The US Role in the Gaza Tragedy
There is much blame to go around regarding the tragic turn of events in the Gaza Strip. While Hamas is the most immediate culprit, responsibility also rests with Fatah, Israel - and the United States.
The seizure of power in the tiny coastal territory by Hamas militants after bitter factional fighting with Fatah militiamen has only encouraged anti-Palestinian hardliners in Israel and the United States who claim that the Palestinians are unworthy of statehood and that Israel should continue its occupation and colonization of major segments of Palestinian territory seized by the Israeli armed forces in June 1967. The scenes of the bloody infighting among Palestinians have seemingly reinforced racist notions common in the United States and Israel, as exemplified by the statement by former Israeli Prime Minister and recently re-elected Labor Party leader Ehud Barak’s that Israel was “a villa in the jungle.”
The vast majority of ordinary Palestinians, meanwhile, are disgusted at the behavior of both Hamas and Fatah, who see it as little better than gang warfare and a tragic setback in their struggle for freedom against foreign military occupation. Whether the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip or the newly established parallel government in Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank will be recognized as legitimate by the Palestinians themselves remains to be seen.
As much responsibility as the Palestinian leadership itself must bear for the current situation, none of this would have happened if the U.S. government had lived up to its responsibilities as guarantor of the Oslo Accords and self-proclaimed chief mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. U.S. refusal to force Israel to live up to its legal obligations to end its colonization drive in the West Bank and withdraw from the occupied territories in return for security guarantees has led much of the Palestinian population to give up on the peace process and embrace groups like Hamas, which demand control of all of historic Palestine.
A Siege, Not a Withdrawal
The myth perpetuated by both the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both parties was that Israel’s 2005 dismantling of its illegal settlements in the Gaza Strip and the withdrawal of military units that supported them constituted effective freedom for the Palestinians of the territory. American political leaders from President George W. Bush to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have repeatedly praised Israel for its belated compliance with a series of UN Security Council resolutions calling for their withdrawal of these illegal settlements (despite Israel’s ongoing violations of these same resolutions by maintaining and expanding their illegal settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights). Pelosi, for example, called Israel’s pullout a “courageous” and “gut-wrenching” decision that constituted “a decisive milestone on the road to peace” toward which the Palestinians have responded by violence, proving that the “conflict is not over occupation…it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.”
In reality, however, the Gaza Strip has remained effectively under siege. Even prior to the Hamas victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections last year, the Israeli government not only severely restricted - as is its right - entry from the Gaza Strip into Israel, but also controlled passage through the border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt as well. Israel also refused to allow the Palestinians to open their airport or seaport. This not only led to periodic shortages of basic necessities imported through Egypt but resulted in the widespread wasting of perishable exports - such as fruits, vegetables and cut flowers - vital to the territory’s economy. Furthermore, Gaza residents were cut off from family members and compatriots in the West Bank and elsewhere in what many have referred to as the world’s largest open-air prison.
Since the election of a Hamas majority in Palestinian parliamentary elections last year, international sanctions led to a reduction in government spending by the Palestinian Authority by more than half, severely reducing available health care, education and other basic services and dramatically increasing unemployment and malnutrition.
In addition, Israeli bombing, shelling, and periodic incursions in civilian areas in the Gaza Strip during the past year have killed over 200 civilians, including scores of children. Bush administration officials, echoed by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, have justifiably condemned rocket attacks by some Hamas-allied units into civilian areas of Israel (which have resulted in scores of injuries but only one death), but have defended Israel’s far more devastating attacks against civilian targets in the Gaza Strip.
The Gaza Strip’s population consists primarily of refugees from Israel’s ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine almost 60 years ago and their descendents, most of whom have had no gainful employment since Israel sealed the border from most day laborers in the late 1980s. Crowded into only 140 square miles and subjected to extreme violence and poverty, it is not surprising that many would become susceptible to extremist politics, such as those of the Islamist Hamas movement. Nor is it surprising that under such conditions, people with guns would turn on each other.
Undermining the Unity Government
When factional fighting between armed Fatah and Hamas groups broke out this spring, Saudi officials negotiated a power-sharing agreement between the two leading Palestinian political movements. U.S. officials, however, unsuccessfully encouraged Abbas to renounce the agreement and dismiss the entire government. Indeed, ever since the election of a Hamas parliamentary majority last year, the Bush administration had been pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stage a coup and abolish parliament.
The national unity government put key ministries in the hands of Fatah members and independent technocrats and removed some of the more hard-line Hamas leaders and, while falling well short of Western demands, Hamas did indicate an unprecedented willingness to engage with Israel, accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and negotiate a long-term cease fire with Israel. For the first time, this could have allowed Israel and the United States the opportunity to bring into peace talks a national unity government representing virtually all the factions and parties active in Palestinian politics on the basis of the Arab League peace initiative for a two-state solution and UN Security Council resolution 242. However, both the Israeli and American governments refused.
Instead, the Bush administration decided to escalate the conflict by ordering Israel to ship large quantities or weapons to armed Fatah groups to enable them to fight Hamas. Israeli military leaders initially resisted the idea, fearing that much of these arms would end up in the hands of Hamas, but - as Israeli journalist Uri Avnery put it - “our government obeyed American orders, as usual.” That Fatah was being supplied with weapons from Israel while Hamas was fighting the Israelis led many Palestinians - even those who don’t share Hamas’ extremist Islamist ideology - to see Fatah as collaborators and Hamas as liberation fighters. This was a major factor leading Hamas to launch what it saw as a preventive war or a counter-coup by overrunning the offices of the Fatah militias and, just as the Israelis feared, many of these newly-supplied weapons have indeed ended up in the hands of Hamas militants.
The United States also threw its support to Mohammed Dahlan, the notorious Fatah security chief in Gaza, who - despite being labeled by American officials as “moderate” and “pragmatic” - oversaw the detention, torture, and execution of Hamas activists and others, leading to widespread popular outrage against Fatah and its supporters.
Alvaro de Soto, who recently stepped down from his term as the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, stated in his confidential final report leaked to the press a few weeks before the Hamas takeover that “the Americans clearly encouraged a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas” and “worked to isolate and damage Hamas and build up Fatah with recognition and weaponry.” De Soto also recalled how in the midst of Egyptian efforts to arrange a cease fire following a flare-up in factional fighting earlier this year, a U.S. official told him that “I like this violence…it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas.”
Weakening Palestinian Moderates
For moderate forces to overcome extremist forces, the moderates must be able to provide their population with what they most need: in this case, the end of Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip and its occupation and colonizing of the remaining Palestinian territories. However, Israeli policies - backed by the Bush administration and Congress - seem calculated to make this impossible. The noted Israeli policy analyst Gershon Baskin observed, in an article in the Jerusalem Post just prior to Hamas’ electoral victory, how “Israel ’s unilateralism and determination not to negotiate and engage President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority has strengthened the claims of Hamas and weakened Abbas and his authority which was already severely crippled by … Israeli actions that demolished the infrastructures of Palestinian Authority governing bodies and institutions.”
