|
East Valley Tribune, AZ - July 23, 2006
U.S. support of Israel harms Mideast
Alaa Bayoumi
In his book “Failed States,” Noam Chomsky writes that, “Pursuit of total security by one state . . . entails the insecurity of others, who are likely to react.” Chomsky was talking about the foreign policy of the Bush administration, but the same analysis fits Israel today.
The Bush administration, under the influence of the neocons, and Israel, under Ehud Olmert’s right-wing Kadima Party, are pursuing a strategy of total security that is destabilizing the whole Middle East, if not the whole world, and spreading insecurity among other nations.
After 9/11, the Bush administration adopted a strategy of “preemptive” and “unilateral” action that sought to change regimes around the world and to reshape entire regions, particularly the Middle East, in order to win a vaguely defined “global war on terror.”
Five years later, al-Qaida’s top leaders are still free. Afghanistan’s transformation from turmoil to normalcy is more uncertain than any other time. Iraq is on the edge of civil war and has become a main training ground for terror. World public opinion’s opposition to our policies is unprecedented. And, competition and disagreement among world powers are souring over the access to oil resources and markets, pushing prices to alltime high.
An article by Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, published in the July issue of Foreign Affairs has declared “the end of the Bush revolution.”
Unfortunately, the uncertain end of the Bush revolution did not come free of charge. The administration’s aggressive unilateral policies and its vague threatening moral rhetoric have increased the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush revolution also hurt the Middle East more than any other area. Today, Arab democracy is in retreat. The destinies of Iraq and Somalia are uncertain. Most frightening of all, the Middle East could be on the verge of a region-wide war.
The Bush administration’s one-sided support for Israel’s governments has ended the peace process. We have supported Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, its refusal to negotiate with any Palestinian partner, and its brutal siege on the Palestinian civilian population. Today, our core Arab allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are shying away from even talking about the peace process.
More dangerously, the current Israeli government under Ehud Olmert is pursuing a strategy of total security that could lead to an open multinational war in the Middle East.
Israel has launched an all-out war on two peoples in response to the kidnapping of a handful of its own soldiers. Israel itself holds thousands of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese people — men, women and children who have been in Israeli jails for many years.
If our government does not act to stop Israel’s aggressive actions, America will lose the support of the great majority of the Arab people and governments.
What we need now is an immediate cease-fire and an international conference to which all major parties to the conflict and world powers should be invited. This conference should work on establishing a new security system for the Middle East that offers mutual security assurances for all countries, announces the Middle East as a nuclear weapons-free zone, encourages the spread of democracy and human rights in the Arab world, finds a just and peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, encourages cooperation in fighting terrorism, and builds clear channels of communication among all countries in the Middle East. If guaranteed by the world major powers, such channels could prevent future conflicts.
Washington Post – July 16, 2006
A Beautiful Friendship?
In search of the truth about the Israel lobby's influence on Washington
By Glenn Frankel
Thanks to the work of the lobby and its allies, Israel gets more direct foreign aid -- about $3 billion a year -- than any other nation. There's a file cabinet somewhere in the State Department full of memoranda of understanding on military, diplomatic and economic affairs. Israel gets treated like a NATO member when it comes to military matters and like Canada or Mexico when it comes to free trade. There's an annual calendar full of meetings of joint strategic task forces and other collaborative sessions. And there's a presidential pledge, re-avowed by Bush in the East Room, that the United States will come to Israel's aid in the event of attack.
On Capitol Hill the Israel lobby commands large majorities in both the House and Senate. Polls show strong public support for Israel -- a connection that has grown even deeper after the September 11 attacks. The popular equation goes like this: Israelis equal good guys, Arabs equal terrorists. Working the Hill these days, says Josh Block, spokesman for the premier Israeli lobbying group known as AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "is like pushing at an open door."
Not everyone believes this is a good thing. In March two distinguished political scientists -- Stephen Walt from Harvard and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago -- published a 42-page, heavily footnoted essay arguing that the Bush administration's support for Israel and its related effort to spread democracy throughout the Middle East have "inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security."
The professors claim that our intimate partnership with Israel is both dangerous and unprecedented. "Other special interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest," they argue. They go on to say that the war in Iraq "was due in large part to the Lobby's influence," and that the same combine is "using all of the strategies in its playbook" to pressure the administration into being aggressive and belligerent with Iran. The bottom line: "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying."
A sweet deal for Israel, in other words, but a very bad one for America….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627_pf.html
|
