What's wrong with Israel?

[jGilder]

This is a very good thread with some very well informed contributors. I hope you guys don’t mind me chiming in.

I notice some confusion over the term "terrorism" and how it relates to Israel. Make no mistake about it, the UN, Geneva Conventions all recognize what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is indeed terrorism, genocide, and even considered as war crimes. Virtually the entire world is opposed to what Israel has been doing, with the exception of the US and a couple of other countries.

Israel now has a 60-year history of terrorism and massacres of innocent civilians, and hasn't let up. Everyday Palestinian men women and children are murdered in cold blood as part of a state policy. Even journalists have been deliberately targeted and murdered. Homes have been bulldozed – with people in them even, and olive orchards have been uprooted, water supplies stolen and re-routed to settlement swimming pools, and of course the apartheid wall is being built to grab up yet more land. I could fill several pages with the horrible atrocities committed by the Israeli government. If you live in the US and depend on mainstream news for your information none of this will sound familiar, but that is also very deliberate.

The Israeli lobby in Washington is one of the most powerful of all and will never give up their Zionist vision. If you criticize the Israeli government they will say you’re anti-Semitic. Politicians are practically being held at gunpoint to support Israel or face the end of their career.

In Bin Lauden’s pre-election message, back in October, he sighted that it was because the US allowed Israel to massacre 6,000 innocent Palestinians in Lebanon that inspired him to attack America on 9-11. Our support of Israel is central in the hatred of America by the Arab world. Many Arabs see Israel as just an offshore military base for the US, and equate the US with Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Also, Israel is the only Middle Eastern country with a once secret nuclear weapons arsenal of considerable size. For this reasons other Arab states are compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Someone also mentioned that Israel is a democracy, and that might be why the US supports them. The truth is; the US has overthrown democracies and installed brutal dictators in their place, so democracy only means something if you’re drinking the American cool-aid. (If you don’t believe me, read up on what happened in Iran in 1953 for example.) Democracy is only acceptable to the US if it allows for corporate exploitation. Terrorists are “freedom fighters,” if they’re on the same side as the US, and WMDs are defensive weapons. We once considered Saddam as a good friend; Rumsfeld was photographed shaking his hand as he told him this right around the time the Kurds were gassed.

The hypocrisy of supporting Israel, as well as many autocratic regimes around the Middle East, and then taking Saddam down when he stops cooperating, is not going unnoticed by the Arab world. The problems with Israel extend way beyond its borders, and a solution would begin with the US ending its hypocritical support. If it wasn’t for that support the problem might have been worked out already a long time ago. The US is seen as a huge part of the problem there.

[dwinterfield]

A few thoughts on some of the recent posts

* I agree that Isreal has engaged in practices that are hard to call anything other than "state-sponsored" terrorism. It's also true that Palestinians and other have carried out many acts of terrorism against Isreal. There will be neither peace not justice for anyone so long as everyone continues a scorecard mentality. Innocence left the room a long time ago. The path to peace lies in putting aside (not forgetting) who do what to who and focusing on how tt move forward.

* I'm not sure where the Sharon Govt is but many in Isreal understand that a "two state" solution is essential to peace.

* Isreal is most certainly a democracy. They've also elected an extremely aggressive, conservative, war mongering govt. They will continue to have elections and I hope they make better cloices next time (same goes for the US). What happened last week in Iraq is also democracy. I wonder how Bush will react if it turns out that the Iraq elections chose a fundamentalist Islamic Congress with close ties to Iran, that wants the US out soon and drafts a regressive theocratic, women and monority repressing constitution. Oh well.

[jGilder]

Concerning democracy and US “export” of it:

First, the US isn’t actually a “democracy” – it’s a republic. The word “democracy” isn’t even mentioned in the constitution. If we had a true democracy we wouldn’t have Bush as our president. The “democracy the US supposedly exports isn’t a true democracy either, and only is allowed if it results in access for US corporate exploitation. Many times democracies around the world have behaved as democracies should, and freely acted in ways that would result in their benefit regarding their own natural resources… as you would expect. Whenever this happens, and it doesn’t favor US corporate interests – the US government has intervened and overthrown those democracies. So much for exporting freedom and democracy.

There are far more cases where the US has overthrown democracy and installed tyranny than where they’ve brought about anything that at all resembles democracy. The list of democracies the CIA and US government has overthrown and installed brutal dictators includes, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Laos 1957 – 73, Ecuador 1961, Congo (Zaire) 1961, Dominican Republic 1963, Ecuador 1963, Brazil1964, Indonesia 1965, Greece 1967, Chile 1973, Venezuela 1998 (CIA likely involved here as they were in Chile under almost identical circumstances,) Haiti – 2004. With this history, which most Americans remain conveniently unaware of, it’s no surprise that people around the world are so skeptical about the US government’s motives when they claim they're “exporting democracy.”

