as a triumph for the Jewish people, was seen by many as an occupation that infringed upon the rights of the Arab inhabitants, forever altering the course of history in the Middle East.

The Harry Truman dilemma

Harry Truman played a crucial role in the establishment of Israel and its recognition on the world stage. On May 14, 1948, just moments after David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the State of Israel, Truman became the first world leader to extend official recognition to the new nation. This decision was particularly significant because it was made against the advice of many of his foreign policy advisors, illustrating Truman's strong commitment to supporting the Jewish cause during a time that followed the immense suffering of Jews in the Holocaust.

Truman's actions were not solely based on moral grounds; they were also influenced by political calculations. As the 1948 presidential elections approached, he recognized the importance of securing the support of American Jews, who could provide both votes and financial backing critical for his campaign. The prospect of losing this support to the Republican candidate Thomas Dewey, who was advocating for the establishment of a Jewish state, pressured Truman to act decisively in favor of Israel.

Additionally, Truman's administration took steps to facilitate the immigration of Jewish refugees fleeing post-war Europe. He advocated for increased immigration quotas, countering British efforts to restrict Jewish entry into Palestine. This commitment to assisting Jewish people seeking safety further solidified the close ties between the U.S. and Israel.

Truman's recognition of Israel and his support for Jewish refugees laid the groundwork for a robust U.S.-Israel relationship. His efforts were significant not only for the immediate establishment of Israel but also for shaping the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for decades to come.

Israel as a democratic colony… and the US Policy supporting terrorism

Israel claimed to be "a democracy". However, it created an exclusively Jewish state, as Abourezk mentions:

Although Israel's claim was that of a socialist democracy implanted amidst the monarchies and dictatorships of the Arab world, no public expression was given to the question of how such a democracy could also be an exclusive Jewish state while the Arabs held a numerical majority within the new boundaries.

On the other hand, the Israeli lobby has influenced U.S. policy in the Middle East and how it impacts Congress members. Aborezk says:

So long as the public ignores U.S. government actions in the Middle East, Israel will continue to dictate our policies there.

The lobby has significant sway over politicians, particularly those in Congress. The text explains that "When a politician gets no message from his constituents on a particular issue, he is completely free to vote and act as he chooses". The Israeli lobby fills this void by being active and vocal, leading to significant political pressure on Congress members to support pro-Israel policies.

Congress members were -and still are- often afraid of the lobbying power because the Israeli lobby is described as "highly organized, smart, and constantly alert," capable of generating substantial pressure through various means, such as campaign contributions and mobilizing public opinion. The article notes that "If a member of Congress should be so foolish as to withhold his support from an issue desired by the lobby, telegrams and phone calls immediately start pouring in from contributors, campaign workers, and others expressing their concern".

As a final method of oppressing the Congress members, Aborezk says:

The worst kind of intellectual terrorism is reserved for those politicians who dare to question Israel on its policies.

This atmosphere of fear discourages lawmakers from voicing criticism or opposing the lobby's agenda.

How did the US media and journalism respond?

U.S. journalism tends to support Israel due to a variety of factors, including the depiction of Israel as an underdog and the influence of pack mentality among journalists. Here are some of Aborezk's quotes from the article:

It has been fashionable from the beginning to write stories favorable to Israel and unfavorable to the Arabs.

Israel was depicted at the outset as an underdog, and Americans will by nature side with that particular role.

The members of the press were "sympathetic" to Israel, which allows Israeli propagandists to maintain a singular narrative that favors their perspective. This creates an environment where stories negative to Arabs are less frequently reported.

Israel was framed as a David facing the Goliath of the Arab world, where it is positioned as a small democracy amid hostile, predominantly authoritarian regimes.

Aborezk also described a phenomenon termed "pack journalism", which refers to journalists following the prevailing narrative or opinion, often resulting in a uniformity of perspective in news coverage. This is likened to "a flock of blackbirds sitting on a fence," where once one journalist takes a particular stance, others quickly follow suit. This tendency discourages diverse viewpoints and critical reporting about Israel.

Journalists also tried to avoid challenging the popular view on Israel out of fear of being ridiculed or ostracized for presenting contrary opinions. This dynamic creates a lack of space for critical discourse on Israeli policies within mainstream media.

A big lie, as described by Aborezk, helped in sticking the Israeli narrative within the minds of the Americans. This lie depended on the idea that Israel’s legitimacy comes from the U.N. resolution of 1947. By consistently repeating this narrative, Israel was granted legitimacy through international consensus, that shifts the focus away from historical grievances and creates a simplistic dichotomy of good (Israel) versus evil (its adversaries). It is important to mention that this resolution was "non-binding".

Israeli terrorism extended the Palestinian borders… powered by the US

During the period of escalating tensions in Lebanon, Israel engaged in a series of military actions, one of which included the bombing of construction projects. Specifically, when Lebanon began constructing a dam intended for agricultural irrigation, Israel's air force intervened by bombing the construction units to prevent its completion. This act was described as a clear instance of aggression against Lebanon.

From 1970 to 1975, Israel intensified its military operations through a series of raids that resulted in the use of U.S. jets marked with Israeli Air Force insignia. These jets were deployed to drop devastating weapons, including napalm, phosphorous, and fragmentation bombs, on civilian villages and Palestinian refugee camps throughout southern Lebanon. The consequences of these military actions were severe, leading to significant civilian casualties and the mass displacement of Lebanese populations.

In addition to airstrikes, Israeli commandos undertook operations that included the destruction of civilian aircraft. During their military efforts, they targeted and destroyed aircraft on the runway at Beirut airport, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the region.

