Many, most, dare I say (almost) all people identify with their nationality before anything else (aside from gender): when faced with the all too common question, "what ethnicity are you?" most people reply, "German" or "Mexican"--which only indicate the "where" and not so much the "what"--the culture, the actual people, the actual ethnicity. National Anthems and ballads, like our own "Proud to be an American," perpetuate that sense, and perhaps add a sense of aestheticism, art, to the vast architecture that is national pride. I do not have an edifice for my national pride--I am not proud, at this point, to be an "American."

When I think of why I maintain this state of mind, the most immediately visible thoughts form the picture US International politics: its general hypocrisy based on a clear set of double-standards, its motivation by ruling class interests, its direct or indirect role in spreading or endorsing international suffering, and its, more than maybe the others, lack of accountability for doing any of those things. More recently, and perhaps more relevantly to our present state of affairs, are the US interests in and relations with the Middle East. The US frequently and overtly extends its monetary and munitions aid to the authoritarian governments in the region in order to help repress the people of the lower classes and prevent or stop any kind of dissidence. Saudi Arabia is a prime example. In order to, as Reagan put it, "not permit [Saudi Arabia] to be another Iran," whose US-backed ruler, the Shah had been overthrown two years earlier, the US engaged in arms transfers with and provided economic aid to a country which was ruled (and, to a sickening degree of similarity still is ruled) exclusively by a royal family that allowed no public dissent or independent press of any kind, a regime under which there was no constitution, no political parties, no legislature, no real means for anyone to oppose its power. Arms manufacturers benefited at the cost of the oppression of human rights we share today, and yet we claim, now, to be champions of democracy: while we endorse authoritarian regimes, they lose lives, we save face, and make money (well, not "we," but "Americans" in the ruling class). To Uzbekistan, to silence the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) through militaristic suppression, imprisonment and torture; to Tajikistan and Turkmenistan to silence similar rebellions; to Turkey to help stifle the Greek opposition on the island of Cyprus (which was to assimilate the island with its 80% Greek population to Greece); and to Egypt to shutdown the Ibn Khaldun Center for Developmental Studies, imprison and severely punish its Dr. Saad El-Din Ibrahim and his colleagues who all worked in the think tank in order to research ways of achieving civil society in Egypt and throughout the Arab world, and send a message to all pro-democratic dissenters that no dissension would go unpunished; to them all, the US sent arms and money, well aware of the consequences, and most likely intending for them to occur for the betterment of its position there. And to Israel, the US, to this day, allocates more than 1 of every 4 dollars of aid to foreign countries, resulting in what was over 1.3 Billion dollars annually, and what is now over 10 billion (I believe Zunes states it is 13, but I do not have my book to check). Essentially, the pattern is clear to anyone with any sense of awareness: the US provides economic and military aid to the repressive regimes of authoritarian governments (and even more to the supposed democracy of Israel) perpetuating suffering in the region only because it places its ruling class's interests above the rights and security of anyone else. As Zunes put (and I remember this well enough to quote it), "one of the many ironies in U.S. Middle East policy is that a nation founded in one of the world's first republican revolutions is now the major backer of the wold's few remaining absolute monarchies."

Even more relevant, and more recent, are the sanctions placed by the UN Security council (UNSC) on Iraq for noncompliance with the UN mandated searches led by the WMD Inspection Team, the results of which are graphically depicted, discussed, and questioned in Australian journalist, John DIlger's film, Paying the Price. The film's title stems from a statement made by then Secretary of State, Madeline Albright in an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes: in regards to reports of the death toll of children in Iraq as a result of the sanctions, Stahl asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it." The reports from which Leslie Stahl and others drew such a statistic was approved by UN agencies, like UNICEF and the WHO, which both investigated Iraq and acknowledged the unfair severity of the effect of the sanctions on unwary and relatively helpless civilians, namely children under 5, whose mortality rate more than doubled after the sanctions were implemented. Albright blames her response and it stupidity on her inability to challenge the inherent flaws in the question asked and its premises (as I paraphrase from her autobiography)--although, her belief at the time was quite clearly expressed and reflected what was assumed to be the belief of the whole of the Clinton administration and the Bush years that would follow it. The lack of compliance was not as it seemed: it was simply a refusal to allow the investigators to intrude on sacred or royal grounds in the nation, i.e. Saddam's Palace--which eventually was overturned, with the sanctions not being lifted. Most saw the sanctions as just, initially, and they are not to be blamed--following Iraq's use of biological/chemical weapons in militarily slaughtering the Kurd minorities in Kuwait and in its own communities, repercussions were necessary. But after a decade of dying children, insufficient food stores, a lack of medicine able to treat the now rampant, treatable diseases, and a sheer absence of technology (all of which the sanctions prohibited) after 10 years of people suffering, all of whom were no Saddam Hussein or the leaders of the Baath party's regime, one must question the legitimacy of these sanctions. What has the US got to do with this, when the UNSC ratified and maintained the sanctions? The US essentially controlled the Security Council, with the help of Britain and other member nations reliant on US military or economic support, and vetoed any attempt to lift the sanctions, even threatening to stop aid to member nations in order to compel them to vote in its favor. With no evidence of WMDs, biological weapons labs, and abundant evidence for a crippled Iraqi state, the US would have no basis to start the war for oil it now wages with the country--so, with sanctions in place, it could keep the country where it wants until it found justification for attacking the nation state (although, it still has no justification for actually attacking Iraq at this point). 500,000 children dead and counting (the film was made about 6 years ago) and Albright, and the administrations to follow, by persisting with the sanctions (not altering them in any reasonable way) and saying what they did, prove that the "American" name only seeks to better its position of control in a region that holds the most influential energy resource the of the modern world--for them, fighting for oil makes those dead children worth it; and to the rest of the world, we are all implicated in this, not just the fools at the top.

