Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIsrael, without the United States, would probably not exist. The country came perilously close to extinction during the October 1973 war when Egypt, trained and backed by the Soviet Union, crossed the Suez and the Syrians poured in over the Golan Heights. Huge American military transport planes came to the rescue. They began landing every half-hour to refit the battered Israeli army, which had lost most of its heavy armor. By the time the war was over, the United States had given Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid.
The intervention, which enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo that for a time wreaked havoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state.
Israel was born at midnight May 14, 1948. The U.S. recognized the new state 11 minutes later. The two countries have been locked in a deadly embrace ever since.
Washington, at the beginning of the relationship, was able to be a moderating influence. An incensed President Eisenhower demanded and got Israel's withdrawal after the Israelis occupied Gaza in 1956. During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli warplanes bombed the USS Liberty. The ship, flying the U.S. flag and stationed 15 miles off the Israeli coast, was intercepting tactical and strategic communications from both sides. The Israeli strikes killed 34 U.S. sailors and wounded 171. The deliberate attack froze, for a while, Washington's enthusiasm for Israel. But ruptures like this one proved to be only bumps, soon smoothed out by an increasingly sophisticated and well-financed Israel lobby that set out to merge Israel and American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually, roughly one-fifth of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Although most American foreign aid packages stipulate that related military purchases have to be made in the United States, Israel is allowed to use about 25 percent of the money to subsidize its own growing and profitable defense industry. It is exempt, unlike other nations, from accounting for how it spends the aid money. And funds are routinely siphoned off to build new Jewish settlements, bolster the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories and construct the security barrier, which costs an estimated $1 million a mile.
The barrier weaves its way through the West Bank, creating isolated pockets of impoverished Palestinians in ringed ghettos. By the time the barrier is finished it will probably in effect seize up to 40 percent of Palestinian land. This is the largest land grab by Israel since the 1967 war. And although the United States officially opposes settlement expansion and the barrier, it also funds them.
The U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems and given Israel access to some of the most sophisticated items in its own military arsenal, including Blackhawk attack helicopters and F-16 fighter jets. The United States also gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies. And when Israel refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the United States stood by without a word of protest as the Israelis built the region's first nuclear weapons program.
U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States since 1982 has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It refuses to enforce the Security Council resolutions it claims to support. These resolutions call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
There is now volcanic anger and revulsion by Arabs at this blatant favoritism. Few in the Middle East see any distinction between Israeli and American policies, nor should they. And when the Islamic radicals speak of U.S. support of Israel as a prime reason for their hatred of the United States, we should listen. The consequences of this one-sided relationship are being played out in the disastrous war in Iraq, growing tension with Iran, and the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza. It is being played out in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is gearing up for another war with Israel, one most Middle East analysts say is inevitable. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. And it is doing so because of this special relationship. The eruption of a regional conflict would usher in a nightmare of catastrophic proportions.
There were many in the American foreign policy establishment and State Department who saw this situation coming. The decision to throw our lot in with Israel in the Middle East was not initially a popular one with an array of foreign policy experts, including President Harry Truman's secretary of state, Gen. George Marshall. They warned there would be a backlash. They knew the cost the United States would pay in the oil-rich region for this decision, which they feared would be one of the greatest strategic blunders of the postwar era. And they were right. The decision has jeopardized American and Israeli security and created the kindling for a regional conflagration.
The alliance, which makes no sense in geopolitical terms, does makes sense when seen through the lens of domestic politics. The Israel lobby has become a potent force in the American political system. No major candidate, Democrat or Republican, dares to challenge it. The lobby successfully purged the State Department of Arab experts who challenged the notion that Israeli and American interests were identical. Backers of Israel have doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to support U.S. political candidates deemed favorable to Israel. They have brutally punished those who strayed, including the first President Bush, who they said was not vigorous enough in his defense of Israeli interests. This was a lesson the next Bush White House did not forget. George W. Bush did not want to be a one-term president like his father.
Israel advocated removing Saddam Hussein from power and currently advocates striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Direct Israeli involvement in American military operations in the Middle East is impossible. It would reignite a war between Arab states and Israel. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq.
President Bush, facing dwindling support for the war in Iraq, publicly holds Israel up as a model for what he would like Iraq to become. Imagine how this idea plays out on the Arab street, which views Israel as the Algerians viewed the French colonizers during the war of liberation.
"In Israel," Bush said recently, "terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it's not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that's a good indicator of success that we're looking for in Iraq."
Americans are increasingly isolated and reviled in the world. They remain blissfully ignorant of their own culpability for this isolation. U.S. "spin" paints the rest of the world as unreasonable, but Israel, Americans are assured, will always be on our side.
Israel is reaping economic as well as political rewards from its lock-down apartheid state. In the "gated community" market it has begun to sell systems and techniques that allow the nation to cope with terrorism. Israel, in 2006, exported $3.4 billion in defense products—well over a billion dollars more than it received in American military aid. Israel has grown into the fourth largest arms dealer in the world. Most of this growth has come in the so-called homeland security sector.
"The key products and services," as Naomi Klein wrote in The Nation, "are hi-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems—precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn't threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the 'global war on terror.' "
The United States, at least officially, does not support the occupation and calls for a viable Palestinian state. It is a global player, with interests that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, and the equation that Israel's enemies are our enemies is not that simple.
"Terrorism is not a single adversary," John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in The London Review of Books, "but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or 'the West'; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."
Middle Eastern policy is shaped in the United States by those with very close ties to the Israel lobby. Those who attempt to counter the virulent Israeli position, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, are ruthlessly slapped down. This alliance was true also during the Clinton administration, with its array of Israeli-first Middle East experts, including special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, one of the most powerful Israel lobbying groups in Washington. But at least people like Indyk and Ross are sane, willing to consider a Palestinian state, however unviable, as long as it is palatable to Israel. The Bush administration turned to the far-right wing of the Israel lobby, those who have not a shred of compassion for the Palestinians or a word of criticism for Israel. These new Middle East experts include Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, the disgraced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser.
