U.S. Sees Israel as Its Own Myth Reborn in Palestine

Despite the rising death toll in Palestine, and despite the undeniable strategic importance of the Arab world to American interests—as a vast consumer market and a vital source of energy for Western civilization—the United States continues to endorse Israel’s most extreme and humiliating policies toward Arab peoples and governments. The question is urgent and unavoidable: Why does America support Israel so unconditionally? Why does it ignore the legitimate rights of Arabs and Muslims?

The answer lies in two interwoven dimensions:

1.      A historical-cultural dimension rooted in America’s own national identity and mythmaking.

2.     A political-organizational dimension reflecting the fragmented coordination between Arab governments and their people.

America’s Founding Myth: A Zionist Parallel

To understand the historical roots of America’ssupport for Israel, we must revisit the foundational narrative of the American state. Before Columbus arrived, and prior to the migration of Puritan groups from Britain, the land that would become the United States was inhabited by Indigenous peoples—tribal societies with distinct customs and governance structures. These peoples were erroneously labeled “Red Indians,” and they governed their territories through tribal systems.

When Protestant Christian groups—calling themselves Puritans or “the purified”—arrived in Plymouth (1636) and Massachusetts (1650), they brought with them a collective mythology. They saw themselves as the people of Moses, fleeing the tyranny of the English Pharaoh. Their worldview was steeped in Hebraic allegory. America, to them, was the Promised Land, a “city upon a hill” destined to illuminate the path for all humanity.

They believed they were God’s chosen people, entrusted with a divine mission. The Indigenous population, in their eyes, were the Canaanites—those whom God had commanded them to annihilate. This belief system justified a genocidal campaign against Native Americans. The Puritans felt no guilt; they saw extermination as obedience to divine will.

As the American state consolidated power, it signed treaties with Native tribes—most of which were later broken. The few that remained confined Indigenous peoples to isolated reservations under federal control. Once dominant, Native Americans were reduced to marginalized communities plagued by disease and social decay, their numbers dwindling year by year.

The American state was born as a new Zion, built on the myth of divine chosenness and the extermination of the “Canaanite” other. If this myth is foundational to America’s identity, how can Americans demand its dismantling elsewhere—in Israel?

America was built on the same ideological scaffolding as Zionism. Asking Americans to reject Israel’s Zionist vision is, in effect, asking them to reject their own origin story.

This historical memory creates a cognitive barrier for Americans when confronting the Palestinian issue. Instead of seeing the reality of Israeli expansionism and settlement policies, they revert to myth: Israelis become the Puritan forefathers, Palestinians the Native “Canaanites.” This lens fosters sympathy for Israel among both ordinary citizens and intellectuals.

Oslo and the Reservation Model

This mythic framework shaped America’s vision for Palestinian autonomy—from the Rogers Plan in the 1960s to CampDavid in the 1970s, and later Oslo I and II. In every case, Palestinians were offered a model akin to Native American reservations: isolated enclaves under full Israeli control in defense and foreign affairs.

This vision clashed with Yasser Arafat’s aspiration for a sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. But unlike South Africa—another state built on the myth of divine choosiness—where Mandela led the oppressed to victory, Arafat was no Mandela.

The American proposals for Palestinian self-rule consistently mirrored the reservation system: limited autonomy, no control over borders, defense, or foreign policy, and full subordination to Israeli oversight. This was not a vision of statehood—it was a vision of containment.

Breaking the Myth: A Call for Intellectual Engagement

To challenge this entrenched myth, Arab intellectuals must engage American thinkers and policymakers in a multi-dimensional dialogue. They must expose the mythological lens through which Americans view the MiddleEast and replace it with historical and political realities.

This myth doesn’t only distort views on Palestine and Israel—it also shapes perceptions of Islamic revival. American policymakers equate Islamic movements with Puritan expansionism, imagining Islamists as seeking to replicate the American model: conquest, state-building, and extermination of the “other.”

It is vital to clarify that Palestinians are not Native Americans, and Islamists are not Puritans. Arab intellectuals must master American history and society to avoid falling into the same mythic traps.

The Mirage of a Palestinian State

Unless we confront these epistemological challenges, we will remain dreamers chasing a Palestinianstate, while the reality offered is nothing more than reservations. America’s cultural and historical entanglement with Zionism is not the sole explanation—Arab disunity plays a major role.

Arab Fragmentation and Israeli Strategy

1.      The Power of Collective Action:

2.     Israeli Success in Dividing the Arab Front:

This intellectual confusion and America’s myth-driven worldview explain the persistent U.S. bias toward Israeli aggression.

The American Psyche and the Palestinian Struggle

The American psyche, shaped by its own myth of divine conquest, finds it difficult to sympathize with Palestinians. Instead of engaging with the facts on the ground—settlement expansion, military occupation, and systemic dispossession—Americans revert to their foundational narrative. Israelis become the modern-dayPuritans, and Palestinians the “Canaanites” to be contained, erased, or confined to reservations.

This mythic lens influences not only public opinion but also policy. It explains why American proposals for Palestinian autonomy resemble the reservation system imposed on Native Americans. It explains why Palestinians are offered limited self-rule under Israeli control, rather than full sovereignty.

The Role of Arab Intellectuals

To dismantle this myth, Arab intellectuals must engage American counterparts in serious dialogue. They must challenge the mythic framework and present a reality-based understanding of the region. This requires deep knowledge of American history, culture, and political psychology.

It is not enough to counter myth with myth. Arab intellectuals must avoid the trap of responding to American narratives with their own historical nostalgia. Instead, they must present facts, build relationships, and reshape perceptions.

Conclusion: Toward a New Understanding

If we fail to confront these cultural and epistemologicalchallenges, we will remain trapped in a cycle of disappointment. The promise of a Palestinian state will remain a mirage, and the reality will be one of reservations, containment, and erasure.

America’s support for Israel is not merely political—it is cultural, historical, and psychological. To change this, we must change the narrative. We must engage, educate, and expose the myth for what it is.

Only then can we hope to build a future where justice is not confined to myth, and where Palestine is not treated as a modern-day reservation.

--------------------

Published in issue no. 1220 of Al-Mujtama magazine (Kuwait), 25 Jumada al-Awwal 1417 AH / 8 October 1996, p. 44.