To me, Israel usurps Saudi Arabia as the most important US ally in the Middle East--Stephen Zunes would disagree in his book, but considering that it was written and published years ago, I think my argument suffices. This part will not compare the power of Israel and Saudi Arabia, but the information I put forth (not that there can't be an entire book written, but I clearly do not have time to type one here) should provide an adequate argument for why Israel is at least more relevant, if not more influential, than Saudi Arabia. We must examine US relations with Israel in order to then examine what may be causes or prolongers of the Israel-Palestine conflict. As both O'Connell and Zunes seem to agree: Israel is the client state of the United States--the puppet of the puppet master. O'Connell acknowledges three points (obviously to greater detail than I am willing to type) that have shaped US-Israel relations: 1) Israel has always sought the protection of an Imperialist patron; 2) Israel has acted and continues to act as the servant power to the US, carrying out policies the US would otherwise receive far too much disapproval for if it attempted to carry them out itself; and 3) The 1967 Six-Day War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), acted as a kind of catalyst that drove the US to back Israel as a demonstration of its military capability. In the lat 1940s, just following the culmination of WWII and more importantly of the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandate Palestine, Israel sought to establish its economic security with its recent statehood. The 30 November 1947 UN vote to dismantle the British Mandate of Palestine and UN Partition Plan was immediately met with conflict between the joy of the Jewish community and the discontent of the Arab community (since this meant Zionist nationalism would most likely trump Palestinian nationalism). War broke out only two days after the vote and would last until 14 May 1948, culminating in a decisive Israeli victory. Despite protest from Britain, the Partition Plan failed and, with the Holocaust fresh in memory, the Zionist movement drew much sympathy no matter how wrong, or how truly imbalanced their territorial desires were, permitting the establishment of Israel as a state to go on unabated. The first nation to recognize the actual Israeli state de jure was the USSR, and it, then, drew the attention of Israel, and so began Israel's lust for USSR patronage. The US did not wish to delve outside of its isolationist shell and wanted nothing to do with matters of the like, and would not venture to "help" Israel until it recognized its military prowess in in 1967, when Israel ultimately defeated the combined military might of the Arab States, beginning with Egypt based on issues with its 1957 (and then continuing) occupation of the Sinai Peninsula and its closing of the Suez Canal to foreign access and ending with the defeat of the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian forces, and the Israeli seizure of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, West Bank, and Jordan River. No doubt impressed by this, the US felt secure enough in Israel's capabilities and took the role of its new patron, and has been since. In terms of point 2, since that just about covers points one and 3, the US has continuously motivated Israeli actions within and outside its borders. Helping to stifle any peaceful Arab or Palestinian nationalist movements by supplying arms and money to Israel, and by training its peacekeepers (its elite army, the strongest of any in the Middle East), the US helps Israel and the Zionist movement within it maintain and even strengthen their political, social, and military position. The errands on which the US ruling class sends its servant state include

"aid to apartheid South Africa, training South African and Central American soldiers in counterinsurgency tactics, and providing weapons to Iran during its war with Iraq in the 1980s. In the 1970s and 1980s the U.S. could not openly intervene against the peasant rebellions in Central America because of the anti-imperialist politics of the American workers. The American anti-war movement during the Viet Nam war crippled the U.S. as an openly interventionist power. In this political context, the American ruling class relied on Israel for some important imperialist work."--Dr. Charles O'Connell in his essay, "The Israel Palestine Conflict: Outline of an Interpretation based on Class Analysis"


On behalf of the U.S., Israel trained, supplied arms to, and economically backed some of the most repressive regimes in recent history, indirectly linking U.S. to the apartheid in South Africa and slaughtering of dissenters in Central America--obviously, had the U.S. done this itself, this would have ignited a conflagration of opposition from the international community and--this is based on hope more than anything else at this point--from the domestic population, especially from the blossoming youth counterculture and post-Civil Right's Movement liberal thought. However, the reactionary groups that arose from conflicts , policies, and actions surrounding, resulting from, and embodying Israel's decisions seem to outweigh what might have been a lesser and less fatal political reaction from the UN and from US citizens. To continue, O'Connell notes and asks

"The Israeli ruling class also acted as a surrogate for the Americans in other areas by supplying military assistance to counterrevolutionary guerrillas such as UNITA in Angola, MNR in Mozambique, Habre in Chad and the Contras in Nicaragua. Are these the actions of an independent nation or a client regime?"


