[Marxism] Re: Marxist analysis of US/Israel offensives

Rohan Gaiswinkler rohanger at yahoo.com.au
Thu Jul 27 21:14:01 MDT 2006


1.  I think the question as to why Israel would launch such a risky and instability inducing war against Hezbolah / Lebanon, carries with it the same basic dynamic as to why the US, under the stewardship of the Neocons, would attempt to reshape the would along the lines of the Project for an American Century, with premptive conquest being the name of the game.  Both are cases a dominant power looking to the future and deciding:  "Our enemies' strength is gaining, which means our relative strength is in decline.  We should strike now at some risk to our advantage because delay will ensure disadvantage."
   
  2.  The key enemy for the US is China - a country much closer to Middle East oil.  Afghanistan War II and Iraq War II maked the begining of the new era of resource wars.  Although the US establishment dismisses peak oil, a US Military literature review [see EnergyBulletin.net] takes it very seriously.  As we all know, the US sought access to Iraq's oil directly - but just as importantly it seeks strategic "lillypad" military bases to shepherd its supply of this vital resource.
   
  3.  Israel watched as the US smashed its key enemy Iraq, only to see Iran strengthened as a result.  Iraq provided limited military support to Palestinian struggle - but now Iran provides considerably greater military support to Hezbolah.
   
  4.  Those who question the strategic military value of Israel's latest venture are perhaps assuming that forces against the Israeli state have not been growing.  However, Hexbolah's capacity to engage in asymetric warfare has been proven by current events - a capacity that was much more limited even five years ago.  Hezbolah have their own satellite TV station as well as formal representation in the state of Lebanon.  We have to go beyond the question, "Is this current war likely to have adverse consequences for Israel?" and also ask, "What would Israel's relative position be if this war instead occured in five years time?".
   
  5.  I was a bit confused by Lou's contribution where he seems (perhaps I'm wrong) to take seriously on face value the debate between Necon Idealists and Rationalists - as if the Rationalists are more rational and the Neocons are merely crazies who believe in god as much as their own propaganda.  Surely this debate is actually one of how best to maintain US dominance in a new era of resource and environmental instability: Either new and open imperial conquest requiring only exceptionally thin rationale or seek to maintain hegemony more conservatively and / or by proxie.  I have expressed this in bipolar terms but there is of course a continuum.
   
  6.  Both the US and Israel know they can't rely on the Saudis' et al staying in the US (pro-Israel by proxie) camp forever.  The economic ties are massive though - which is why al Qaeda went to extreme measures to try to shake them up with 9/11.
   
  7.  Gary's post was excellent and we should therefore seek explanations that fit within a Marxist framework rather than "specifically marxist" ones (so to speak).
   
  8.  I also think my contribution brings in economic factors in terms of a *resource war* model that fits with economic materialism.
   
  Cheers
  Rohan G

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


More information about the Marxism mailing list