Award winning British journalist, Robert Fisk, asked a Sunni Muslim security guard recently what he thought would be the future of his country. He had not voted, of course--in many Sunni cities, only a third of the polling stations opened--but he had thought a lot about the question. "You cannot give us 'democracy' just like this," he said. "That is one of your Western, foreign dreams. Before, we had Saddam and he was a cruel man and he treated us cruelly. But what will happen after this election is that you will give us lots of little Saddams."

[Azalin]

I wonder how Bush will react if it turns out that the Iraq elections chose a fundamentalist Islamic Congress with close ties to Iran, that wants the US out soon and drafts a regressive theocratic, women and monority repressing constitution. Oh well.

I agree with what you said, but I think you're being a little bit naive here. The US has backed some "political parties" with loads of money, and the parties not supporting the US' point of view werent financially backed. That means that the parties with money could reach more people and have a more efficient "brainwashing" strategy. As to call what happened "elections", well, that's easy to argue against. Anyway, I don't see how a anti US politician could get elected in Iraq unless there's some sort of rebellion or uprising.

It's very simple, the day the US won't see any potential for making money in Iraq, they will stop supporting them, or even threaten them with economic sanctions. But right now I think the iraqi politicians are getting a lot of money from the US and they will happily act as US puppets for a while.

[glauber]

I stumbled accidentally into this scary (to me) Fox News story (click). I mention it here because it ties in nicely with oil, American imperialism and democracy. Also because it's interesting to see what certain events look like when seen from the Dark Side.

[jGilder]

Yep, just from the opening statement and first paragraph it’s clear what’s going on:

[From Fox News story] “CARACAS, Venezuela — Hugo Chavez (search), the left-wing leader who is moving toward totalitarian rule at home in Venezuela and backing guerrilla movements in the region, could become a test for the new Bush administration.

"I think we have to view, at this point, the government of Venezuela as a negative force in the region," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings last month.” [snip]

Here we have a democratically elected popular leader in Venezuela who survived a plebiscite and coup. Despite having demonstrated that Venezuela is indeed a democracy, Condi and Bush are set to demonize the president of that country and fabricate lies in order to have a “regime change” that will bring to power a government that is willing to hand their natural resources over to US corporations. If it doesn’t end up a democracy – it doesn’t matter.

Our history in the region has little to do with democracy, and everything to do with tyranny, terrorism, torture, and exploitation. The US government not only created and backed guerilla movements itself in the region, but is the only country ever convicted in World Court of terrorism against another state. (US vs. Nicaragua) But most Americans have been and will continue to be sheltered from this revelation, and they will believe whatever Condi and Co. says. I don’t think the US government’s plans would succeed if Americans realized what they were really doing down there.

[Azalin]

I wonder what the US Government will do as China is becoming more and more powerful. The dirty tricks of calling other states terrorists or part of an axis of evil won't work with a powerful China.

[jGilder]

Ah yes... China -- the sleeping giant.

[Azalin]

Scary isnt? Even though I dislike the US' presence in the world, I'd much rather have the US a world leader than China.

[Doug_Tipple]

I think that jGilder is basically correct in his analysis. American leaders may speak that they want to promote democracy in the world, but in the past the actions undertaken by often covert American foreign policy leads me to conclude otherwise in many instances. To think that the US invaded Iraq in order to promote democracy is naïve.

Leaving the situation in Israel aside for the moment, I want to talk briefly about the Chilean coup in 1973. At the time I was a stateside liaison officer for an American astronomical observatory in Chile. I was interested in the upcoming election in Chile, and I liked the Socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, who won the election and was made president of Chile.

Chile, however, is a mineral-rich country, and the multi-national corporations, including US mining companies, had a large investment in Chile. For years they had been exploiting the mineral riches of Chile, something that the socialist Allende wanted to stop by nationalizing those industries. So, in order to allow business as usual with regard to exploitation of the mineral resources, the CIA organized and funded a coup to overthrow the Allende government. In the process Allende was assassinated, and Agusto Pinochet, a military dictator, assumed the presidency.

Pinochet was a ruthless dictator, and his death squads killed thousands of people, anyone who might oppose his rule. The multinational corporations once again had someone that they could work with. However, even with the massive human rights abuses of the Pinochet regime, there was not an outcry from the American government and no similar effort to overthrow Pinochet. This is just another sad story of how US intervention in the affairs of another nation led to decades of repression and death rather than the hopeful promise that the nation felt after the Allende election.