Washington was once willing to stay Israel's hand. It intervened to thwart some of its most extreme violations of human rights. This administration, however, has signed on for every disastrous Israeli blunder, from building the security barrier in the West Bank, to sealing off Gaza and triggering a humanitarian crisis, to the ruinous invasion and saturation bombing of Lebanon.
The few tepid attempts by the Bush White House to criticize Israeli actions have all ended in hasty and humiliating retreats in the face of Israeli pressure. When the Israel Defense Forces in April 2002 reoccupied the West Bank, President Bush called on then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "halt the incursions and begin withdrawal." It never happened. After a week of heavy pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel's allies in Congress, meaning just about everyone in Congress, the president gave up, calling Sharon "a man of peace." It was a humiliating moment for the United Sates, a clear sign of who pulled the strings.
There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. The desire for American control of oil, the belief that Washington could build puppet states in the region, and a real, if misplaced, fear of Saddam Hussein played a part in the current disaster. But it was also strongly shaped by the notion that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel wanted Iraq neutralized. Israeli intelligence, in the lead-up to the war, gave faulty information to the U.S. about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And when Baghdad was taken in April 2003, the Israeli government immediately began to push for an attack on Syria. The lust for this attack has waned, in no small part because the Americans don't have enough troops to hang on in Iraq, much less launch a new occupation.
AP Photo/Hatem Moussa
Armed Palestinian women burn Israeli and U.S. flags during a protest against Israel's operations in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.
Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon. Israel's iron determination to forcibly prevent a nuclear Iran makes it probable that before the end of the Bush administration an attack on Iran will take place. The efforts to halt nuclear development through diplomatic means have failed. It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East.
The alliance between Israel and the United States has culminated after 50 years in direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. This involvement, which is not furthering American interests, is unleashing a geopolitical nightmare. American soldiers and Marines are dying in droves in a useless war. The impotence of the United States in the face of Israeli pressure is complete. The White House and the Congress have become, for perhaps the first time, a direct extension of Israeli interests. There is no longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high.
This means there will be no peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It means the incidents of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. and Israel will grow. It means that American power and prestige are on a steep, irreversible decline. And I fear it also means the ultimate end of the Jewish experiment in the Middle East.
The weakening of the United States, economically and militarily, is giving rise to new centers of power. The U.S. economy, mismanaged and drained by the Iraq war, is increasingly dependent on Chinese trade imports and on Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. China holds dollar reserves worth $825 billion. If Beijing decides to abandon the U.S. bond market, even in part, it would cause a free fall by the dollar. It would lead to the collapse of the $7-trillion U.S. real estate market. There would be a wave of U.S. bank failures and huge unemployment. The growing dependence on China has been accompanied by aggressive work by the Chinese to build alliances with many of the world's major exporters of oil, such as Iran, Nigeria, Sudan and Venezuela. The Chinese are preparing for the looming worldwide clash over dwindling resources.
The future is ominous. Not only do Israel's foreign policy objectives not coincide with American interests, they actively hurt them. The growing belligerence in the Middle East, the calls for an attack against Iran, the collapse of the imperial project in Iraq have all given an opening, where there was none before, to America's rivals. It is not in Israel's interests to ignite a regional conflict. It is not in ours. But those who have their hands on the wheel seem determined, in the name of freedom and democracy, to keep the American ship of state headed at breakneck speed into the cliffs before us.
Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
©2007 TruthDig.com
109 Comments so far
Show AllTO YOU THE PEOPLE: We the people,are gagged from bringing this discussion to the voter's; freedom of speech in America??? Where did it go? Ross was right on a couple of thing's and throwing the lobbist's out of Wash was one of them.
If we don't reform our election finances this new American Facism has permanently replaced what all our Vet's have sacrificed for! PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE their are no special people,or chosen people in America, we are supposed to be as brother's{and sister's}enjoined with the perspective that all people are created equal, any puppet's of string
master's left or right of we the people need to be identified; or are we no longer the home and land of the BRAVE; BRAVE; BRAVE?
If you do read scipture, that area was populated before Moses's people arrived; open discussion {no more no less}
gives us back our first ammendment
To Gracefounddog:
I just checked out the site!! Thanks for the link. Although i think Hedges is correct about many things, i still think the u.s. is 'mightier' than israel. There is something disingenuous in his article. But now i see why...
What the hell!!!??? Chris Hedges, have you been reading Ry Dawson's Anti-Neocon site or what? :-|
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=4072&highlight=dec...
SMC13,
It was Abu Abbas (Muhammed Zaidan), not Abu Mazen (Mahmud Abbas) who masterminded the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. I don't beleave that Abu Mazen was actively involved in terrorist activities.
I do agree with you, however, about the Arab League and the PLO. Even the term "naqba" was used to denote the disgrace and loss of Arab land (blamed as much on the Palestinian Arabs as the Israelis), and not on the disposession of people. It wasn't until the 1970s that the term began to be used in reference to the refugees.
Vets I don't want to see that happen to Israel either as I too have friends there. I also don't believe that it will. Israel does have a formidable nuclear arsenal of its own.
"Thats the fundamental point. What was the basis to kick out the Palestians who've been living there before the beginning of time and create a jewish state."
What was the basis? The country that conquered the land most recently, Britain, gave up the land for the purpose of creating a Palestinian State and a Jewish State. Supposedly, Britain gave up the land because they had been badly beaten up in WWII and didn't think they could maintain control over the land and because they had made promises to both Jews and Arabs to hand over the land.
"Just like here in the U.S. , israel tries to portray all Palestinians as bloodthirsty 'turrists' whose single purpose in life over and above food and clothing is simply to destroy israel ! If you grab my land forcibly from me and completely disposess me i would probably hate you even more."
Israel and Hamas do not portray all Palestinians as terrorists. They are currently portraying Hamas as terrorists and Abbas as a wonderfully nice person (even though he mastermined the hijacking of the Achille Lauro).
As I pointed out above, Israel didn't completely dispossess the Palestinians. Before 1967, Jordan and Egypt kept the West Bank and Gaza Strip for themselves. The PLO used terrorize Jordan as well as Israel, even going so far as trying to assassinate King Hussein. It wasn't until the Arab League failed to reconquer the land that they reached an agreement with the PLO to paint Israel as an evil country that won't give the Palestinian People a homeland.