Bush and an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the U.S. Congress have also thrown their support to the Israeli government’s unilateral disengagement policy that, while withdrawing Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip, has expanded them in the occupied West Bank as part of an effort to illegally annex large swathes of Palestinian territory. In addition, neither Congress nor the Bush administration has pushed the Israelis to engage in serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians, which have been suspended for over six years, despite calls by Abbas and the international community that they resume. Given that Fatah’s emphasis on negotiations has failed to stop Israel’s occupation and colonization of large parts of the West Bank, it’s not surprising that Hamas’ claim that the U.S.-managed peace process is working against Palestinian interests has resonance, even among Palestinians who recognize that terrorism by Hamas’ armed wing is both morally reprehensible and has hurt the nationalist cause.
Following Hamas’ armed takeover of Gaza, the highly respected Israeli journalist Roni Shaked, writing in the June 15 issue of Yediot Ahronoth, noted that “The U.S. and Israel had a decisive contribution to this failure.” Despite claims by Israel and the United States that they wanted to strengthen Abbas, “in practice, zero was done for this to happen. The meetings with him turned into an Israeli political tool, and Olmert’s kisses and backslapping turned Abbas into a collaborator and a source of jokes on the Palestinian street.”
James Zogby, director of the Arab-American Institute in Washington, observed correctly that “at every turn in the last seven years, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to Israel’s aggressive expansion in the West Bank and its systematic humiliation of the people there, and its assault on Gaza. In this context, it was plainly stupid for the administration” to reject the outcome of the Palestinian parliamentary elections and “frustrate Saudi efforts to reconcile that outcome with the demands of the international community.”
Only Sticks
M.J. Rosenberg of the Israeli Policy Forum, a liberal pro-Israel think tank based in Washington, noted how the United States “offered no carrots, only sticks. And we didn’t even make much of an effort to strengthen Hamas’s arch-enemy, President Mahmoud Abbas, with Congress hastening to impose redundant and insulting conditions even on aid that was intended for him.”
De Soto’s report to the UN Secretary General, in which he referred to Hamas’ stance toward Israel as “abominable,” also noted that “Israeli policies seemed perversely designed to encourage the continued action by Palestinian militants.” Regarding the U.S.-instigated international sanctions against the Palestine Authority, the former Peruvian diplomat also observed that “the steps taken by the international community with the presumed purpose of bringing about a Palestinian entity that will live in peace with its neighbor Israel have had precisely the opposite effect.”
Some Israeli commentators see this strategy as deliberate. Avnery noted, “Our government has worked for year to destroy Fatah, in order to avoid the need to negotiate an agreement that would inevitably lead to the withdrawal form the occupied territories and the settlements there.” Similarly, Rosenberg observed, “the fact is that Israeli (and American) right-wingers are rooting for the Palestinian extremists” since “supplanting… Fatah with Islamic fundamentalists would prevent a situation under which Israel would be forced to negotiate with moderates.”
The problem, according to Avnery, is that “now, when it seems that this aim has been achieved, they have no idea what to do about the Hamas victory.”
Among the few American elected officials to recognize the folly of U.S. policy has been Ohio Congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who noted that “the chaos and factional violence in Gaza that ultimately led to the Hamas military takeover…demonstrates a failure of President Bush’s strategy.” This and similar statements which have allied Kucinich with Israeli and Palestinian moderates have resulted in strong rebukes from most of his rivals for the 2008 presidential nomination.
Last year, former President Jimmy Carter presciently warned that in trying to “punish Hamas, we’ll actually going to be punishing the Palestinian people who are already living in deprivation. And it’s going to turn the Palestinian people even more against the West and against Israel and make Hamas seem to be… their only friend.” As with Kucinich, in response to such calls for moderation, Carter has been harshly criticized by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.
Current U.S. Policy
Since their humiliating defeat in the Gaza Strip, Fatah militia have been engaging in a wave of arrests and kidnappings of Hamas activists in the West Bank. This has led to fears of a popular backlash if the repression goes too far. Furthermore, while Hamas’ popular support has traditionally been less in the West Bank than in the Gaza Strip, where the majority of its residents live in impoverished refugee camps, the Islamist group’s support is still quite strong in the West Bank as well. Indeed, the weakness of Fatah’s resistance to the Hamas uprising in the Gaza Strip - despite having a larger number and better-armed fighters than Hamas - is indicative of their continued weak political standing.
Despite its dubious constitutionality, President Abbas announced a new emergency cabinet without any Hamas participation within days of Fatah’s ouster from the Gaza Strip, and included some prominent technocrats, reformers and independents. His new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, is a highly intelligent economist and former World Bank official who lived for most of his adult life in the United States. He served as the representative for the International Monetary Fund to the Palestine Authority before briefly becoming its Finance Minister in 2005 in a belated effort by Abbas to clean up the Fatah government’s chronic corruption. Fayyad then formed a small centrist party with scholar and human rights activist Hanan Ashrawi to challenge both Fatah and Hamas in last year’s parliamentary election, but their slate received only 2.4% of the vote. Though a sincere nationalist and reformer, Fayyad’s close ties to the United States and international financial institutions, coupled with his poor electoral performance, raises questions regarding his legitimacy in the eyes of most Palestinians.
The makeup of his new government is not Abbas’ biggest problem, however. The Palestinians recognize that the United States has defended repeated Israeli attacks against Palestinian population centers, supported the Israeli seizure of the Gaza Strip and vetoed a series of UN Security Council resolutions and blocked enforcement of a series of others calling on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law. They are aware that the Bush administration and Congress have endorsed Israel’s annexation of Arab East Jerusalem and surrounding areas, funded Israel’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank and defended Israel’s construction of an illegal separation barrier deep inside occupied Palestinian territory.
They also know how the United States has rejected Palestinian proposals for a permanent peace with Israel in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory while backing Israeli plans to annex much of the West Bank, confining the Palestinians into tiny cantons surrounded by Israel. As a result, the strong U.S. backing shown so far by Washington for Abbas’ new government may not help its credibility among the Palestinian population. Indeed, it is already been widely labeled as a collaborationist regime due to its strong backing from Israel and the United States.
Israel has announced it will unfreeze funds seized from the export of Palestinian goods to Abbas’ new government. The government’s hope is that by improving the quality of life for Palestinians, it will show how much better things are under Fatah than under Hamas and weaken support for the Islamists.
Concrete Political Initiatives
However, unless there are concrete political initiatives as well, this will not be enough.
Abbas has called for peace with strict security guarantees for Israel, including the dismantling of Hamas’ militias, in return for an independent state on the 22% of Palestine occupied by Israel since 1967, and has even expressed his willingness to accept minor and reciprocal border adjustments. Polls show that a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip would accept such an agreement.
