tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post7059107473448871137..comments2024-01-21T02:42:13.447-05:00Comments on Middle East Reality: Capitalism, imperialism and ZionismArnold Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445744338502151561noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-19134584900568574472014-03-10T11:58:46.400-04:002014-03-10T11:58:46.400-04:00ISRAEL IS NOT AMERICA'S ALLY
IT'S A CO C...ISRAEL IS NOT AMERICA'S ALLY <br />IT'S A CO CONSPIRATOR IN THE<br />CONTROL AND DOMINANCE OF<br />THE MIDDLE EAST.ROBERTL QUETZALCOATLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-60004654885918169502011-11-29T11:07:17.044-05:002011-11-29T11:07:17.044-05:00I have a pretty poor connection to the internet ri...I have a pretty poor connection to the internet right now. If you post a cleaner copy in the same place, I'll delete the old one when disqus is more responsive. But I could read it what you wrote.<br /><br />I would say that the US was in a very strong position in 1950, and the fact that Israel did not cause the US to be forced out of the Middle East by 1990 does not mean Israel was helpful rather than a burden the US successfully carried.<br /><br />I don't think there was any year that the US' Middle East goals were easier to reach because of Israel - other than the goal of sustaining Israel.<br /><br />In 1950, the threats to the US everywhere were anti-Western nationalism and alignment with the US' Soviet rivals.<br /><br />Those were threats all over the world, but Israel made those threats even more acute in the Middle East. Israel inflamed nationalism and made alignment with the USSR, which again, was militantly athiest, much more palatable for people who did or could hold power in the region.<br /><br />The US advanced its capitalist and imperial objectives despite the additional difficulty that Israel added.Arnold Evanshttp://mideastreality.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-19876908912611465832011-11-29T03:14:35.994-05:002011-11-29T03:14:35.994-05:00Arnold I am afraid I made a mess in writing my las...Arnold I am afraid I made a mess in writing my last comment (I think I coppied and pasted it twice) if you wish you can delete it and I will re-post it again.Pirouz_2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-82649159356343607742011-11-28T23:52:56.330-05:002011-11-28T23:52:56.330-05:00I completely agree the two interests coincides, al...I completely agree the two interests coincides, although the burden make the policy implementation more difficult but at the same time at least made US’s regional presence( mediator) more overtly legal with help of client states to control or shape regional opinions. Beside the extra burden away from home keeps the burden of noise from a powerful and rich minority quite at home for making the operations agreeable to home population.Kooshynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-53377008134720796802011-11-28T15:02:24.099-05:002011-11-28T15:02:24.099-05:00Most Palestinians I know say the same thing. One w...Most Palestinians I know say the same thing. One who went to medical school in Syria and thus lived in Damascus for 6 years absolutely hates Assad and the entire government. Syrians I talk to are divided by sectarian lines (which is what worries me greatly) Syrian Christians I've met are very pro-Assad. I have not knowingly met any Aliwites.<br /><br />Overall, I can't support Assad's continued rule, but I'm very worried about the aftermath. There are many malevolent forces surrounding Syria who will gladly destroy it.lysander1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-64902858722378113992011-11-28T14:55:57.299-05:002011-11-28T14:55:57.299-05:00Yes I agree. Israel does make colonial ventures mo...Yes I agree. Israel does make colonial ventures more difficult, (but I sort of see that as the silver lining.) My point was that even in the absence of Israel, the US would still likely strive for a colonial relationship, much as it did in Latin America. Perhaps not to this extent, and probably not with the degree of hostility evidenced now. And Iran would be like Brazil. Meaning the US would seek a compliant government if practical, (as in Brazil, 1964) But would accept it as is if not (Brazil today)lysander1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-28825310567784561232011-11-28T14:20:57.336-05:002011-11-28T14:20:57.336-05:00Lysander1
Re Pat Lang