I wonder why Palestinian parents have their kids throw rocks and suicide bomb. It seems to me that peaceful protest, ala Gandhi and MLK Jr., would be much more effective. The US would have a much harder time of backing Israel if the Israelis were to attack a bunch of peaceful protesters.
dcbeltway - Thank you for the long reply. I can now better understand that the protection of Israel, a key ally state, against possible threat of nuclear or biological holocaust played as one of the elements behind the war in Iraq, and maybe behind a possible future war with Iran. Though my personal opinion is that the main reason behind these wars is controlling the Middle Eastern oil, and oil price. (Bush wants high oil price). I also believe that religion played a.major role in the decision to go to war.
I have relatives living in Israel. I don't want to see them evaporate in a nuclear mushroom. That is why I don't think that saving Israel from nuclear or biological holocaust is a bad idea, or something that needs to be condemned. I hope you will not think less of me because of my opinion. I think though that the best way to achieve that goal is to make the middle east a nuclear free zone (including Israel)
I already know that the many Jewish groups support the idea of free Palestine. I also know that the majority of Israeli citizens, and most of the Israeli political parties support the idea of a viable peaceful Palestinian state along side Israel, including the current Prime Minister Olmert, the former P.M Sharon, and Barak before him.
Dear Omarsmith,
Your argument is sleight of hand. It is true that Jews owned less that 10% of Palestine in 1947. However, this does not mean that Arabs owned more than 90%, which is far from the case.
The vast majority of the land in Palestine was, and had been, state-owned land or classified as "wasteland" since the time of the Ottoman Empire. Jews may have owned less than 10% of the land in Palestine, but that constituted a huge proportion of the 25% or so of the total land that was privately held.
As to the 60% (actually about 55%) alloted to the Jews by the UN (i.e. under international law), this comprised two parts. The northern part, which was mostly along the coast, and where the Jews had purchased a large portion of the freehold land and were the majority of the population, and the Negev. The latter was barely populated and is mostly desert, classified as "wasteland". Further, under the League of Nations Mandate (again, international law), the British were obliged to transfer portions of such wasteland, as required, to the Jewish population (something that they, for the most part, simply did not do).
http://tinyurl.com/yo63sc
Vets I am also posting this link for you as there are lots of Jewish people who are supportive of a free Palestine. My point being is that plenty of Jews and Christians too who do not support the neocon agenda.
http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org/
Vets those are you words and not mine nor my belief and no they don't control the White House or the US as you say I said. Not true! Libby is a neocon who supports a US Foreign Policy which mirrors the Clean Break Thesis and a US Foreign Policy that backs the Israel Likud party's goals of a nuclear free Iran and a Sadaam Free Iraq. These Neocons could care less about US Domestic policies or US Policy towards South America or Japan for example because what they do care about is US Policy as it imapacts Israel. However they do seek to influence and prevent an open discussion about US Policy as it impacts Israel and its neighbors. Many organizatons in Washington seek to influence American Foriegn Policy or American Domestic Policies and these organizations are known as lobbies. Most have offices down on K Street and they do have an impact.
Valerie Plame by the way was a CIA Agent who was tracking Iran and Iraq and nuclear proliferation and would have the information of whether or not Iraq and Iran had nukes. She was therefore a threat along with the entire CIA to the Office of Special Plans and the neocons. The CIA and Plame could expose their agenda and the Neocons as fradulent.
I would also like to point out Rosen and Weisman from the AIPAC lobby were caught obtaining Top Secret Gov't documents about Iran from Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin. Franklin worked with Feith in the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon a neocon office started to undermine the intelligence gathering capabilities of the CIA.
I agree with Walt and Mersheimer and the Realist School of Foreign Policy when it comes to Israel. People can disagree with that thesis and that's fine.
Published on Monday, March 29, 2004 by Inter Press Service
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.
Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.
In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.
Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the "Muslim Middle East".
Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.
His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis", according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".
"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."
To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.
Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."
Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.
"They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.
Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.
"Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.
Copyright © 2004 IPS-Inter Press Service
gyptian - Again, instead of replying to what I had to say, you reject anything I wrote based on the assumption that I was trained by AIPAC.
Do you have any proof that I was trained by AIPAC or have any affiliation with them?
AIPAC is an American organization. I live in Canada and I have nothing to do with the evil organization AIPAC nor with the USA. Thank you very much.
gyptian - You say that the statement "Until November 1947, all the land within Palestine which was owned by Jews was purchased in good money, or was belong to Jews for centuries" is NOT correct.
- OK, Show me which land was taken by force from Arabs by Jews in Palestine before November 1947.
gyptian - "Apparently the 'old testament' is a legal document !"
I'm an atheist. I wasn't talking about the old testament. I was talking about British and Turkish real estate registration laws.
Jews were living in Palestine during the 17th 18th and 19th century, and some of them owned some properties. The new Jewish immigrant who come to Palestine in the late 19th entury, and early 20st century parchesed property with good money from the leagal Arab owners. Untill WWI these parches were done according to Turkish law, and after WWI according to British laws, and NOT according to the 'old testament' laws.
omarsmith - "...In spite of that, Israel had rejected the UN Plan. "
It is one thing to criticize Israel. But using lies to prove your point?
UN resolution 181 was accepted by the "Yeshov" (Israel didn't exist in Novemner 1947) , and was rejected by the Arab league who chose WAR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
omar dont bother ... you cannot make vets read a single transcript that disagrees with his dogmatic viewpoint.
AIPAC trains its members well !
"all the land within Palestine which was owned by Jews was purchased in good money, or was belong to Jews for centuries"
This is exactly the kind of drivel vets believes in. Apparently the 'old testament' is a legal document !
Also vets dont start that old tactic of twisting what people say so as to suit your argumenmts. Weve been through this before.
To Voltaire:
Beautifully expressed!
Actually, it has been a merger with Christian fundamentlism that has pushed it along these lines. Although the holocaust is being used as the Jewish passion story. It is prfoundly regressive...
Dear fellows: Vets, Egyptian and all ....
