Israel should no longer be given special treatment by the U.S.

My opponent has obviously looked into the principle matters concerning both the United States, Israel, and to a greater extent, the Western world. He does make some key points concerning both the need for domestic security of both Israel and the U.S., as well as international security amongst contributing nations in the "War on Terror." His well organized argument also reveals a great deal about his position on this "War" and exemplifies the viewpoint that many Westerners have on the Middle East and its most dominant religion, Islam. I will attempt to demonstrate what I mean. 1. Before the United States began its full fledged support of Israel in the 1960's (after their astounding victory in 1967) many Middle Eastern countries were not only neutral towards us, they were actually in favor of our role as world leaders. This friendly understanding was a direct result of our roles in both World Wars, but particularly the first one, as we refused to play a major role in the claiming of the fallen Ottoman Empire and only took part in talks to ensure the rights of people in the region. (Wilson's 14 points anyone?) It was only after the United States abandoned its role as a isolationist community after the end of WWII did the people of the Middle East begin to sway in their view of the United States. Their impression of us only worsened through the tug of war games we played in the region throughout the Cold War as both the United States and the USSR jockied for position and claims over their abundant natural resources. This was also worsened as we began to give our unrelenting support for, you guessed it, Israel. Now whether or not Israel should even be, is another debate. One thing is for certain though. They are not our solution/ally in the amassing problem of the Middle East, they are reason for it. One of the most commonly cited reasons for Middle Eastern hatred/frustration towards the United States is its "special" relationship with Israel and that we continue to support its oppression of the Palestinian. In sum, the United States would not need a major ally, and therefor easier military access/intelligence/cooperation, if it were not for its steadfast support of 'the only Democracy in the region," as most Americans (my opponent included) would say. 2. To spend nearly 4 points out of 5 arguing that the Israeli armed forces are better than the United States in every way only to finish with the contention that Israel could not survive without support from the United States is ridiculous. While I do not agree with you on this idea, it must be said that Israel is not slouch when it comes to military might. They rank seventh in the world in military might and have the 4th highest number of nukes in the world. They are not just some defenseless wuss surrounded by vicious superpowers, looking for the first chance to demolish them (as it were circa 1967). To make matters worse for the United States, a great deal of their development in military power has come at the expense of the American taxpayer. Like I previously stated, the United States has been sinking a great deal of cash into the bolstering of the Israeli military. Since the 1970's when the US began officially funding the Israeli government, the amount of money sent to Israeli directly from the US has multiplied in sum by nearly 23 times. In 2005, the United States literally wrote the government of Israel a blank check worth 7 Billion dollars. To make things interesting, these payments are allowed to accrue US-paid interest for as long as it takes the Israelis to spend it. This money is allowed to be spent quite nearly unregulated and is often used to furnish the Israeli's lavish military (cluster-bombs, advanced pilot training, etc.) Basically, the United States has payed for the construction of a country's military and society (Israel ranks in the top 10 riches countries of the world, per capita). 3. Finally, in addressing an extremely apparent misunderstanding/prejudice my opponent has towards the Middle East most exemplified in his final point. Muslims are not pre-inclined to slaughter Jewish people. There are a great deal of Jewish communities throughout the Middle East, and there was even Jewish settlements in Palestine before the creation of the Jewish state. Many Americans automatically assume that the Muslim world seeks death upon Christians and Jews. Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire (with a predominately Muslim, although officially secular) was home to both Jews and Muslims, and there was never any hostility between the two. The reason for this: religious freedom. Much like in the United States today, people were allowed to practice whatever religion they chose and could not be murdered for it. While Muslims were given the upper hand in most cases, there were not any mass slaughters of Jews (unlike the barbaric Jewish massacres performed by roaming "Christian" armies on their way to the Holy Land circa 12th century). What infuriates the Islamic world is not the presence nor the proximity of Jewish people in the Middle East. What makes Middle Eastern Muslims mad is the way in which Israel was created and, in fact, that it was created without much regard for the people living there. Much like the Native Americans, the Palestinians were forcefully removed from their homes and relocated in "settlements". Now, Muslims in the Middle East are not mad about the removal of their fellow Muslims but are more focused on the idea that the Western World removed a Middle Eastern population of people already living in an area, and replaced it with a Western population. Whether you see this as forcing democracy into the region or getting a foot into the Middle East, it still sent the wrong message to the people of the Middle East. This message was: We (the Western world, particularly the US) can do whatever we want in the world, and if you don't like it, too bad. Argue all you want over the exact wording of the message but basic idea is fairly obvious. The countries of the Middle East have a right to be hostile. Israel was in essence the first step in what they viewed as the formal invasion of their territory. They are only doing what any country threatened by another would do, fighting back. Also, Israel is surrounded by predominantly Muslim countries, but 1.)Egypt is so wrapped up in US-produced treaties created during and after the Cold War that it does not dare attack Israel. Egypt is also technically a politically secular country and therefore would not back a Muslim-made attack on a foreign country. 2.) Saudi Arabia is so focused on its oil, which is its primary source of income, that it even forcefully removed the Wahhabi's (a militant and radical sect of Islam, of which Osama bin Laden was a member) in order to insure continued tranquility in its production of oil. 3.) The country of Jordan has been relatively neutral in its position on Israel. While there has been quite an uproar of the recent attacks on Palestinian camps, for the most part the Jordanians have done little to make Israel fearful of an attack. Jordan has actually helped the US in numerous ways in clearing out Islamic terrorists in the region. 4.) Syria, Lebanon, and Iran are all minor threats to both Israel and the US. Like I previously stated, both the US and Israel possess a large number of nuclear arms at their disposal. (The US has signed but not ratified the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and Israel has repeatedly refused to sign it, while other countries such as Iran and North Korea have come under tremendous pressure to do so) Neither of these countries, as nation states, pose a terrible threat to either Israel or the US as they understand the consequences of such actions, and not necessarily from them in a joint manner either.