Before looking at a new article on Israeli influence on US foreign policy, I'm going to make a few general observations on the subject. It's very possible to talk about that issue sensibly and pragmatically, though it's often discussed otherwise.
First, many "neoconservatives" support hard line policies associated with the associated with the rightwing Israeli Likud Party, which is currently split into two parties, Likud and Kadima. And many prominent neocons are themselves Jewish, though by no means all of them. I've discussed their political affinity for and personal connections to Likud here before.
But the support for hardline, Likud-type policies that the Bush administration has practiced is literally more Christian than Jewish. Most Jews in America consistently favor negotiations with the Palestinians and do not identify strongly with Likud positions. The Christian Right, however, generally support what's called the "Christian Zionist" view, which emphasizes support for hardline, anti-negotiation actions by Israel and outright opposes more moderate policies. I've posted a number of times about that viewpoint both here and at The Blue Voice. The Christian Right has become the most important single voting bloc for the Republican Party. Jewish voters in 2004 went with John Kerry by and overwhelming margin, despite Bush's support for the hardline policies of Ariel Sharon's Likud government.
Second, Israel actively tries to influence the foreign policies of the United States. So do Russia, France, Moldavia and I suppose every other country in the world. That's called "foreign relations". And in itself there's nothing inherently sinister about it.
But when even friendly countries cross the line of propriety in dealings with the US, they are subject to retaliatory actions. These aren't everyday occurrences. But they aren't rare, either. We've seen that in the case of Israel recently with the Larry Franklin/AIPAC espionage case. (Franklin, by the way, is not Jewish.)
We've also seen a serious diplomatic flap between the US and Israel even under the Bush administration over Israeli technology transfers to China, which has apparently been covered only lightly in the US mainstream press. So, for all its neocon policies and its partisan dependence on the "Christian Zionists", even the Bush administration has been willing to differ in a serious way with Israel when the administration understood a serious US national-security interest was at stake.
Third, American interests diverge sharply right now from the Likud/Kadima policies on the occupied territories, whether or not the Bush administration recognizes that or acts on it. At least in theory, the administration supports a "road map" for peace negotiations that differs from those policies. But, in practice, the administration has backed the hardliners both actively and passively.
The US should be interested in promoting a peaceful and final diplomatic settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And everyone knows what the main sticking point is, the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Whether it's irrational or not, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a major issue in the Muslim world. A meaningful settlement of that would be the single most important thing the US could do right now that would improve relations with Muslim countries, with the possible exception of withdrawing American troops from Iraq. The neocons are dead set against that and so are the Christian Right.
It's perfectly possible to criticize Israeli policies and American policy toward Israel without being anti-Semitic. That said, it's standard practice among anti-Semites to use criticisms of Israel to promote anti-Jewish ideas. The notion that Americans Jews are some kind of disloyal Fifth Column of Israel is pretty much a stock assumption of that crowd. The reader can verify that easily enough by browsing a couple of anti-Semitic Web sites. I don't really like to link to them; they're unfortunately easy enough to find.
Here's an article that is, at best, very careless in the way it talks about Israel's influence on American policies: Another War for Israel: The amen corner howls for war with Iran by Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com 03/06/06.
The Israelis have been loudly howling for months about the prospect of a nuclear Iran: their amen corner in the U.S. has gone into overdrive, pushing for sanctions and drawing a dire picture of nuke-wielding "mad mullahs." The world was shocked when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map, yet it has to be said that even the maddest mullahs don't imagine nuking Washington, D.C. Iran's nukes, if it ever acquires any – in 10 years' time, like the experts say – will more than likely target Tel Aviv, not Toledo.
Yet in one important sense, at least, the former is just as American as the latter – at least it is in the eyes of American decision-makers, who conduct U.S. foreign policy as if Israel were the 51st state. An outstanding example of this unique symbiosis is the news that the Israelis have penetrated Iran via U.S.-occupied Iraq, with the full complicity and assistance of the Americans ...
If I were trying to say the above, I would put it something like this: The Israelis are pressing for near-term action against Iran's nuclear program, as are "Iran hawks" like Michael Ledeen among the neoconservatives in America. There is bipartisan sentiment for some kind of sanctions, while the hawks present a scary image of "mad mullahs" with nukes. Conservatives who had dismissed the previous reformist president of Iran as holding insignificant powers now portray the current president's extremist remarks about the Holocaust and Israel as signalling an immediate threat. The most immediate target of any future Iranian nuclear weapons would be presenting a deterrance and balance against Israel's nuclear force, not any kind of direct threat to America.
Since Israel is the most important ally of the US in the Middle East, this itself is a matter of serious concern. Israel cooperates closely with the US in many areas. For example, Israeli Special Forces are reported to be operating inside Iran with American support to gather intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. One hopes that any information gained thereby is more accurate than the intelligence reports the Israelis were providing on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction".
That would be an accurate - and critical - statement of the situation. What exactly does all the talk about the Israelis' "amen cornter in the U.S." add? (That phrase was made notorious by Pat Buchanan in the buildup to the 1991 Gulf War, which he opposed.) What does it say to claim that "American decision-makers" consider Tel Aviv as American as Toledo and that they regard Israel as the 51st state? It pretty much just says, hey, we know who the real decision-makers in America are, don't we? (Nudge-nudge, wink-wink)
In the remainder of the article, Raimondo treats us to insights such as: "the extension of American power in the Middle East has allowed Tel Aviv's tentacles to slither all the way to the Euphrates and beyond – to Tehran"; "Israel's partisans" are "furiously beating the drums for war"; and, the machinations of the "War Party" (all-caps; one of his favorites).
It's also worth noting that he doesn't stress the party affiliations of virtually all the neocons, i.e., Republican. But he does stress that he finds the Democrats even more sinister allies of the "War Party" than the Reps:
As to whether they'll let the War Party get away with pulling another fast one, that remains to be seen. The Republicans, if they are smart, will bet on "no" and back away from the abyss, while the Democrats blithely step off the ledge and invite the rest of the country to come with them. The Bushies are already under fire for going soft on those Ay-rabs with the Dubai port-management brouhaha [Raimondo supports the UAE port deal], and the Democrats show every sign of taking up with alacrity Marshall Wittmann's advice and outflanking the GOP on "national security" issues, i.e., out-warmongering the Republicans.
As the next presidential campaign season looms, the prospect of John McCain and Hillary Clinton going at it mano a mano, in a contest to see who can bluster with a more convincing bellicosity – well, all I can say is that the presidential debates will redefine gender roles for the next hundred years, and it isn't going to be pretty.
The Democrats, he says, aqre "ahead of [more hawkish than] the Republicans (and certainly ahead of the Bush administration) on the Iran issue".
Let me get this straight. The Israelis and their "amen corner" among the "War Party" in the United States are frantically pushing for war, the latter at the bidding of their masters in Tel Aviv. Currently their main instrument for this is the Democratic Party, while the Bush administration in comparison is so far showing an admirable restraint against the Israeli-directed "War Party", who expect American "decision-makers" to act as though Israel was their own country.
Justin Raimondo is actually capable of doing decent analysis. Why does he waste his time cranking out stuff like this?
No comments:
Post a Comment