For your information, up to 1946, Jews owned less than %10
of the land of Palestine while they where given about %60 percent of Palestine by the UN. In spite of that, Israel had rejected
the UN Plan. To see the transaction of the occupied
Palestinian teritory go to this link:
http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/photos/maps_media/1400/
This site is running by a young Jewish Activist who is dedicated to work for peace in Palestine.
This web site http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/ is one of the best for anybody who is interested in educate self about the Palestinian. This is the most balanced informational website.
Salam/Shalom/Peace
gyptian -
I have no reply to someone who think "Israel initiated this whole mess just by being created !"
That is like saying: Jews should be punished just because they exists. And those who started to kill Jews shere no blame for the mess...
dcbeltway, I did a search on both links you have provided. The only reference to Israel was in the following sentence:
"CIA-MEK cross-border operations, in which the Americans – and the Israelis – are conducting provocations that could lead to an open conflict with Iran."
I fail to see how these articles lead you to believe that the USA and the white house are being controlled by Israel.
gyptian - how can you 'initiate' a war when you are in your own homeland and trying to defend it ?
Until November 1947, all the land within Palestine which was owned by Jews was purchased in good money, or was belong to Jews for centuries.
UN proposal of a Jewish state in the Jewish part of Palestine, and an Arab state in the Arab part of Palestine - was rejected by the Arabs. Instead they decide to initiate an attack against Jewish towns, villages and neighborhoods.
I hope now your question was answered.
"Are you say that the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were trying to defent their homeland by invading Israel?"
Considering israel was created on the backs of the Palestinians somebody had to defend them since the rest of the world was blindly looking on without a murmur of protest. Israel initiated this whole mess just by being created !
I agree with so much of what has been said in chris hedges piece. And as a Jew, i am disgusted and horrified at the state of the state of israel.
But, somehow i just can't believe that the u.s. is afraid of israel. And i am not convinced of the sentiment in this piece, that sets the u.s. government and citizenry up as israel's victim. I am feeling there is something a bit disingenuous about this particular perspective.
I don't think world domination is israel's endgame. Although i am not sure what it is...But it certainly has nothing to do with benefiting 'Jews' per se. This is obvious.
As far as our support of israel not being in the best interests of the u.s., what alliances and domestic actions *have* been in the best interests of the u.s.? I see this particular alliance as being exactly what i would expect from the u.s.
I see israel as a u.s. military base in the mid east.
Zionism has sadly squeezed all the liberal internationalism out of a once enlightened cosmopolitan Judaism. It has substituted a primitive and bellicose ethnic nationalism for what had evolved over many centuries into a great universalist ethico-moral tradition. The liberal Jewish tradition, eclipsed by militant fascistic Zionism, held up tolerance, charity (tsedakah), compassion (rachamim), human rights and peace as moral imperatives. This tradition was still alive among liberal Jews as late as the World War Two generation. But Zionism and its one-dimensional focus on land and "security" through violent militarism has killed the liberal Jewish tradition. It has been a purveyor of hate and oppression and a perverter of Jewish law. It has given rise to the fascistic Likud-Neoconservative axis that is hard at work destroying the Middle East with its monomaniacal need to dominate. Ultimately this will fail, and with it the whole Zionist-American project, because might never makes right, and because this kind of institutionalized aggression invariably implodes.
http://tinyurl.com/vg5lr and this. There is a connection between the Libby trial and the case for a war being pushed by the neocons against Iran which I might add a war that is in Israel's interest.
Thought this would be interesting to add given the Libby trial:
http://tinyurl.com/2jmu4t
Well said, Massud.
The mystery of the Arab-Israeli conflict is easily answered. A state for jews, and a state for arabs. This was the solution in 47' and remains relevant in principle today. Palis expelled or subjugated under Jewish rule in West Bank or gaza is not a just solution. However, neither is Israel's destruction and being replaced by just another arab state. See, the two state solution is peace. The single state solution is one having conquest over the other. So in short, you're not peace activist if you support one side dominating and conquering and ruling the other. That goes for both the hardcore zionists AND the anti-zionists.
"how can you 'initiate' a war when you are in your own homeland and trying to defend it ? "
Are you say that the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were trying to defent their homeland by invading Israel?
So, dcbeltway, you posted the statements by Petras because you disagree with them?
Thanks or that underhanded compliment vets ... to you any argument against israel is construed as racist and i think most readers on this forum know it while you blithely overlook your real racism against Arabs.
Secondly how can you 'initiate' a war when you are in your own homeland and trying to defend it ? You manage to twist logic on its head as usual. Its like the U.S. telling all Iraqis to go back where they came from cause its now our land !! go away vets ... youre tired old arguments are boring and not worth replying to ...
JES I did not say that it was pasted from an article by James Petras read the above links.
gyptian - First of all I would like to say that it much better arguing with you now in a civilized way. (Without any racist comment)
In 1948 when Israel was created, it was immediately attacked by 7 Arab countries. As a result of that war of annihilation: 700,000 Palestinians become refugees from land controlled by Israel, and 900,000 Jews become refugees from land controlled by Arabs.
You asked what was the basis to kick out the Palestinians who've been living there. My answer - There was no point. War is hell, and the Palestinian lost the war they have initiated.
dcbeltway said:
"The reach of the Jewish lobby far exceeds its electoral constituency ? as the one million dollar slush fund to defeat incumbent Georgia Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinny demonstrates. That she was subsequently re-elected on the basis of low keying her criticism of Israel reveals the Lobby?s impact even on consequential democrats."
Yes, and she was recently turned out of office again, without any involvement by the "Israel Lobby". Perhaps it's because, in both cases, her constituents just didn't like her.
BTW, Hedges used a similar sleight of hand in his reference to the first President Bush. The "Israel Lobby" really had no significant impact on the election (its supporters have always tended to vote for the Democratic candidate). If you remember, the main reason behind Bush's defeat was, as one of Clinton's advisors said: the economy, stupid!
"I really have a hard time understanding how someone could reach the conclusion that Israel is an evil rogue terrorist state."
I have a hard time understanding how you cannot. A majority of the people in the world can see it as such based on repeated U.N. resolutions agaionst israel (32 on the last count). While israel
is a democracy and believes in democratic principles, this only applies internally towards its own people, pretty much like the good ole U.S.A. while they (israel and the US ) treat others with contempt.