I believe it is quite clear that Israel has deliberately aligned itself with repressive regimes--for some of which, that title is actually an understatement--and I believe it is clear enough that the US interests play a paramount role in shaping those actions. Its hand guides the actions of Israel, and, at the US's crack of the military-economic whip, Israel moves as the Middle Eastern, Zionist silhouette of America. And in terms of Israel's repression of its Palestinian population (not a minority since it, with refugees in included, outnumbers the Jewish/Zionist population, despite its occupation of only 22% of Israel's land--and a fragmented 22% at that), Israel backs the PLO and radical Arab fronts, allowing them to develop and internationally discrediting the Palestinian nationalist movement by making it seem as if it's only a radical, irrational, theological movement and not a politically reasonable one. This provides the US ample reason to continue supplying Israel military and economic aid to stifle the threat of such radical movements, aid which it only ends up using abroad and domestically, against the more peaceful demonstrations. Through this, the US can justify sending over 10 billion dollars a year to a country extremely well off economically and militarily, especially in comparison with its neighbors, while the people in Gaza lack even a basic sewer system, the people in the West Bank have a militarized 26 foot wall (the Berlin Wall was only 12.5 feet tall) that, with over 200 random kibbutzin (Jewish agricultural/urban settlements of over 30,000 in population at times) dividing up their small, cramped Palestinian communities into underdeveloped, broken settlements, and the people of various repressive regimes suffering around the world. The U.S. may never admit to its direct and indirect ties to any of this beyond Israel itself.

While this nation was founded with and has been readily associated with words and concepts like "liberty," "equality," "opportunity," and "prosperity," I feel those concepts have been tarnished by both the actions of the United States government abroad, the reflection of those actions in many of the continually prejudiced people inhabiting the nation, and the general ignorance of such atrocities. When we allocate 700 Billion dollars to banks so that they may loan it to the public and reestablish themselves, and potentially stimulate consumerism and those banks refuse to loan that money out, keep their holiday bonuses, and deny responsibility because the contract between them and the government did not obligate them to do anything of the sort; when the auto industry we created is failing because of idiotic cars like the Hummer, from lavish company expenditures on jets and boats and bonuses, and from a lack of consumer interest in cars that lay claim to often less than 25 miles per gallon (mpg); when Rod Blagojevich can appear on tv for weeks after undoubtable evidence of his corruption led to his impeachment, or that Sarah Palin can sign a book deal after allowing the racism and prejudice of her (and John McCain's) campaign rallies to go on unabated, among an endless list of political corruption and deferral; when Guantanamo Bay was justified by Rumsfeld's action memo and perpetuated by General Miller and Major General Sanchez's own memorandums; and when people can claim to be Americans for liberty, equal rights, equal opportunity, and prosperity, yet refuse to pass the feminist Equal Rights Amendment (which is really extremely fair) or Prop 8 while denying prejudice on the basis of religious belief (what happened to separation of Church and State?), I cannot, will not, and see no reason why anyone should have pride in being an American, in being representative of all that, of utter hypocrisy and corruption and dishonesty.

I see no edifice of pride striped red and white, adorned with blue or with stars--I am in no way proud of what we have become, in great part because of what we once were. In fact, saying that I am presently rather ashamed of what being an "American" means on an international scale would suffice to define my present mood. Rather than some kind of prideful, red, white and blue skyscraper in my mind representative of pride, I have a deep, pit of shame, with a far-off bottom on which rests the colors of the American flag and all they stand, rather, stood for. Perhaps Obama and the potential for change, this inexplicable hope and trust one feels in this man and his capability, would help unearth the long-buried ideals on which the foundations of our society have been built. Only time will tell. But certainly, at this moment, amid economic crisis, hypocrisy and war abroad, apathy and ignorance at home, there can be no doubt in my mind that the potential for our old self, our morally righteous national identity to stay buried, to stay fallen from grace, is very grand--the grave may be too deep to dig out the American flag I would have been proud to pledge my allegiance to.

As of now, and despite my hope in the man and administration I voted for, I am not proud to be an American. But let me add this amendment to that statement: This lack of pride, this disdain, acts as the motivation for my writing such pieces (among other types) to inspire people to think, to believe that something need be done, that change is actually necessary and that our realization of the problems is an important part of the process. Most people do not like to read these kind of pieces or learn of this kind of information because they fear feeling hopeless, or at least moreso than they already do. But there is hope, there is a chance, a strong one, if we can all stand up and say something, and challenge the issues. Although, again, first we must acknowledge that these problems exist, that they are inherently grave, and that they affect us regardless of whether we want them to or not--but we have the power to change that, and hopefully this instills that feeling into the people reading.

Note: I will add to and augment this essay as my knowledge grows and my time becomes a bit freer.