The local Palestinians I kn...Lysander1<br />Re Pat Lang<br /><br />The local Palestinians I know, however, are not (mildly surprising to me) excited one way or another about Assad keeping power, nor were they fans of Khaddafi. On the others, they would agree with your sentiments.amspirnationalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-7588804181861570612011-11-28T13:55:28.154-05:002011-11-28T13:55:28.154-05:00Of course, I agree that the support for Zionism is...Of course, I agree that the support for Zionism is neither easy no pleasurable for USA :( After all, the standing ovations for Netaniahu put USA rulers into ridiculous position. Lidianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-2955926024265524532011-11-28T09:53:03.474-05:002011-11-28T09:53:03.474-05:00I sure agree that USA support for "Jewish sta...<i>I sure agree that USA support for "Jewish state" costs are great. But <br />who is paying for them? Big oil? They still seem not to go broke. <br />Average Americans? Do they have a say in USA politics anyway? </i><br /><br />For me, the US in 1950 had a huge industrial base that had not been destroyed by the war that destroyed or at least heavily damaged every other major industrial base in the world.<br /><br />The US at that time had a huge lead. A lead that has not dissipated fully over the next 60 years.<br /><br />So anything the US had done, we'd be able today to say didn't cause any US industry to go broke. If the US had attempted to occupy China, we'd say for some long time that even if it was a mistake, it didn't cause the US to go broke.<br /><br />The US has not collapsed yet. So I'm not arguing that Zionism has caused the US to collapse. My only argument is that the US is not as well off, in its own terms, as it would be if it did not commit to Zionism.<br /><br />If the US would support the Saudi dictators anyway, it could support them more easily and comfortably if the US relationship with Israel didn't make cooperation with Americans into an act of betrayal against the Arab people and Muslim religion.Arnold Evanshttp://mideastreality.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-5284356979005108602011-11-28T09:46:32.835-05:002011-11-28T09:46:32.835-05:00For one, it would probably be easier to do. Also, ...<i>For one, it would probably be easier to do. Also, the US might be more <br />practical about it. For example, if it saw overthrowing Iran as <br />impossible, then it might seek to reach a compromise. </i><br /><br />For me that means Israel is making it harder, not easier. <br /><br />If the US cannot be practical in its pursuit of its strategic and capitalist interests because of Israel, then that is my point. Israel is a constraint, not an asset. <br /><br />I argue though, that constraint to the US translates to otherwise unnecessary suffering and death for the people of the Middle East.Arnold Evanshttp://mideastreality.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-89853859271778769762011-11-28T09:41:30.183-05:002011-11-28T09:41:30.183-05:00I agree with Chomsky that the US has been successf...I agree with Chomsky that the US has been successful in the Middle East as in, for example South America.<br /><br />My question and disagreement with Chomsky is over the question: has Israel made US success in its region more difficult or less difficult.<br /><br />For that narrow question, I think the answer is more difficult. And if my answer is correct then Israel is a burden the US carries despite its capitalist and imperialist agenda, not because of it.<br /><br />Beyond that, while the capitalist and imperialist agenda is harmful to people all over the world - Israel makes the US agenda more intensely harmful to the people of the Middle East than it would be if there was no Israel.<br /><br />Do you disagree with that?<br /><br />Not to say the US without Israel would be a benevolent force on the world. It would not. But it would be in some ways, especially in Israel's region, less intensely malevolent.<br /><br />I guess that leads to the question, is it reasonable to be concerned with Israel when even a post-Zionist world would have the US and the West still harming people all over the world, including, though less intensely, the people of the Middle East?<br /><br />My answer to that is also yes. But that starts veering towards personal choice. I can respect a person who says his or her fight is against capitalism and imperialism, not against one particular aspect of it, even if that is an unusually destructive one.Arnold Evanshttp://mideastreality.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-77958740428993972582011-11-28T00:57:01.415-05:002011-11-28T00:57:01.415-05:00An excellent analysis, Arnold. Thanks for that.