Israel has refused that offer, however, insisting on its right to annex large swaths of West Bank territory, including Arab East Jerusalem, in such a way that would make a contiguous and viable Palestinian state impossible. Under this Israeli plan - endorsed by the Bush administration and a broad bipartisan majority of Congress - Israel would be able to control Palestinian air space, Palestinian water resources, and movement in and out of the Palestinian entity and between its separated territories. These non-contiguous Palestinian cantons, therefore, would more closely resemble the infamous Bantustans of apartheid South Africa than a viable independent state. And, unless the Palestinians have strong prospects that a viable independent state will eventually emerge, the credibility of Abbas’ government will erode and the appeal by the radicals of Hamas will grow.
The Israeli government, with no apparent objection from the United States, has thus far refused to even put a freeze on the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank that are eating up ever more Palestinian land needed to make a Palestinian state viable. Furthermore, Israeli occupation forces have yet to lift the scores of checkpoints paralyzing economic life in the West Bank. Israel also continues to refuse to release Palestinian prisoners, including Marwan Barghouti, the charismatic Fatah reformer who would be the most likely Palestinian leader to unite the country in accepting a two-state solution with Israel. Such confidence-building measures are critical in the period prior to a resolution of the important final status issues if talks are to move forward and extremists are to be marginalized.
However, as a result of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, according to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, “the Prime Minister’s advisers [declared] the Palestinian Authority dead, [saying] there is no one to talk to…and that the Bush administration will not put pressure on Olmert at this stage to come up with ideas for renewing the negotiations with Abbas and promoting a diplomatic solution.”
As Robert Malley, Middle East and North Africa program director for the International Crisis Group and former and former National Security Council member and special assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs under President Bill Clinton, has noted how “Almost every decision the United States has made to interfere with Palestinian politics has boomeranged.”
Hamas’ armed takeover of the Gaza Strip has shown this to be all too true, and the U.S. embrace of Abbas’ new government without concomitant pressure on Israel may prove to have similar results.
Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. He is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003.)
© 2007 Foreign Policy In Focus
Mr. Zunes it should be retitled “Israel’s Role in the Gaza Tradgedy” and you should be exposing AIPAC and other Israeli pressure groups in the US which drive America’s policies and decisions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank not to mention the rest of the region (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia). But you are just like Chomsky when it comes to denying the role of the lobby in formulating and shaping US Foriegn Policy in the Middle East.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
AIPAC does not run the US. Israel is in many ways an extension of the US and the nightmare unleased upon Palestians is in large part our doing. The collapse of the Hamas/Fatah coalition government and the steady expansion and aggression by Isreal make a two-state solution impossible. What is necessary is a one-state solution that gives everyone in Palestine/Israel equal citizenship. States based on Apartheid and ethnic purity need to be ruled illegal as does support for them. It is our responsibility as citizens of the country in charge (the one who financially underwites the existance of the other) to demand an end to this ongoing injustice or an end to our support. We can take action by initiating divestment campaigns as we did with South Africa.
Zunes is right for the most part but his constantly referring to Hamas ‘takeover’ of Gaza is a little jarring considering Hamas was elected by the Palestinians much to everyones displeasure. Thats too bad. We had the same situation in this country as well with bush !!
It should be obvious to anyone who has been watching the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation unfold for the past few decades that the plan is for Israel to drive the Palestinians out and restore the biblical “Holy Land” to the Jews. … but then, how many “busy people” take the time to really follow the stories.
Through their many powerful lobbies, intimidation, collusion in allowing the US to exert power over the Arab countries and capitalization of sympathy resulting from the Holocaust, the Jews have been able to control US public opinion, US politicians and US funds (now at about $14 billion per year).
This persistent policy has worked to keep the average US citizen blinded to the reality of the Palestinian’s plight, and confused as to the underlying source for much of the hatred fueling terrorism.
Stories like this are good, but then they will mostly fall on deaf ears!
Jaded I did not say that AIPAC runs the US. You did. AIPAC does not run the US by any means. It is one of many lobbying/pressure groups on Congress and the gov’t. I also agree with your one state solution point.
I said: Israeli pressure groups in the US which drive America’s policies and decisions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank not to mention the rest of the region (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia).
AIPAC pressures the US Congress to withhold funds from the elected government of the Palestinians and this pressure worked in the past which is my point. The pressure resulted in policy actions. Israeli leaders like Netanyahu were recently here in the US pressuring the gov’t to go to war with Iran. They might succeed. Professor Zunes makes a lot of good points but he completly leaves out the roles of the lobby in US decision making particularily Congress. This omission leaves a huge gaping hole in the overall picture of what is really going on and why the US is acting a certain way. How is it not in America’s best interest to have a fair and balanced settlement to the conflict? I strongly believe that we wouldn’t even bother with this conflict or help to fuel and fund it if it weren’t for groups like AIPAC. I think we would have a fair and balanced policy otherwise. Having worked on Capitol Hill in the past and witnessed the lobby in action many times I know this to be correct.
dcbeltway you are right but I have to point out that its not necessarily in Americas best interest to see this situation settled. Israels domination of the middle-east by military force serves Americas best interests.
I certainly agree that AIPAC is a powerful lobby but many (not necessarily you) fall into the “Jewish Conspiracy” tradition in asserting that AIPAC and Jewish leaders fronting for Israel make US policy whereas in reality the US makes Israeli policy. The delusion of the US government is that Israel is more of an asset than a liability and this is a holdover from the cold war. The influence of Evangelcism and religious idiocy doesn’t help matters either.
As long as members of the U.S. Congress are under the influence of, and their heads are in the trough of AIPAC lobby groups, the Palestinian problem will never be solved. To talk about Israel’s belated compliance with the UN resolution is laughable. The world knows that the U.S. has vetoed any and all UN resolutions concerning Israel, including the “belated” one. Obviously, Israel must have found it to its advantage to do that theatrical withdrawal, and would probably have done so with or without the UN resolution.
Palestine is a villa with a two-headed mean and malicious snake in there: Israeli apartheid and the U.S. hegemonic policies.
Please don’t start singing your anti-Semitism song. I’m talking about regimes, not people or religion.
Israel is a villa in the jungle……unfortunately just like the one that Dr. Mengela lived in in South America”
Stephen Zunes is trying to paint a picture as if the Hamas are some kind of mindless children’s who have no control what so ever over their own action and future. And that they are just being pushed over by these Evil Israelis and Americans, for no apparent reason.
The reality is somewhat different. The Hamas are Not freedom fighters. This is one of the most racist organization that exists today on the planet. Their goal is to destroy Israel, all of Israel, kill or expel most of the Jews who lives there, and replace the Israeli democracy with a Fundamentalist Theocracy.
There is only one reason why the Israelis attacked Gaza, and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know what it is.. That reason is the daily rocket attacks that are being fired at Israeli towns and Kibbutz by these so called Gazan “Freedom Fighters”. A fact that slipped Zunes’s mind.
Last week, Barak warned that if Rockets will be fired at Israel, there will be a military operation in Gaza. Guess what, rockets were fired.
