Israel and USA

M. Junaid Alam redjaguar at
Sun Nov 10 15:59:22 MST 2002

[For the record, I am "Mohammad Junaid Alam"; my CP articles appear under
"M. Junaid Alam". Gone by "Junaid" since birth, since everyone on my
father's side of the family has that first name, but since this is an e-mail
discussion list I didn't really care who calls me Mohammad and who calls me
Junaid, or who calls me M., etc.]

Now, to get to the point.

"I quite often agree with M, but here he is way off beam.  I think the idea
that an  imperialist minnow like Israel decides US policy is what is
'mechanistic and one-sided'.  M. makes the US appear as almost a semi-colony
of Israel in terms of political policy."

Well, the relationship is certainly not, as Chomsky would have it, one
whereby the US master controls the Israeli client state. No "client state"
has ever exerted so much power in the halls of Congress, the Administration,
or Defense Department as Israel. [See the two articles I linked earlier on
this score, without which this is meaningless] Maybe the dynamics of the
relationship lie somewhere between the objective conditions which made the
US see Israel as a real asset and the subjective growth of powerful Zionist
groups within the US to reinforce this tendency, but this is not a precise
formulation. In fact, it is too algebraic and not specific enough.

But if we want to see "who calls the shots", then we had better look
closely. No serious thinking person believes Sharon and Netanyahu are going
to follow what Bush laid out as an interim Palestinian state by 2005. More
to the point, anyone who follows the Israeli press knows that when Bush laid
out his "vision", Likud members in Israel openly expressed their belief that
Sharon literally wrote the agenda and Bush simply mouthed it. Have we
forgotten Jenin, where Bush called for "immediate withdrawal", whose meaning
constantly morphed in desperation to adapt to Israel's unwillingness to do
so? Have we forgotten former UN Gen. Sec. Ghali, who was kicked out of his
post because he would not squash a report on the Israeli massacre in a
Lebanese refugee camp in 1994? According to Chomsky himself, in 1980, when
the Saudis proposed a peace plan, the Israelis sent F-16s over their oil
fields to _warn the US_ not to even consider entertaining this notion. This
meets Moshe Dayan, Israeli war hero and Revisionist Zionist follower's
philosophy: "[Israel] may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it
must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge..."  More to the point, it
meets Dayan's other criteria: "Our American friends offer us money, arms,
and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice."

No "client-state" behaves like this. No "client-state" is able to shoot down
Black Congresspersons for calling for some measure of balance in M.E.
policy. Look at all the Congresspersons who oppose sanctions on Cuba - you
don't see Reich or his thugs wielding the power to axe them. To say that
Israel's relationship to America is similar to that of, say, Britain, is
incorrect in the extreme. Britain is the one that tags along the U.S.,  with
its disdain for the Continental Europeans; it is riding the wave of
pax-Americana. Does any serious person really believe that criticism of
Israel and criticism of Britain meet the same treatment in the U.S. press?
If so, I highly suggest taking a look at American coverage not only of the
I-P conflict, but its smear campaign against pro-Palestinian activists
inside America.

Again, let me reiterate: from the objective viewpoint, what does American
imperialism stand to gain from Israel today? Demographically, it cannot
survive without "living and dying by the sword" as Dyan had said; by blood
and fire. It has no oil. Why risk the complete collapse of all the
surrounding Arab states with their quarter-billion population and
unparalleled oil reserves and support Israel? What I am suggesting here is
not that we should break out our cheerleading uniforms for the State Dept.
"Arabists", but to _observe_ a certain trend in US foreign policy: the rise
of the neo-cons and particularly this administration has been concommitant
with the virtual death of the Arabist/Powell position.

Yes, we are looking at a profit system. But this is not the end of the
matter, for we are looking at a profit system that has gotten quite drunk
and irrational even from its own viewpoint. Allow me to present the
following Oct. 1 Haaretz clip:
They're jumping in head first
By Akiva Eldar

"My dear Colette, don't worry," said Tom Lantos, the California congressman,
as he tried to calm MK Colette Avital of the Labor Party, who was visiting
Capitol Hill last week as part of a delegation of the Peace Coalition. "You
won't have any problem with Saddam," the Jewish congressman continued.
"We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a
pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you."

Lantos explained to his guest from Israel that there's no lack of Iraqi
opposition figures in exile, but until they learn how to run a state, "we'll
be there." According to Lantos that interim period, with an
American-sponsored dictator in power, should last between five to six years.

Avital says she asked how one can talk about a dictator in Iraq and at the
same time demand "democratic reforms" in the territories as a precondition
for renewing the peace process. Lantos said that democratization in the
territories is just a general "road map." He reminded her that "the U.S.
didn't turn into a democracy overnight." In any case, he promised her that
after America gets rid of all the regimes of evil, it will go straight to
Syria, "and tell young Assad that's what will happen to him if he doesn't
stop supporting terrorism."

It's important to emphasize that Lantos is not a Bush administration
spokesman, and not even part of the Republican leadership. The 11-term
congressman is the leader of the Democratic Party caucus in the House of
Representatives' International Affairs Committee. His approach, which says
an agreement with the Palestinians can wait, like his party's support for
semi-lunatic anti-Palestinian legislation, eases the work of the Middle East
experts in the State Department.
The obvious insanity of this kind of program is not just an extension of
American policy, nor is it the result of superstructural Zionist
reinforcement of America's base-level pro-Israel trajectory; it is an
_intensification of this tendency_. Such a plan will inevitably throw up the
whole M.E. in upheaval, one state after another, thus opening the gates for
further Israeli aggrandization of land and a final push to purge themselves
of the Palestinian infection, or "cancer" as IDF chief Mofaz recently
termed. it. Are we to believe this is merely some kind of coincidence?
Israel's own leading mil. historian, Martin Van Creveld, has said that
Bush's war would provide Sharon the perfect pretext for ethnic cleansing.
Thus when Crde. Ferguson speaks of the U.S. forming relationships in the
M.E. that would be to "Israel's detriment", what does he have in mind? Does
he not see that from the Israeli viewpoint every existing "relationship" the
U.S. has with the Arabs is to _its_ detriment, and that the hardest sections
of the administration are moving to, by colonizing the M.E. as a whole, end
these relationships?

Insofar as the question of "Jewish conspiracy theories" and the "WASP-led"
nature of the administration is concerned, this is a moot point. First of
all, because some of the leading neo-cons and warmongers in the
administration are Jewish doesn't make me anti-Semitic - that is absurd. If
they were Bhuddist or Falun Gong, we can point out their role, but if they
are "Jewish", we are supposed to remain blind to reality? This is like
saying because five white men are beating a black man and I am opposed to
this act, I am "anti-white". Let us not confuse the flow of brutality here,
or swing from anti-Semitism to some kind of ultra-Semitism. Moreover, the
National Catholic Reporter article I linked illustrates what I have tried to
point out, namely, that we are looking at a Zionist-Right Christian
alliance, involving Falwell/Robertson/Christian Coalition types with the
Zionist Org. of America, pro-settler groups, and their connections in the
administration. This fusion of ideologies _is_ part of the Bush cabal.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list