Furthermore, Israel was involved in targeted assassinations, reportedly sending teams into Beirut to murder Palestinian intellectuals. These operations included violent acts, such as the shooting down of a Libyan civilian airliner, which resulted in the deaths of all passengers aboard. Collectively, these actions contributed to a climate of fear and violence in Lebanon.

How did the US media handled these atrocities?

The U.S. media's handling of Israeli atrocities in Arab countries revealed a significant bias that skewed public perception of the conflict. One of the key issues was the widespread blackout of Israeli aggression. The American press largely ignored events that depicted Israel negatively, such as the bombing of Lebanese construction projects and military raids that caused civilian casualties in southern Lebanon. In contrast, coverage of Palestinian terrorist actions received extensive attention, highlighting a disparity in reporting that favored Israeli narratives while marginalizing the experiences of Arab civilians.

Moreover, the descriptive disparities in how events were reported suggested a discriminatory perspective. The media provided detailed coverage of Palestinian attacks against Israel, complete with extensive headlines and reports, while Israeli military actions—especially those targeting civilian populations—were often underreported or framed in ways that minimized their severity. This selective reporting reinforced a narrative that positioned Israeli casualties as more significant than the suffering experienced by Lebanese and Palestinian communities.

The implications of this reporting extended beyond just the portrayal of events; it also suggested a troubling value system that indicated the lives of Israeli citizens were considered more important than those of Arab civilians. This bias was evident in the predominant focus on Israeli casualties, effectively overshadowing the destruction and hardship faced by Lebanese and Palestinian populations.

Additionally, specific instances of media suppression were noted, particularly regarding the significant financial and military support provided to Israel compared to other nations, such as Jordan. This selective reporting contributed to a lack of transparency concerning U.S. foreign aid and its implications for the region. The consistent portrayal of pro-Israel narratives allowed the U.S. government to maintain a foreign policy largely unchanged, strongly relying on public support that was heavily influenced by this unbalanced media coverage.

The U.S. and Israeli bombing of southern Lebanon acted as a catalyst for the Lebanese Civil War by escalating violence, causing mass displacement, increasing political fragmentation, fostering the rise of militant factions, and attracting international involvement. These factors combined to create a volatile environment that ultimately erupted into a protracted and devastating civil conflict.

Noam Chomsky's criticized the media's portrayal of the Middle Eastern conflict in a couple of notable points shown in the article:

• Labeling of Lebanese Civilians: Chomsky referred to the treatment of the people of southern Lebanon as "non-people," which speaks to the lack of attention and concern from the media and government towards the suffering of Lebanese civilians during the conflict?5. This term highlights the disconnect and dehumanization that can occur in media narratives, suggesting that the experiences of these individuals were largely ignored within the broader context of the conflict.
• Media Responsibility: Chomsky pointed out the failure of the American press to accurately represent the violence being perpetrated by Israel against Arab populations, stating, "With virtually the entire U.S. press corps acting as Israel's propaganda machine in America, U.S. government policy is not likely to change much in the future". This statement reflects his view that the media’s alignment with pro-Israel narratives stifles a fair and balanced discussion regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

A real "out of the box" resolution

Unlike Trump, Aborezk stated real critical points that would serve in resolving the Palestinian cause, as follows:

• Utilization of U.S. Leverage: Aborezk emphasizes that "only the United States has enough leverage on Israel to bring a halt to its territorial expansion". This suggests that U.S. foreign policy needs to be adjusted to exert pressure on Israel to cease its expansionist actions and to seek a resolution to the conflict.
• Stop the Financial Support to Israel: It is asserted that the United States provides significant military and financial aid to Israel, which is portrayed as unconditional and excessive. The author questions the appropriateness of this support for a nation that "arrogantly acquires land from other nations by force" and engages in various actions that may contravene human rights standards.
• Return of Occupied Territories: The writer notes that the Arabs are willing to concede to Israel the territory taken before 1967 but insists that the territories taken by Israel in 1967 must be returned as part of any peace settlement. This address underscores the importance of acknowledging and addressing the rights of displaced Palestinians.
• Upholding U.N. Principles: The text mentions adherence to the U.N. principle against the taking of territory by force as a crucial aspect of the solution. This principle advocates for the return of lands seized through aggressive actions.
• Public Demand for Change: The writer asserts that the American public has the power to influence U.S. foreign policy by demanding that the government reassesses its unconditional support for Israel and focuses more on what is in the best interest of the United States, rather than what benefits Israel. The writer calls for greater public involvement in influencing foreign policy decisions, particularly concerning the Middle East.
• Bringing About Peace: Ultimately, the writer argues that resolving these issues—such as stopping territorial expansion, ensuring the rights of Palestinians, and balancing U.S. support—will be prerequisites for bringing lasting peace to the region.

The European Jewish problem has been transferred through years into a Palestinian problem, in which the Israelis were described as victims standing against the brutal neighboring Arabs. The US media kept repeating this image to manipulate the American audience while sending unconditional military/financial aid to the ever-growing state of Israel.

The American government has always known it is supporting terrorism as it is an integral part of its ideology, which we will cover in a later article about the "atrocities of the US in the far east".

What can we do? We shall boycott all brands supporting Israel, keep talking about the Palestinian cause, and exert effort that would make the US cut its unconditional aid to Israel that only is used to kill innocent people and destroying their world!

Disclaimer: This article was created with the aid of AI.

Reference: CIA, THE RELENTLESS ISRAELI PROPAGANDA MACHINE