Jaded its not a Jewish conspiracy. Again, stop putting words into my mouth. AIPAC has lots of non-Jewish members including evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians are often more vocal then Jewish Americans on Israel. Many Jewish Americans are also against AIPAC and are for more peaceful resolutions to the conflict and Palestinian’s human rights. Speaking about a registered lobby does not make me a conspiracy theorist especially since I work on Middle East issues here in DC and have to deal with right wing Pro-Israel pressure groups and their impact often.
How anyone can deny the obvious connection and relationship between Israel and the White House. Sadly, most of the world sees the reality and America has lost tremendous stature in the world. Americans aren’t really hated all over the world, but the American government certainly is. Only Americans don’t see what is happening. They see what is happening via American media. So their version of the whole Palestinian history is flawed. The role that groups like AIPAC play in the process is to define the ground rules of the game. Which is that Israel is always right and that Israel is an ally in America’s efforts to protect its national security. Once these ideas are incorporated into the dialog the AIPAC has done it’s job. Now it’s there to defend its position. The problem is that the American Constitution, and its elected government, wasn’t designed to be enabler to a scheme to destroy humanity. But that’s the connection between the White House and Israel as seen by most of the world. And nothing America is doing changes any of its image outside of its borders. Americans are being made targets in their government’s war. But they are not even armed with what they need to fight back. Groups like AIPAC have done their job very well.
Hoa binh
REGARDING ISRAEL - CREATION AND CLIENT STATE OF THE U.S.; PLATFORM FOR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Jaded Prole is right. Focusing on AIPAC gets the US-Israeli relationship backwards. By its actions and inactions, and as a function of its foreign policy, the U.S. has made Israel the right wing state it is.
As I have written before:
SEE FOLLOWING POST
CONT FROM ABOVE
baska June 5th, 2007 11:53 am
ON THE U.S. ROLE IN ‘ENABLING’ ISRAEL AND THE ISRAELI LOBBY
See: Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/).
I think Zunes’ analysis is key, because - as I’ve argued - I don’t think Israel’s actions can be understood outside the greater framework of U.S. politics.
Re US foreign policy influence on Israel’s military response in Lebanon, see:
How Washington Goaded Israel into War
FPIF Policy Report
Aug 21, 2006
And re US foreign policy as underpinning the supposed power of the Israeli lobby, see:
The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?
FPIF Discussion Paper
May 16, 2006
namvet67 wrote:
“The problem is that the American Constitution, and its elected government, wasn’t designed to be enabler to a scheme to destroy humanity”
This is true, namvet67, but something has puzzled me for some time now and I do not find answers in the many posts here or in the articles. Perhaps folks have not yet thought about it clearly. Many people across the world would appreciate your thoughts on it. It is this:
Your founding fathers forged a great document in the American Constitution which has been inspirational to many peoples around world, notwithstanding the 3/4 or 3/5 human status accorded to Africans in your midst. But somehow the checks and balances were not sufficient to prevent a fascist take-over by an imperial presidency, nor the complete disconnect between the military and any human consiousness, nor the right wing swing of the Supreme Court, nor the complete helplessness of the people or their elected representatives in Congress to prevent the usurpation of their fundamental rights to be the boss of their government.
What would it take? An ammendment to the constitution, or a complete rewrite, or a non pyramidal executive where a collective of 12(same as in a jury) have to reach consensus before any wars of genocide and for profit are launched.
Some thoughts please, the world is listening in.
Aymon
As a citizen of the world primarily and a citizen of the US secondarily, I am sick and tired of Palestinians being required to make themselves look “acceptable” to the average American. Hamas won the elections in 2006. Israel, America and Europe, get over it! No one is going to willingly give up power, especially if it has been won legitimately. Why should any Palestinian in Gaza care one iota about what Americans think is the right way to conduct oneself when it is America who has assisted Israel every step of the way in tormenting them? People have a right to self expression. People also have a right to self defense. Don’t give me this BS about Israel with 500 nuclear warheads being threatened by tennage Palestinian rock throwers or even rocket throwers whose “payload” lands fecklessly on empty ground about 99.99% of the time. Israel and America are the culprits, the lawbreakers the ones with the most blood on their hands by FAR! THEY are the problem, not some ridiculous bunch of hooded gang members trying to find some way to fight this agonizing and tormenting monster called AmericaIsrael! If America can do no good in the Middle East, then it should get out and stop enabling Israel’s bloody, violent torture of an isolated imprisoned Palestinian People!
dcbeltway, I’m not calling you a conspiracy theorist or an anti-semite but working in the area you do, I can understand your sensetivity to those accusations. Just making the point that Israel is a US puppet state and the AIPAC is a tool to crush dissent from that bad policy, not a force running our government which some try to make it out to be — not you but many others.
aymon ..the fascist right-wing takeover of our government is really representative of the apathy we as americans feel. It doesnt bother us too much. We need a rude awakening to actually see what our actions are capable of unleashing.
Our political parties are co-conspirators, a bit like the israeli govt and Fatah ! Unless we have the draft re-instated and every kid is drafted in, we will never react.
Someone elses suffering does not even remotely affect our consciousness.
mytake - “Israel and America are the culprits, the lawbreakers the ones with the most blood on their hands by FAR! THEY are the problem, not some ridiculous bunch of hooded gang members trying to find some way to fight this agonizing and tormenting monster called AmericaIsrael!”
Is that fact?
Which law exactly did Israel broke?
Why Israel has most blood on its hands by FAR, while other conflicts (Such as Sudan and Congo) which have more violent death by a factor of 1000, (A Thousand times more…) have less blood on their hands?
Your hatred have brought you to fantasy land mytake. What you are doing mytake, has a name. It is called “Dimonization”. To bad you are using lies in order to make your point.
gyptian:
Fascists also soon enough harm their own populations, and it seems that at least a larger part of the American people (I read somehwhere today or yesterday that Bush is at 23 % approval rating) have woken up (even if still half dazed). since the Congress is at even lower rating, I am adding 2+2 to deduce that the people are pissed at their “representatives” too. My question is: How come the founders and the Constitution provided so little power to the people that they cannot remove a wrecker (or wreckers) of their society before they completely, irreparably wreck it. They are hapless and find no powerful institution or method in the Constitution to actually implement their 77% disapproval and remove or at least suspend the wreckers. Impeachment is too difficult and terminal. Some sort of suspension by the people, if the Congress does not implement their will, should have been provided for. The checks and balnaces would not have been too difficult to instal. Even Jefferson realized that a people’s revolution would be needed every now and then to restore freshness to democracy and remove cummulated “entropy” (in simpler terms - - shit) from the body politic.
But they did not devise, clever non-violent means by which the people could stop train wrecks in time. The current level of entropy inside the US economic and political structure, accummulated since RR (some would argue since Truman) is so bad that no external force will be needed before the Republic implodes.
That is what is confusing to me, namely the “Easter Islander” effect was not thought through and checks and balnces do not seem to exist. I am surprised that many people still wax eloquent on the Constitution as it stands on CD. Perhaps I am a naive outsider and not familiar with the intricacies of constitutional law and some remedy is there.