Just like here in the U.S. , israel tries to portray all Palestinians as bloodthirsty 'turrists' whose single purpose in life over and above food and clothing is simply to destroy israel ! If you grab my land forcibly from me and completely disposess me i would probably hate you even more.
Israeli response to justified Palestinian outrage is completely disproportionate. Helicopter gunships against stones !! There is a reason the world secretly cheered when Hezbollah kicked its ass in Lebanon !
"Israel became a country in 1948 and immediately it was attacked by Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and other Arab countries. "
Thats the fundamental point. What was the basis to kick out the Palestians who've been living there before the beginning of time and create a jewish state. Just because they lived there 2000 yrs ago is not a valid argument. Again we should not be living in this country because (in our case in california) the Ohlone peoples and the Miwok were living here 10000 yrs ago. Israel was created by force based on racist zionist ideaology. They cannot protest because we did what israel is doing to the Palestinians .. only better … we killed them all.
So who is wagging whom? According to absolutists like Chomsky where there is only one imperial power and everybody else is there just to serve its interest, Israel is just a obidient bulldog thats currently has it purpose, and the neocons' hegemony wrapped in a democracy box is the perfect tool to use to hammer down that uncooperative nail of a regime. But according to the neocon principle, they have to pull the strings (either by persuasion, deception, manipulation, etc) behind the ruling elites so that their thoughts could be turned into actions. In the end, who is actually manipulating whom? Is it the ruling elites who thinks those obedient subservients are there to serve them? Or the subservients themselves who knows they are there to serve the elites, but have to steer them in the direction they want?
Chomsky just wants you to think there is only a one way game, but the Straussians and lobbyists, knowing how the game works, devised a strategy to turn the whole thing on its head. That is why what's emphasized are always fronted with the term democracy (which the whole media bought), or by creating the ever closer shared mutual interest to the point that we automatically think everything is in our national interest even if it happens half way around the world.
"If Palestine consisted of a one square mile plot, in the middle of the Negev, I still think that the Israelis would be determined to crush it. The problem, as they see it, seems to be non-Jews having sovereignty over what they consider Jewish lands."
History doesn't seem to back up this view point. Israel became a country in 1948 and immediately it was attacked by Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and other Arab countries. On the other hand, Israel has controlled the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1967 and they haven't tried to kick out the Palestinians.
When Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians were left to rot. Egypt and Jordan didn't build schools, roads, power utilities, or water treatment plants. No one called for the creation of a Palestinian State. No one told Jordan to pull out of the West Bank. No one told Egypt to get out of Gaza. The UN didn't pass resolutions demanding the creation of a Palestinian State. Nothing was done for the Palestinians.
Since 1967, Israel has controlled the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They have built up Palestinian infrastructure. They have built roads, schools, water treatment plants, etc. After much prodding, Israel has even agreed in principle to the creation of a Palestinian State. The Barak Government gave into all of the demands of Clinton and Arafat, except one, giving up old Jerusalem. Arafat wouldn't bend on any issues. If Arafat had said that Israel could keep Jerusalem, there would be a an independent Palestinian Country today. Israel funds the Palestinian state. Without Israeli funds, the Palestinian Government would collapse within a year. Arab countries haven't given much money to Palestinians except when they give money to the parents of suicide bombers.
Are there some Israeli racists? Certainly. They have built up settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an attempt to force Israel to keep the land. They have even formed the Kach party that mandated annexation and forcible removal of Palestinians. Of course, the Israeli Supreme Court banned that party after the Israel passed a elections law that banned parties that incited racism.
I really have a hard time understanding how someone could reach the conclusion that Israel is an evil rogue terrorist state.
Hedges seems to almost like the idea of Israel being destroyed....
DcBeltway, the last time I heard the name "James Petras" was in grad school. Thanks for posting his article.
It's too bad Common Dreams is censoring certain posters. I would've thought it would be above such stuff.
Hi gyptian, How are you today?
Sudan is an excellent example for Manufacturing Consent.
If you includes the Genocide is south Sudan during the 1990th + the current Genocide in Darfur, you will see that the number of victims is exceeding the Israely Palestinian conflict by 500 (2.3 million deads). Yet CD publish 10 times more article on Israel. (And I'm not even get into the question who's fault is it)
Is it not a classic example of Manufacturing Consent?
There are even better examples such as the coflict of Congo / Rowanda (a staggering total of 5 million dead).
Here we go again vets !!
This article is about israel and not Darfur. Its only natural we discuss israel. Maybe when we discuss the brutal killings in Darfur committed by the janjaweed we can use israel as this stellar example, this shining star that is committed to world peace and all that nonsense, yeah ... what say ?
Hedges is absolutely right in denouncing the crimes committed by the israeli state.
Noam Chomsky's background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky
More from that article:
Contrary to Chomsky, by going to war in the Middle East the US sacrifices the vital interests of the oil companies in favor of Israel?s quest for Middle East hegemony at the call and behest of the pro-Israel lobby. In the lobbying contest there is absolutely no contest between the pro-Israel power bloc and the oil companies when it comes to favoring Israeli interests over oil interests, whether the issue is war or oil contracts. Chomsky never examines the comparative strength of the two lobbies regarding US policy toward the Middle East. In general this usually busy researcher devoted to uncovering obscure documentation is particularly lax when it come to uncovering readily available documents, which shred his assertions about Big Oil and the Israel Lobby.
Chomsky refuses to analyze the diplomatic disadvantages that accrue to the US in vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning Israel?s systematic violations of human rights. Neither the military-industrial complex nor Big Oil has a stranglehold on US voting behavior in the UN. The pro-Israel lobbies are the only major lobby pressuring for the vetoes, against the US? closest allies, world public opinion and at the cost of whatever role the US could play as a ?mediator? between the Arabic-Islamic world and Israel.
Chomsky fails to discuss the role of the Lobby in electing Congress-people, their funding of pro-Israel candidates and the over fifty-million dollars they spend on the Parties, candidates and propaganda campaigns. The result is a 90% congressional vote on high priority items pushed by the Lobby and affiliated local and regional pro-Israel federations.
