Israel: the 51st State?

Prior to visiting the United States, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asked for permission to travel to Ground Zero and bestow a wreath in honor of the victims of the 9/11 attack.

Ahmadinejad was told that, due to ongoing construction, Ground Zero would be blocked off to all foreign emissaries and a visit would not be possible. However, several political figures in Washington also responded to the Iranian president's request with a great deal of hostility. One top U.S. ambassador suggested that Ahmadinejad was seeking a "photo op" at Ground Zero on behalf of the terrorists.

"Iran can demonstrate its seriousness about concern with regard to terrorism by taking concrete actions, such as dropping support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and suspending its uranium enrichment program," the ambassador said.

Another official, a spokesman for the White House, said that Iran was a "state-sponsor of terror" and the Iranian president had no business at the 9/11 site.

The media's attitude was no different.

"Iran plans to bomb Israel if Israel attacks Iran," declared AOL Time Warner's article about Ahmadinejad's visit. The same article mentioned that an official in Ahmadinejad's government had been involved in the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran, an event in which 63 U.S. diplomats and 3 U.S. citizens were taken captive in 1979.

Now maybe it's just me, but "Iran plans to bomb Israel if Israel attacks Iran" sounds like a really dramatic way of stating the obvious; I mean, what country would not retaliate if it were attacked by another country? As for the hostage crisis...is AOL Time Warner arguing that, because of the past actions of one man in Ahmadinejad's government, Ahmadinejad was more or less "there" during the hostage crisis, too? Apparently, yes.

In fact, not too long ago, the media stumbled upon the fact that one perpetrator photographed during the hostage crisis looked like a young Ahmadinejad. Today, the CIA claims with "relative certainty" that the man was not Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, without waiting for verification, the media began spreading rumors about the photo

The media also accused Ahmadinejad of declaring that Israel should be "wiped off the map". The Iranian president was denigrated for his "anti-Israel rhetoric" and attacked for "advocating genocide." One unnamed Israeli official even called for the capture of Ahmadinejad so that the president could be tried for his words in an Israeli court. Needless to say, Ahmadinejad did not even say the words that he was accused of saying; Ethan Bronner, a writer for the Jewish-owned New York Times, merely mistranslated a speech that the Iranian president had given. Whoops.

Of course, all the pieces begin to fall in place when one is aware that U.S. media giants like AOL Time Warner support Israel and those who support Israel are eager to agitate against Iran and its president. Why?

Iran's president questions the accepted version of the Holocaust and thinks generation after generation of Germans should not have to pay money to Israel. Additionally, although Israel is the only country in the Middle East capable of launching a nuclear attack, Iran is making progress towards obtaining nuclear power. Iran is also an avid supporter of the Palestinians and Hezbollah, two groups which the Israelis are at battle with over land claims.

Granted, every American is entitled to his or her opinion about Iran, Israel and the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli and Lebanon crises. However, America must also understand what the pro-Israel camp gains when we are under the impression that Israel's enemies are also America's enemies. It is important that, if America becomes involved in the Middle Eastern crises, it does so on account of American interests - not because some pro-Israeli lobbyists in the U.S. think this involvement will benefit Israel.

In his Farewell Address, President George Washington told America to "steer clear of a permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world"; President Thomas Jefferson's Inaugural Address included similar advice: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none." Not surprisingly, our Founding Fathers also understood what it meant for the U.S. if Americans with power and influence still had loyalties to some other foreign power. For this reason, all immigrants to the U.S. were forced to renounce foreign oaths; by contrast, these days, if you were born in Israel, you can be an American, Israeli and even German citizen - all at the same time. There is even a pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. government. Our forefathers would not have stood for any of this.

Yes, we have a right to be very suspicious of the pro-Israel lobby and the pro-Israel media; ultimately, it is our tax money which is being used to arm Israel and our lives which will be lost if we are sent into battle against Iran. Secondly, for all of the commotion that, by aiding Hezbollah, Iran is "sponsoring terror"...what is America doing when it aids the Israelis? In answering that question, one must think about what it means when the Palestinians suffer at the hands of Israel's armed forces, or when Israel's military leaves Lebanon in ruins after an out-of-proportion, yet retributive strike against a Hezbollah-led government.

In conclusion, Americans should continue to be wary of those who wish to make their own enemies America's enemies. As those with power and influence in this country spread propaganda about Iran and Ahmadinejad and urge us to jump into the trenches with Israel, I urge the public to listen to our forefathers and be wary of those among us with foreign ties! Long before it was "politically incorrect" to be concerned that the loyalties of America's citizenry might lie elsewhere, beyond American borders, this was common sense.