Here we go again with the AIPAC members (vets and gang!) .
To start with Israel has broken International Law and basic Humanitarian Laws. Israel has more blood on their hands in the context of the Palestinian issue. The only fantasyland we can think of right now is a free Palestine !!
Oh please dont start with the usual drivel that leaks out of the AIPAC member associations combined orifice.
gyptian - Thank you gyptian for associating me with AIPAC.
I’m sure you are very smart, and you know everything about me… I found it hard though, to locate the nearest AIPAC office here in Canada.
A question for you… Have you ever did any research on Middle Eastern countries, International law, and human rights record before you start slamming at the only democracy in the middle east?
If you do it in context, along with Gay and Woman rights, treating minorities, freedom of speech, thought, and religion etc… You may found out that Israel, though not without problems, actually has the BEST human right records in the Middle East.
vets:
Here are some of your repeated errors of English:
1. “Which law exactly did Israel broke?”
BREAK, not BROKE
2. “Why Israel has most blood on its hands . . .”
If somebody were to be sarcastic, they could answer, “I do not know WHY is Israel is so blood thirsty . ..
Your question should be posed as:
“How is it that you claim that Israel has the most . . . when …
3. ” Have you ever did any research . . .”
DONE, not DID
You have some interesting points to make, vets, but as I advised you before, your hysterical style and phrasing vitiates much of their impact and substance. Now don’t jump on me as flaming psychotic. I am just trying to help move this broken record on so that we can get back to some serious discussion of Zunes’ article and other issues about American democracy that it brings up.
Aymon
Aynom, America doesn’t need any new laws to straighten out its problems. What America needs is a Statesman. Someone with the integrity to lead the American people in the right direction. The American people make it very clear that they want significant change in their foreign policy. The fact that no current politician will take the bull by the horns and charge across America is the problem. Not one of the elected political whores in D.C. is willing to do the right thing. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine both suggested something like rewriting the Constitution every 20 to 25 years. This could make it easier to eliminate old outdated laws. For example, the second ammendent could be rewritten to reflect today’s reality. The framework is built into the Constitution to be flexible. What’s required to make a Constitution work correctly, and what is missing from D.C. today, is honest and compassionate individuals. America needs a true hero. A Ho Chi Minh or a Fidel Castro. Not the Hitler Jr. it has now.
Hoa binh
Israel is a democracy just like pre-Mandela South Africa was a democracy. Freedom and democracy for the superior race and domination and misery for the untermenschen.
“Freedom and democracy for the superior race and domination and misery for the untermenschen”
Absolutely right. This can be extended closer to home (my home - U.S.) !!!
namvet67:
The statesman solution is too fragile as the assasinations of Bobby Kennedy (who most politically knowledgeable people consider as the brains behind the Kennedy Administration) and MLK within months of each other. Further this method amounts to pinning hope on a single saviour (king?) rather than the people as a congress of the whole which it seems was the intention of the framers given their experience of monarchies and tyrannies. The only security for any democracy really lies in the hands of an informed and participating public. The Athenians originally made it punishable in law for a citizen not to participate in voting. That was a check on people’s apathy that the founders should have seriously included in the Constitution.
Another should have been exactly what you suggest, namely a constitutional convention every generation ( 25 years), fully funded by the state and no money from anywhere else. A 0.01% of national income would be sound and easily affordable once every 25 years. Yet they did not put this in and I am trying to undersatnd why not? That is, I am trying to undersatnd why not institutionalize a national catharsis every 25 years having already said that it would be necessary?
Finally, they were too sophisticated not have realised that money would ultimately corrupt the political process if not held in check by the people. Consequently, would you not agree that they could have instituted a constitutional provision of ONLY state funding of presidential and congressioanal elections for some nominal percentage of national income, and made it a crime of treason for any moneyed interests to usurp the people’s right to choose by any means, directly or indirectly, through the power of money and the influence it has always bought throughout human history?
This is what is puzzling me, namely how come they did not trust the collective judgement of the people when it is needed most, that is when the governing bodies are no longer responding to the people. It can’t have been an oversight, or could it? I truly do not know how to solve this riddle, but I hope that when (or more accurately if) America survives its current nightmare that constitutional convention does take place and the people are given voice to bring the Constitution up to modern reality.
RE: DCBELTWAY & JADED PROLE ON AIPAC/U.S. FOREIGN POLICY RELATIONSHIP
dcbeltway June 27th, 2007 11:02 am
“AIPAC and other Israeli pressure groups in the US…drive America’s policies and decisions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank…role of the lobby in formulating and shaping US Foriegn Policy in the Middle East.”
Jaded Prole June 27th, 2007 4:29 pm
“Israel is a US puppet state and the AIPAC is a tool…not a force running our government which some try to make it out to be — not you but many others.”
Others but not dcbeltway?
Dunno, Jaded Prole - maybe not a “force running our government” - but a force running our foreign policy is what it sounds like to me: AIPAC “drive[s] America’s policies and decisions…formulat[es] and shape[s] US foreign policy in the Middle East.”
That sounds like “running” our foreign policy to me.
AYMON: Interesting question that you raise. Although this is pure supposition, it would seem that given the times the founding fathers lived in, they presumed that if government became sufficiently corrupt there would be a people’s uprising not unlike that which split the colonies from their “mother” country. What they could not have imagined were the levels of surveillance, policing forces AND inordinately brutal, highly efficient weaponry. That, added to the murder of leaders who have spoken out, added to massive propaganda to manage consent and shape mass opinions together work against the reflex for a people, wittingly oppressed, to rise up against their oppressors. This is why I believe cycles that transcend our immediate avenues of redress will work to balance the scales of ultimate justice. These phases of transition are neither easy nor bloodless, but I agree with Martin Luther King that things do bend towards an inevitable arc of justice.
Baska what’s your point?
Siouxrose:
In my optimistic moods I return to philosophy of cycles and Light and eventually everything settling down to an equilibrium. Otherwise one would not be able to face the preventable death of millions of little children without breaking down.
However, it seems to me that we are at a point in history that was described vividly in the Hindu epic of Mahabharata (Homer’s Illiad is partly based on it). It is captured in the beautiful dialogue on the eve of battle between great socio-political-economic evil one on the side and the fighters for a world kingdom of truth, justice and compassion on the other. The dialogue takes place between Arjuna (the hero of Truth) and Krishna, the 8th Avatar (descent) of Vishnu who has come to help the forces of Truth, not by miraculous means, but by motivating the revolutionaries to struggle with their own might and main. The dialogue is captured in the Bhagavad Gita, perhaps the most widely read and translated books of the Hindu religion. Gandhi held it close to himself throughout his life and based his own Satyagraha (fight for truth) based on it. I have found it stupendous in many of its vast insights into the cycles of Karma of individuals and nations. It is also the book from which Robert Oppenheimer, the nuclear physicist in charge of the Manhatten Project, quoted Krishna when he saw the test atomic blast in the Nevada Desert:
“I have become Death, the Destroyer of worlds.”