Nor does he undertake to analyze the cases of candidates defeated by the Lobby, the abject apologies extracted from Congress-people who have dared to question the policies and tactics of the Lobby, and the intimidation effect of its ?exemplary punishments? on the rest of Congress. The ?snowball? effect of punishment and payoffs is one reason for the unprecedented majorities in favor of all of AIPAC?s initiatives. Chomsky?s feeble attempts to equate the AIPAC?s pro-Israel initiatives with broader US policy interests is patently absurd to anyone who studies the alignment of policy groups associated with designing, pressuring, backing and co-sponsoring the AIPAC?s measures: The reach of the Jewish lobby far exceeds its electoral constituency ? as the one million dollar slush fund to defeat incumbent Georgia Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinny demonstrates. That she was subsequently re-elected on the basis of low keying her criticism of Israel reveals the Lobby?s impact even on consequential democrats.
Isreal is not used as a base in the region nor as a pit-bull for US interests as so many argue here. If this was the case why would all these Israeli lobbying organizations exist in the first place as they would not serve any purpose. $1,350,000 was given by Pro-Isreali packs during the 2005-2006 election cycle to Congress.
This is because there are a plethora of US bases sprinked throughout the region particularily where the oil is in the Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq and Bahrain. The US does not have a base on Israeli soil at all. Plus we have lots of US carriers in the Gulf to protect our so called "oil interests". Israel therefore is not needed to protect the oil. If anything our unwavering support of Israel is a liability to the oil industry if you all remember the OPEC boycott back in the 1970's and the "oil weapon" the Arab nations used and what that did to the US economy. The Arabs could just as easily sell their oil to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians and others with less of a hassel which they are increasingly doing. I would also like to add the Arabian Gulf States are increasingly diversifying their economies so that their economies are no longer dependent on the sales of oil to foreigners and Americans are looking into alternative fuels. However, aid to Israel continues to increase.
More from the same:
Contrary to Chomsky, by going to war in the Middle East the US sacrifices the vital interests of the oil companies in favor of Israel?s quest for Middle East hegemony at the call and behest of the pro-Israel lobby. In the lobbying contest there is absolutely no contest between the pro-Israel power bloc and the oil companies when it comes to favoring Israeli interests over oil interests, whether the issue is war or oil contracts. Chomsky never examines the comparative strength of the two lobbies regarding US policy toward the Middle East. In general this usually busy researcher devoted to uncovering obscure documentation is particularly lax when it come to uncovering readily available documents, which shred his assertions about Big Oil and the Israel Lobby.
Chomsky refuses to analyze the diplomatic disadvantages that accrue to the US in vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning Israel?s systematic violations of human rights. Neither the military-industrial complex nor Big Oil has a stranglehold on US voting behavior in the UN. The pro-Israel lobbies are the only major lobby pressuring for the vetoes, against the US? closest allies, world public opinion and at the cost of whatever role the US could play as a ?mediator? between the Arabic-Islamic world and Israel.
Chomsky fails to discuss the role of the Lobby in electing Congress-people, their funding of pro-Israel candidates and the over fifty-million dollars they spend on the Parties, candidates and propaganda campaigns. The result is a 90% congressional vote on high priority items pushed by the Lobby and affiliated local and regional pro-Israel federations.
Nor does he undertake to analyze the cases of candidates defeated by the Lobby, the abject apologies extracted from Congress-people who have dared to question the policies and tactics of the Lobby, and the intimidation effect of its ?exemplary punishments? on the rest of Congress. The ?snowball? effect of punishment and payoffs is one reason for the unprecedented majorities in favor of all of AIPAC?s initiatives. Chomsky?s feeble attempts to equate the AIPAC?s pro-Israel initiatives with broader US policy interests is patently absurd to anyone who studies the alignment of policy groups associated with designing, pressuring, backing and co-sponsoring the AIPAC?s measures: The reach of the Jewish lobby far exceeds its electoral constituency ? as the one million dollar slush fund to defeat incumbent Georgia Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinny demonstrates. That she was subsequently re-elected on the basis of low keying her criticism of Israel reveals the Lobby?s impact even on consequential democrats.
Chomsky ignores the unmatchable power of elite convocation which the Lobby has. The AIPAC annual meeting draws all the major leaders in Congress, key members of the Cabinet, over half of all members of Congress who pledge unconditional support for Israel and even identify Israel?s interests as US interests. No other lobby can secure this degree of attendance of the political elite, this degree of abject servility, for so many years, among both major parties. What is particularly important is the ?Jewish electorate? is less than 5% of the total electorate, while practicing Jews number less than 2% of the population of which not all are ?Israel Firsters?.
None of the major lobbies like the NRA, AARP, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Chamber of Commerce can convoke such a vast array of political leaders, let alone secure their unconditional support for favorable pro-Israel legislation and Executive orders. No less an authority as the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, boasted of the power of the pro-Israel lobby over US Middle East policy. Chomsky merely asserts that the Pro-Israel lobby is just like any other lobby, without any serious effort to compare their relative influence, power of convocation and bi-partisan support, or effectiveness in securing high priority legislation.
In his analysis of the run-up to the US-Iraq War, Chomsky?s otherwise meticulous review of foreign policy documents, analysis of political linkages between policymakers and power centers is totally abandoned in favor of impressionistic commentaries completely devoid of any empirical basis. The principal governmental architects of the war, the intellectual promoters of the war, their publicly enunciated published strategies for the war were all deeply attached to the Israel lobby and worked for the Israeli state. Wolfowitz, number 2 in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, number 3 in the Pentagon, Richard Perle, head of the Defense Board, Elliot Abrams in charge of Middle East affairs for the National Security Council, and dozens of other key operatives in the government and ideologues in the mass media were life-long fanatical activists in favor of Israel, some of whom had lost security clearances in previous administrations for handing over documents to the Israeli government.