&...An excellent analysis, Arnold. Thanks for that.<br /><br />"Because of this lobbying, the United States pays a far higher price to<br />achieve its capitalist and imperialist objectives than it does<br />elsewhere in the world and that it would if it advocated a South<br />Africa-style one state resolution to the conflict over Zionism."<br /><br />That is probably true and if so we can thank heaven for small favors. There is a class of American policy makers who are entirely comfortable with American imperialism but view Israel as dead weight that hinders US objectives. When in office, they have to be very quiet about their feelings, but in retirement they can be more open.<br /><br />Pat Lang is the perfect example. In is blog he spends a lot of time pointing out how Israeli influence is forcing the US to conduct policies harmful to itself. This is all to his credit and I commend him for doing so. But when you get to the specific policies, he does not seem entirely out of line with what Israel partisans would want.<br /><br />Regarding Egypt, he was a defender of Mubarak, and subsequently Omar Suleiman (whom he knew personally and apparently respected) he seems to be sympathetic to the military junta now ruling. On the other hand, he was big advocate for intervention in Libya. He continues to advocate for intervention in Syria, he seems quite at ease with the ruling classes in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, he was pro-Green during the post election protests in Iran. In other words, his position in practical terms seems to be quite complimentary to what Israel advocates would want.<br /><br />Why that is is an interesting question. Israel does indeed make US policy harder. But as to your points about not needing to subject Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc under puppet rule in the absence of Israel, I'm not sure I agree. It is entirely plausible that the US would support the House of Saud, Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah, etc. They would not feel as emotional about it. But they would still be doing it.<br /><br />To corroborate this, we can look at US policy elsewhere, where there is no Israel. You mentioned Brazil, so let us start with that. In 1964, the US strongly backed a military coup that overthrew the elected president. It also helped to overthrow elected governments in Chile, Guatemala, Cuba, etc. Probably every government in South America was overthrown at one point. Advocates of American power would argue these were needed to fight the USSR. If so, what then explains the US backed failed coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002? Or the successful coup in Honduras in 2009? Or the invasion of Nicaragua in 1936? Or the Monroe doctrine in 1825? What is the reason behind hostility to Cuba today?<br /><br />Point being that the US as a hegemonic power seeks, whenever possible and practicable, to implant friendly, even submissive governments whenever it can. In the absence of Israel, it would likely still want to do so in the middle east. <br /><br />It would not be entirely the same as now. For one, it would probably be easier to do. Also, the US might be more practical about it. For example, if it saw overthrowing Iran as impossible, then it might seek to reach a compromise. There would not be massive congressional opposition to a reconciliation.<br /><br />Another difference is that while the US conducted undemocratic policies in secret in South America (no one bragged publicly about sponsoring a coup) in the middle east today, presidential candidates compete with one another about who will bomb Iran more (Ron Paul being the exception, god bless him)<br /><br />Just some food for thought.lysander1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-65252774243104878812011-11-27T13:58:18.841-05:002011-11-27T13:58:18.841-05:00Interesting questions. My 2 cents
1) Zionism is m...Interesting questions. My 2 cents<br /><br />1) Zionism is my sore point. But I always see Zionism (i.e. Jewish state on Palestine land) as a part of boarder picture of colonialism. Rhodesia is a good example. <br /><br />2) Imperialism generally means toppling not-obedient rulers and putting puppet ones in their stead. Brazil was a victim of USA imperialism's backed coup. <br /><br />3) Just now USA is escalating their pressing on China. Some of USA meddling in the ME (imperialism) is tied not only to defense of "Jewish state" but also to curbing ambitions of China (and Russia) - for ex, in Iran. <br /><br />4) I agree that the case of USA/Israel is more complex than, say, USA and aparteid SA. But USA supported aparteid SA as well. <br /><br />In short, imperialism(capitalism) is not only for short-term financial gain. A lot of people argued before 1914 that the war is impossible because it would be very bad for profits. Not only different capitalists (or different capitalist states) could win while other lost<br />in the same war, but sometimes some loss is needed to prevent much greater loss. And, after all, imperialists could simply miscalculate :)<br /><br />I sure agree that USA support for "Jewish state" costs are great. But who is paying for them? Big oil? They still seem not to go broke. Average Americans? Do they have a say in USA politics anyway? <br /><br />Of course, the role of the Zionist lobby is very out of usual. But it could not be so without some basis in USA politics that, as I see it, predated Zionism. Lidianoreply@blogger.com