The dialogue begins with Arjuna losing the will to engage in massive warfare because of the enormous death and destruction it would cause. He also did not like the supeficial reason for such a holocaust to be a mere political struggle for a kingdom. And Krishna, who is unknown to Arjuna in his true identity as the “All pervading Being of Light” (which in Sanskrit is called “Vishnu”)and is acting as his charioter, tells Arjuna that he is not fighting for political gain but for the establishment of truth, justice, compassion and peace against the philosophy tyrany of greed, destitution, and demeaning of life, which we today call “capitalism”. Of course, the whole epic and the Bhagavad Gita are to be considered as metaphorical in depicting the inner self’s struggle against the demons of “me” and “mine”.
So are the people today who yearn for the kingdom of truth, justice and compassion to go into battle against the forces of DARKNESS or are they to be passive and expect the DARKNESS to disappear by itself eventually?
Therefore my questions on the Constitution, which really is the only powerful non-violent means left at this late stage.
What if Israel and the occupied territories (and the U.S.) all had the proper operation of the best parts of the U.S. constitution, instant run off voting, single payer health system for all, campaign finance reform like we had when the constitution was still new (no corporate money or else 10yrs in jail for CEO & charter dissolved), and good old dependable & cheap paper ballot voting? What if instead of dropping tons of bombs and shooting millions of bullets in Iraq & Afghanistan, we built hospitals, schools, & water purification plants at a fraction of the cost? Isn’t it easier for us (americans) to fix our gov’t than for other less democratic countries to fix theirs? How much time do we (humans) have to solve our biggest human behaviour induced problems (global warming, impending wider scale wars, nukes, pollution, economic calamities…)?
This would be the best time ever for a super renaissance. If we got our act together in a lot of ways real fast we might not extinct ourselves.
Team Earth has a lot of players that need
quality coaching.
I try to imagine what I would feel/think/do if I was a palestinian, iraqui, afghani, sudanese, iranian. I overwhelmingly feel like I would wish for help very hard and be mad as hell.
I’m impressed with the writers on this blog for being articulate, informative, caring. Alot of you sound like professional writers. I can’t express how important commondreams has been for me. This new blog section brings a whole new level of depth that I appreciate very much.
I think we can save the world.
The Decider is really the GREAT DIVIDER.
aymon ,
In response to your quest as to what it takes to improve the Constitution, I have the following suggestions:
1) The Supreme Court justices should be elected every four years, and not appointed for life. This would insure throwing out the cronies or kisser assers appointed by any president.
Electoral college should be trashed in favor of popular vote with runoff elections.
2) The two-party system must be trashed; third party participation in government should be encouraged and not effectively blocked as it is now.
3) Campaign financing should be abolished; equal media time should be afforded to candidates by the government, paid by tax dollars.
4) Impeachment proceedings should be instituted by majority popular vote obtained through a referendum upon a resolution passed by at least 1/3 of the members of the House of Representatives.
5) Lobbying should be abolished.
6) Laws preventing media concentration in the hands of the rich should be enacted.
7) Voting machines without paper trails should be banned.
Even If we can accomplish only Nos. 1, 2, and 3 above, major problems would be solved.
Here are the faces of the “insurgents” in Iraq being killed by the Anglo-American Darkness.
Look at them and weep, for from their souls is emerging a cry the Universe will not ignore. a reckoning with the Light is coming soon.
Siouxrose, when I said several days ago that the underlying decency of millions of American mothers would be shocked out of its apathy by pictures such as these, you dismissed the idea as too shocking for the white person’s sensibilities. But the Light has responded to what I believe will make every decent American mother cry and bring this abominable war to a close and its war criminals to justice.
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3277/IRCO_Nearly_25M_Iraqi_Refugees_Under_Age_12
Aymon
vets, could you explain to me, in short enough words so I don’t get dizzy, just how this:
“The reality is somewhat different. The Hamas are Not freedom fighters. This is one of the most racist organization that exists today on the planet. Their goal is to destroy Israel, all of Israel, kill or expel most of the Jews who lives there, and replace the Israeli democracy with a Fundamentalist Theocracy.”
differs from the Kahanists who now represent the Jewish people, courtesy of the US largesse, to the Palestinians of Hevron, for example?
Would you want to be represented by the Jewish equivalent of the KKK? Why? Enquiring minds wants to know!
FWIW, I’ve read Israeli government officials saying that Hamas can be trusted, that they are as good as their word.
And that makes this:
“There is only one reason why the Israelis attacked Gaza, and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know what it is.. That reason is the daily rocket attacks that are being fired at Israeli towns and Kibbutz by these so called Gazan “Freedom Fighters”.”
rather racist itself. Hamas could have stopped the rocket attacks. But they were embargoed. They didn’t have the money to pay teachers once Israel stole the tax revenue that was Palestine’s by right - let alone the forces to put a stop to the Sderot-rocketers. And Israel played around with the Israel and Egypt border posts, so that the average Palestinian wasn’t able to take his produce to market. A ghetto rather similar to Lodz.
Frankly, you remind me of an Israeli I debated on his own blog during the al-Aqsa intifada, who blamed everything on Yasser Arafat - thus denying the Palestinians the acknowledgement that they were fully human and had the usual human politicking, and an attack by al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade could be blamed on Yasser Arafat, since it was a militant branch of Fateh, but an attack by Hamas couldn’t be, because Hamas was vehemently opposed to most of Fateh’s policies.
Do some research yourself into the Middle East, preferrably starting in al-Andalus and the Baghdad of that period. You might be surprised.
About Vets,
Please, let’s everybody do everyone else a favor. Completely ignore this person posting as vets. We all know where he comes from as reflected in his posts. So, please don’t waste your time, don’t even read his post. With nobody paying any attention to him, he’ll hopefully go away—and do his postings on Faux News where they would appreciate him. Please…
Thanks to Mr. Zunes for the review. Once you free yourself by understanding that msm is primarily concerned with manipulaing your opinion, even the “news” that they present is informative. I didn’t need to come to CD to understand the latest machiavelian twists concerning Palestine. Just read between the lines. If Jesus were to reappear and unite Palestinians under a concialory movement, the U.S. and Israel would find a way to crucify him again. A peaceful settlement with justice as the primary concern is not in the cards, and our (U.S.) every action is calculated to increase militancy and violence to “justify” our interventionist agenda. How many decades now have hundreds of thousands of Palestinians been living in refugee camps? How blind do you have to be to not understand this as an underlying cause of conflict in the entire region?
Saila … i agree with all your points above with regard to what needs to be done. Abolishing the 2 party system would mean abolishing campaign-financing which means media reform and so on. As for vets he is a complete idiot who belongs in some camp where they tie them up and refuse to let them speak (guantanamo, some israeli prison ??). His views are consistent with radical right-wing racist israelis. Hopefully there arent many of them around.