Chomsky ignores the key strategy documents written by Perle, Wurmser, Feith and other ZionCons in the late 1990s demanding bellicose action against Iraq, Iran and Syria, which they subsequently implemented when they took power with Bush?s election. Chomsky totally ignores the disinformation office set up in the Pentagon by ultra Zionist Douglas Feith ? the so-called ?Office of Special Plans? ? run by fellow ZionCon Abram Shumsky to channel bogus ?data? to the White House ? bypassing and discrediting CIA and military intelligence which contradicted their disinformation. Non-Zionist specialist in the Pentagon?s Middle East office Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski described in great detail the easy and constant flow of Mossad and Israeli military officers in and out of Feith?s office, while critical US experts were virtually barred.
None of these key policymakers promoting the war had any connection to the military-industrial complex or Big Oil, but all were deeply and actively tied to the State of Israel and backed by the Lobby. Astonishingly Chomsky, famous for his criticism of intellectuals enamored with imperial power and uncritical academics, pursues a similar path when it concerns pro-Israel intellectuals in power and their Zionist academic colleagues. The problem is not only the ?lobby? pressuring from outside, but their counterparts within the State.
Chomsky frequently criticized the half-hearted criticism by liberals of US foreign policy, yet he nowhere raises a single peep about the absolute silence of Jewish progressives about the major role of the Lobby in promoting the invasion of Iraq. At no point does he engage in debate or criticism of the scores of Israel First academic supporters of war with Iraq, Iran or Syria. Instead his criticism of the war revolves around the role of Party leaders, the Bush Administration etc? without any attempt to understand the organized basis and ideological mentors of the militarists.
Chomsky and the Pro-Israeli lobby:
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=7&more=1&c=1
What utter nonsense vets. Every time somebody writes a critical article about Israel somebody starts spouting the same kind of inane non-sequiturs you just issued here. By your ridiculous standards, nobody can write any critical article about any country, since no one country is the cause of ALL the problems in the world. Hedges never claims Israel is the cause of ALL the problems in the world, but as the key aggressor in the most strategically vital and politicaly sensitive region on earth, he is absolutely correct to focus his attention on it. As an American, he is especially morally-bound to do so, as his tax dollars go towards funding that expansioninst settler-state (and all the crimes this entails), money without which said state would likely cease to exist, as he asserts.
The "comparison to other countries" meme is also nonsense. If Israel's "high moral standards" are based purely on judging itself marginally better than the group of brutal, oppressive kleptocracies that run the Arab states in the region it is no wonder it commits the crimes it does. One could easily claim the US wasn't as bad as the Nazis in Vietnam, so why should those 2 million dead Vietnamese complain? Give me a break.
dcbeltway: the entire country of Israel exists as "a virtual offshore US military base," in the words of Noam Chomsky. Specific bases aren't needed. Make no mistake: Israel would cease to exist within days if the Middle East's oil ran out tomorrow. Somebody made a remark above about Israel's nuclear weapons protecting it, but all they would do is ensure its destruction (and make it mutual). If a nuclear weapon ever detonates anywhere in the Middle East, Israel would likely be destroyed almost immediately. It would make little difference to any (few) survivors in such a situation if Syria, Jordan and Egypt shared its fate.
By reading Chris Hedges's article, one would assume there is only one problem in the world. And that problem is called Israel, a tiny democracy consists of ~0.2% of the Middle East land mass and ~3% of the Middle East population.
The article suggest that If only Israel would disappear, all the problems in the world will be gone. They sun will shine. Human, all over the globe will stop fighting and killing each other, the USA would suddenly be loved by all (Including the Fundamentalists who seek to kill all non Muslims, and by China). In one sentence - Haven will descend on earth, and everything will be so wonderful.
From reading this article one might assume that Israel is the #1 human right violator in the world, where the actual truth is that if you take into account legalize Gays, freedom of speech, thought and religion, Woman equality - you might actually find out that Israel is the lease human right violator in the Middle east.
From reading this article one might think that Israel is an Apartheid state, where the actual truth is that it is the least Apartheid state in the whole Middle East. (Try to compare the Israeli law to let's say some moderate states such as Jordan (Where anyone who sell land to Jews is executed) or Saudi Arabia.)
From reading this article - one would suspect that Israel is the sole, or at least the main reason why the USA have invaded Iraq. And why the USA have trade deficit with China.
But a guess, proper, unbiased research is too much for Chris Hedges. He would rather demonize, and judge, the only democracy in the middle east out of context and without any proper comparison to any other Middle Eastern country.
dcbeltway
I hear you .I have no desire to excuse the europeans treatment of religious minorities. That's why my granddad got on that boat 12 or so generations ago.
The fact that this excellent article is not carried by the MSM and will never be carried by the MSM says it all. Israel owns America and routinely embarrasses and endangers it for its own selfish reasons. Go back to sentence #1 to understand why there is no outrage in the USA over this. Europe's racism and mistreatment of the Jews merited relief, and a Jewish homeland. But, conveniently, Europe's sins were visited on poor Palestinians. 95% of the problems in the Middle East stem from this terrible injustice.
Fonisblue majority of those Jews chose to emmigrate to Israel.Yes, some were kicked out of Arab countries with the creation of Israel because the Israelis did the same to the Arabs. However, the Arabs historically have had a far better track record in welcoming and integrating Jews into their lands then the Europeans. What should also be noted is that Israel does have alot of problems with discrimination towards the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews.
Unfortunately no amount of sobbing about how badly Jewish people were treated in the past (and its all definitely true) can justify what israel is doing to the Palestinians now. I can give you some real heart-rending stories about how badly the Gypsies have ( and are ) being treated. Maybe we should form a new state in europe and 'herd' them all in there and arm them to the teeth ?
It has occurred to me for a long time that if the US were to stop supporting Israel she would have to make peace with her neighbors or be over run. It also has occurred to me that at some point we will abandon Israel and she will cease to exist. That is, unless she makes peace with her neighbors. I concluded a long time ago that Israel will never see peace as long as it remains a client state of the US. In the long run Israel may be doomed. The question is, how much damage will the US sustain in the mean time?