With all due respect to the Mr. Zunes, I couldn’t read past the second sentence, “Hamas is the immediate culprit.” Please consider looking at “Elliott Abrams’ Uncivil War” on www.conflictsforum.org., electronic intifada’s coverage, or Tony Karon’s Rootless Cosmopolitan blog for background on the admin’s role in the violence in Gaza.
Common Dreams offers a lot. It could do a lot better in its articles on Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. by relying on sources with a wider range of direct links to the region. Not just “reliable” western ones.
DuraMater - “Hamas… differs from the Kahanists who now represent the Jewish people…”
Kahana and his Kahanists movement (kah) are racists who call to expel Arabs from Israel. His political movement (Called Kah) is illegal in Israel, and it can’t participate in the elections to the Israeli Knesset, because of the Israeli anti-racism law.
The Hamas, in addition to his wish to expel Jews, also publicly calls for Killing of Jews.
The Hamas can participate in the Palestinian Authority elections.
DuraMater - “…rather racist itself. Hams could have stopped the rocket attacks. But they were embargoed. They didn’t have the money to pay teachers once Israel stole the tax revenue that was Palestine’s by right”
When the Hamas come to power they have denounce all the past agreements that were signed between Israel the Palestinians Authority. One of these denounced agreement is the tax transfer agreement.
The Hamas didn’t have money to pay to teachers and Hospital stuff, because they used the little money that they had to buy rockets, guns, and pay to a few thousands armed militia man to run in the streets of Gaza.
gyptian - “vets he is a complete idiot… His views are consistent with radical right-wing racist israelis…”
Thank you for your analysis gyptian. I’m a little confuse though, because on some other forums I was called Liberal leftist when I was defended Palestinians. Now that I defend Israel, I’m called right-wing racist. Weird.
It is wise to call people names, instead of having to deal with that they have to say.
sorry vets … if you are a liberal-leftist i am definitely from planet X. I apologize for the name-calling but i stand by my assesment of your views in relation to the Palestinian issue. You completely and i mean completely ignore anything to do with israels transgressions. In your eyes israel is the ‘perfect state’ bringing civilization to the scruffy desert peoples and all arabs and palestinians are crud. This is the general theme in all your posts.
dcbeltway June 27th, 2007 10:38 pm
“Baska what’s your point?”
The point is you say AIPAC “drives,” “formulates” and “shapes” U.S. “policies” and “decisions” re Israel - and they don’t. The U.S. is the dog, Israel is the tail. And AIPAC? AIPAC is a mouthpiece to and for right wing Jews in a right wing country. Any power it has depends on a historically right wing U.S. foreign policy, and, now, an extremely closely split Democratic-Republican electorate - Democrats fear having their Jewish liberal base chipped away at on this issue, and so AIPAC can wield some power. But long-term US foreign policy is the precondition of that power - AIPAC is merely what tips the scales in this situation.
Strongly suggest you take the time to read the articles on the Commondreams-linked website Foreign Policy in Focus:
Re US foreign policy influence on Israel’s military response in Lebanon, see:
How Washington Goaded Israel into War
FPIF Policy Report
Aug 21, 2006
And re US foreign policy as underpinning the supposed power of the Israeli lobby, see:
The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?
FPIF Discussion Paper
May 16, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison06162006.html
Most disturbing and harder to dismiss is the criticism of the study from the left, coming chiefly from Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, and abetted less cogently by Stephen Zunes of Foreign Policy in Focus and Joseph Massad of Columbia University. These critics on the left argue from a assumption that U.S. foreign policy has been monolithic since World War II, a coherent progression of decision-making directed unerringly at the advancement of U.S. imperial interests. All U.S. actions, these critics contend, are part of a clearly laid-out strategy that has rarely deviated no matter what the party in power. They believe that Israel has served throughout as a loyal agent of the U.S., carrying out the U.S. design faithfully and serving as a base from which the U.S. projects its power around the Middle East. Zunes says it most clearly, affirming that Israel “still is very much the junior partner in the relationship.” These critics do not dispute the existence of a lobby, but they minimize its importance, claiming that rather than leading the U.S. into policies and foreign adventures that stand against true U.S. national interests, as Mearsheimer and Walt assert, the U.S. is actually the controlling power in the relationship with Israel and carries out a consistent policy, using Israel as its agent where possible………..
Indeed, far from Israel functioning as the junior partner carrying out a U.S. plan, it is clear that the weight of pressure in 1967 was on the U.S. to go along with Israel’s designs and that this pressure came from Israel and its agents in the U.S. The lobby in this instance as broadly defined by Mearsheimer and Walt: “the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction” was in fact a part of Johnson’s intimate circle of friends and advisers.
These included the number-two man at the Israeli embassy, a close personal friend; the strongly pro-Israeli Rostow brothers, Walt and Eugene, who were part of the national security bureaucracy in the administration; Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas; U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg; and numerous others who all spent time with Johnson at the LBJ Ranch in Texas and had the personal access and the leisure time in an informal setting to talk with Johnson about their concern for Israel and to influence him heavily in favor of Israel. This circle had already begun to work on Johnson long before Israel’s pre-emptive attack in 1967, so they were nicely placed to persuade Johnson to go along with it despite Johnson’s fears of provoking the Soviet Union and becoming involved in a military conflict the U.S. was not prepared for.
In other words, Israel was beyond question the senior partner in this particular policy initiative; Israel made the decision to go to war, would have gone to war with or without the U.S. green light, and used its lobbyists in the U.S. to steer Johnson administration policy in a pro-Israeli direction. Israel’s attack on the U.S. naval vessel, the USS Liberty, in the midst of the war an attack conducted in broad daylight that killed 34 American sailors was not the act of a junior partner. Nor was the U.S. cover-up of this atrocity the act of a government that dictated the moves in this relationship.
Baska according to Christison, former CIA analyst, its the opposite of what you believe. Living in Washington and seeing these groups in action I agree with Christison.
also from the same link:
Does not the massive effort by AIPAC, the Washington Institute, and myriad other similar organizations to spoon-feed policymakers and congressmen selective information and analysis written only from Israel’s perspective have a huge impact on policy? In the end, even Chomsky and Finkelstein acknowledge the power of the lobby in suppressing discussion and debate about Middle East policy. The mobilization of public opinion, Finkelstein writes, “can have a real impact on policy-making which is why the Lobby invests so much energy in suppressing discussion.” It is difficult to read statement except as a ringing acknowledgement of the massive and very central power of the lobby to control discourse and to control policymaking on the most critical Middle East policy issue.
Why side with Israel on anything? This has never made one bit of sense to me. What makes Israelis superior to Palestinians? What makes Israel worthy of American money? Please tell me. Is it the notion that Israelis are the experts in perceiving reality correctly? That their God is the only true God? I am just curious about why the United States always sides with Israel with everything negative they do. Is it the Israeli people’s noses?
aymon - You sound American more than Canadian.
RE: WHO’S THE “SENIOR PARTNER” FORMULATING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY - THE U.S. OR ISRAEL via ITS DOMESTIC AGENTS?
dcbeltway June 28th, 2007 12:29 pm
1) At least we are now clear on your position - I thought Jaded Prole was not grasping what you clearly and tenaciously argue when he wrote:
Jaded Prole June 27th, 2007 4:29 pm
“Israel is a US puppet state and the AIPAC is a tool…not a force running our government which some try to make it out to be — not you but many others.”
2)I will read the entire article in a moment, but - on the basis of what you quote - I do not find the counterargument persuasive.
According to the link, “far from Israel functioning as the junior partner carrying out a U.S. plan, it is clear that the weight of pressure in 1967 was on the U.S. to go along with Israel’s designs and that this pressure came from Israel and its agents in the U.S.”
It is “clear”? What evidence is presented for this statement? That the Israeli lobby was “a part of Johnson’s intimate circle of friends and advisers” and that this “personal access” permitted them to “influence him heavily in favor of Israel.”
That is not an argument. That is conjecture:
1) Johnson’s writings and the observations of those close to him are necessary to argue that he ever saw Israel as anything other than an important component of U.S. foreign policy, or that this so-called lobby actually changed his mind in any basic way.
2) Further, note that the Israeli lobby listed includes senior U.S. policymakers known to be sympathetic to Israel, such as the “Rostow brothers.” But the sympathy of U.S. “national security bureacracy” is not the point; the point is whether this “sympathy” caused the U.S. to modify its greater strategy of imperial domination - or whether support for Israel is just one more cog in the project of American empire.
In other words - the point is moot at best, because the Rostows could just as easily have supported Israel as an adjunct of American foreign policy.
Baksa– why are you afraid of the concept of a foriegn lobby formulating and driving US foreign policy in the Middle East? Clearly this bothers you. Are you a part of that lobby? Having witnessed this in action with my own two eyes I am not going to shut my eyes and pretend like you or Chomsky or Zunes like it doesn’t exist. Anyways you aren’t going to convince me otherwise so I am done with responding to you especially since you did not read the article I posted.
dcbeltway June 28th, 2007 12:31 pm
“according to Christison, former CIA analyst, its the opposite of what you believe.”
Oh…well if a CIA analyst says it’s so, it must be so…
“Living in Washington and seeing these groups in action…”
“Living”? “Seeing”? The ‘the auhority of experience’ (’trust me, I’ve seen and I know’) is not an argument and proves nothing. Watching lobbyists do their thing is not the point - the point is evaluating any power of these “groups in action” within the framework of long term U.S. foreign policy goals; the point is how U.S. foreign policy towards Israel fits a larger pattern of U.S. foreign policy; the point is grasping how U.S. foreign policy enables lobbying groups. As I said before.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7985100635045440998
Living and Seeing does have its benefits. I am Living and Seeing what Cheney is doing to the constituition and the American people (us) but unfortunately I cannot prove a thing since he refuses to release documents !!
Most people who live and see the lobby in action aren’t able to tell tales and I’ll leave it at that! Silence allows these pressure groups to operate.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/16/aipac/
The attendees at AIPAC’s annual conference.
dcbeltway June 28th, 2007 1:26 pm
“why are you afraid of the concept of a foriegn lobby formulating and driving US foreign policy in the Middle East? Clearly this bothers you.”
Defend your argument. If you can.
“Are you a part of that lobby?”
Pathetic.
“Having witnessed this in action with my own two eyes-”
Yea, you said that…now address the arguments. Thanks.
“I am not going to shut my eyes and pretend like you or Chomsky or Zunes like it doesn’t exist.”
Meaning you’re not going to advance a plausible argument for its existence.
“Anyways you aren’t going to convince me otherwise-”
i.e., ‘Boo to the mean apologists for Israel who don’t agree with you and reject your weak evidence. It can’t be that they have a different interpretation than you - they must be personally threatened or secret agents or something - not progressives with a different view.’
Baksa
A) Already posted a lot of articles and links so my evidence is not weak.
B) Yes, you are an Israeli apologist no doubt! Perhaps that why you are a troll!
gyptian - “I apologize for the name-calling but i stand by my assesment of your views in relation to the Palestinian issue.”
Apology excepted.
With regards to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I do take the Israeli side. (Maybe I’m somewhat biased because I have relatives in Israel, and I don’t want to see Israel destroyed.)
However, that conflict is not a zero sum game. If someone is pro-Israeli, that does not mean he is idiot, racist, fascist or even an anti- Palestinian. I do want to see a peaceful Palestinian state, along side Israel. And I don’t want to see anyone being killed or expelled.
“Sir” Melvin Cleophus:
Um…er..about that “Sound more American than Canadian” swipe (insult?). Fascinating piece of legerdemain you have going there old boy. Such powers of inference. Are you CSIS? Will I be next Maher? I’ll report you to my good friend Romeo, not of Shakepearan fame. Get it, eh?
Aymon
Saila:
many good points in your list. I think that point No. 1 on the Supremes is right on target and of the utmost importance, given the damage a lifelong neocon can do to the fabric of American society. Some care will be needed to ensure that the election process is truly a people’s direct democracy.
Did you hear what the Supremes did today. They overruled the natural right of racially disadvantaged youngsters to as good an education as white children. Biggest news item today. Justice Paul Stevens was emotionally choking in his read out blistering dissent against the extreme right wing ruling.
Good quote from him:
“NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF LAW HAS MUCH BEEN UNDONE BY SO FEW SO QUICKLY.”
Points 3 and 4 (properly worded and vetted)should be in the Constitution.
Points 4, 5, 6 could (and I think should with proper care on the modalities of the alternatives) be enacted as legislated law.
I think that Jefferson’s own suggestion that the Constitution should be revised every 25 years as I mention is vitally important if the wording and content of the original document are not to become fossilized and left to debates at the Supreme Court about “What did the Framers intend blah, blah, blah . . .”.
gyptian, you need to treat vets as commic relief, and as saila suggests, not too seriously. Though somehow I have this sense or feeling, I don’t know why, that he/she has a good heart, but the brain has been washed. for example, compared to Goose2, vets is still human. maybe I am getting soft in the brain in my old age.
aymon
Thank you aymon, I think you are not a bad person yourself.
I appreciate your earlyer comment regarding my grammatical mistakes.
As for Salia, I don’t see new technologies as a bad thing, as long as they could be trusted. Reliable voting machine, and eliminating paper trails, can help the environment.
vets
You’ve finally won me over.
I too have relatives in America and am now switching over to the Bush Cheney camp as we need to be protected from the nasty terrorists. I fear for America’s safety.
On a less sarcastic note there are liberals in Isreal. How about siding with them, instead of the Israeli neocons if you want to call yourself a progressive or a liberal.
Isreal’s safety will be much greater if they stop pissing off their neighbors.
Maybe vets can start by reading Uri Avnery ! There are numerous liberal left-wing israelis but unfortunately pretty much like here in the good ol USA their voices get drowned out in that insidious jingoistic rhetoric.