Restore Democracy: I think you offer the most enlightened views in this discussion, and I thank you for sharing them. In some respects, religions (and their long established traditions of exclusivity) along with the BELIEF in scarcity and the economic model that essentially plunders the earth all work together to cause the rifts between persons. When things get tough enough, and global warming will lead in that lesson plan, we will either annihilate one another or learn to work together as the brothers and sisters, purposeful different branches blooming from the tree of life, that we were intended to be. IN every one of us exists a tension between "the lower self," raw self-interest, and the ideals that make us live in a manner that honors Creator. This is the test to nations and individuals. How are we doing, USA citizens? Do you ever ask that question ON YOUR OWN birthday? Well, all this red team/blue team, division, weapons sales, PR to make MIGHT appear right, the human being has a LONG way to go; but the ecological timeclock is not advocating slow progress at this time. Quantum leap, anyone?
DCbeltway
"Iran has the largest Jewish community in the middle east outside Israel. Tunisia, Morocco, and Syria also have large jewish communities.
I should have mentioned that some remnant populations of Jews remain in pockets of the Middle East and North Africa. Iran does indeed still have the largest jewish population in the middle east, around 20,000. Unfortunatly, the jewish population in 1900 was 40,000. This is the LEAST reduction in the middle east.
As far as the others on the list, it is pretty dismal.
Morocco had 109,000 in 1900 now 5000. Tunisia had 63,000 now 1500. Syria had 65,000 in 1900, now less than 100.
a sample of other jewish communities destroyed would be
Saudi Arabia Then 30,000 now 0.
Egypt Then 30,000 now >100
Algeria Then 51,000 now >100
Iraq Then 40,000 now >50
The sad fact of the matter is that URAGUAY has a jewish population that is larger than all of the middle east and north africa combined. (excluding Israel)
I stand by my original statement.
Fondisblue: Now that all jewish communities in the middle east and north africa have been blamed for the creation of Isreal and have been destroyed, there are are virtually no jews left in this huge area. Except in Israel.
Iran has the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside Israel. Tunisia, Morocco, and Syria also have large Jewish communities.
Shark007, there is a difference between demanding a renouncement from someone and one's moral obligation. You can't force someone to obligate their duty morally. I know all the other examples are bad, but there is nothing else even close could used as an example. It was the whole thought of transposing the situtation to someone else, and the denouncing the "bad muslims" as a litmus test to becoming accepted as a "good muslim" is the most common and widespread used one, even by liberals.
Just for the record, Kucinich is an AIPAC ring kisser too. I was with him in Los Angeles at a big church downtown when he was telling the story of how proud he is to be a supporter of Israel. "It's an honor to be with you Mr. Netanyahu," he gushed while telling his story of how they met.
But of course my favorite quote is from Sharon. He was on the Knesset floor arguing politics and someone mentioned the United States. He screamed at the person, "I don't care what the United States says!! We OWN the United States!" Just check the record, it's there.
I'm afraid that I have to stand behind my " If Israel were one square mile, I believe that the arabs would still be determined to crush it" statement.
I'm not jewish, and I really don't agree with everything that Israel has done .(settlements mostly).
However, I do believe in speaking the truth as I see it. And the truth of the matter is that saying that jews and arabs lived together in peace before Israel is not really true . You could say that blacks and whites lived together in peace in 1920 Alabama, but this would not reflect the reality of how it really was.
I remember reading an account of a french traveler to Palestine in 1896, and his description of watching a jew making his "jizra" (spelling?) payment to the moslem authorities. He described how an old jewish man stood in front of a table where the the official sat. After making his required payment, the frenchman described how the official, in almost a formal way, grabbed the jewish man's beard and slapped him hard twice on both sides of the face. The frenchman went on to explain that the payment of the tax was not enough. The payment had to be made in person, and the jew had to be humiliated to show him his inferior status.
I also have a 1911 National Geographic that ran a feature on Morroco. It describe how the jews were forced to live in ghettos in the major cities where they were "granted few rights and were despised by all".
Now that all jewish communities in the middle east and north africa have been blamed for the creation of Isreal and have been destroyed, there are are virtually no jews left in this huge area. Except in Israel.
I believe that a two state solution is the only one. But it is not only Israel that has shown bad faith (and I think they have, settlements again). The Palestinian and Arab countries have also. A good place to start on their side would be to REALLY acknowledge Israel's right to exist, starting with showing the pre-1967 Israel on maps and not claiming sovereignty over the area "from the river to the sea". They also must stop the hate filled, racist demonization of the jews ( that would make Goebbels blush)that is reflected in their educational, media, and religious outlets.
I am encouraged that the majority of Israelis , as opposed to a small minority only 20 years ago, support a two party state. If people of goodwill, on both sides, can take back control of the process maybe we will finally have peace.
Mordechai;
you can go upstairs now. Mommy has a bagel for you.
The last 2,000 years has been rough for us Christ-killers. We're getting a little tired of being kicked around. So you guys can bitch all you want, but don't f**k with us, unless you want to see 5 million Bruce Willises ream you new assholes.
The relationship between the U.S. and Israel brings out the worst in both countries. It's helped to drag the U.S. even further down the road of empire, militarism, and isolation from the international community. There is a pro-Palestinian, pro-peace lobby now that has finally gotten off the ground -- American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights, AAPER (americansforpalestine.org). But it seems like bringing human rights accountability to foreign policy is a systemic issue of challenging how the financial elites, corporate/weapons contractors, narrow interest lobbies, and 'experts'drive foreign policy. Congressman Delahunt's Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and accountability has been doing some good work and deserves support, recently investigating U.S. corporate ties to Colombian militias who have assassinated trade union activists. That could be a platform for raising the U.S. Israel question, once there's enough public support.
Fondisblue said:
"If Israel consisted of a one square mile plot, in the middle of the negev {sic}, I still think that the arabs {sic} would be determined to crush it."
The above statement revised on the basis of irrefutable evidence on the ground:
If Israel consisted of only one-square-mile plot in the middle of the Negev, I definitely believe it would try to devour the entire Middle East unless they are stopped by the "terrorists" who lived there before1948.
Be careful! Say anything bad about Israel and you will be censured. DailyKos cut off my ability to comment on blogs after I made an anti Israel comment. Be it conservative or liberal, the one thing you cannot do in America is criticize Israel.