[dwinterfield]

I wonder how Bush will react if it turns out that the Iraq elections chose a fundamentalist Islamic Congress with close ties to Iran, that wants the US out soon and drafts a regressive theocratic, women and monority repressing constitution. Oh well.

I agree with what you said, but I think you're being a little bit naive here. The US has backed some "political parties" with loads of money, and the parties not supporting the US' point of view werent financially backed. That means that the parties with money could reach more people and have a more efficient "brainwashing" strategy. As to call what happened "elections", well, that's easy to argue against. Anyway, I don't see how a anti US politician could get elected in Iraq unless there's some sort of rebellion or uprising.

It's very simple, the day the US won't see any potential for making money in Iraq, they will stop supporting them, or even threaten them with economic sanctions. But right now I think the iraqi politicians are getting a lot of money from the US and they will happily act as US puppets for a while.

I can't remember when anyone suggested that I'm naive. Actually my remarks came from a story I read last week that in the initial Iraqi vote count (10%) the Shiite party alligned with Sistani (sp?) was getting enough votes that they may win a simple majority in the new legislature. They would then form a gov't and write the new constitution. This coulod produce the result I described. We always assume that the administration (Bush) has such control and skill that they'd never let that happen. I'm not so sure. I think they're screwing up our foreign policy for their fantasy ideological goals and they're so bad at it that not only will they give us a more dangerous world, but they'll also fail to meet their own wacky goals.

[Darwin]

We always assume that the administration (Bush) has such control and skill...

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

[Azalin]

I can't remember when anyone suggested that I'm naive.

I didnt mean it as an insult, sorry about that

[s1m0n]

For all the spin emanating from the White House, it is sobering to recall that holding an election was NOT the US's first choice, or even it's second.

The US was forced into holding this election by, first, the Sistani's demonstration that he could on short notice send a hundred thousand Iraqis into the streets, and second, the army's utter failure to pacify Iraq to any point in which a drawdown of troop strength became possible, as well as the continuing death toll.

In other words, the Iraqis have done an excellent job of wresting control of their own destiny. Despite the rhetoric, this was never a part of the Bush plan.

Which is in shambles. Their candidate--the CIA man, Allawi--has lost the election and Sistani's party appears ascendant. The US may be forced to do the right thing yet, but this has not been by design.

Good on the Iraqis; if they manage to hold off on civil war, they will have managed to stave off the largest military machine in history, largely without outside assistance.

[Wombat]

For all the spin emanating from the White House, it is sobering to recall that holding an election was NOT the US's first choice, or even it's second.

The US was forced into holding this election by, first, the Sistani's demonstration that he could on short notice send a hundred thousand Iraqis into the streets, and second, the army's utter failure to pacify Iraq to any point in which a drawdown of troop strength became possible, as well as the continuing death toll.

In other words, the Iraqis have done an excellent job of wresting control of their own destiny. Despite the rhetoric, this was never a part of the Bush plan.

I think this is basically right. If what the US administration wanted more than anything else from this war was to hold the balance of power in the Gulf, to be in a position to manipulate any major developments in the area and to put on a display of force that would frighten superfically friendly but often uncooperative allies like Saudi Arabia, then it has conspicuously failed in all it's objectives. Far worse, from the administration's perspective, the region is dangerously unstable.

With Iraq under Sunni control, Iraq and Iran rather neutralised eachother so long as the US was prepared to bolster the one whenever the other looked like gaining a dangerous ascendency. But, with Shi'ite control of both Iraq and Iran likely, no wonder the administration is diverting attention to Iran. This war was always a staggeringly high-risk strategy.

I suppose the US got two surprises in Iraq. The first seems to have been the persistence with which Sunnis would continue to resist. The second was the fact that they didn't move into a country with a power vacuum that needed civil adminstration. In the Shi'ite areas and in the Kurdish north, civil order was in place when they arrived. To be sure the infrastructure was badly damaged, but all the Shi'ites wanted was for America to repair the damage and go; they weren't about to take part in any joint celebration. It's mind boggling how two such serious failure of intelligence can have occurred. Anybody could have told the administration that the Sunni hardliners had nothing to lose from fighting on and perhaps everything to lose from capitulating. Similarly, presumably they knew the Kurds were pretty well-organised. But why the surprise at how well-organised the Shi'ites were?

As for the question of money, I'm pretty sure that US covert operations had lot of money to throw at Iraq. But little if any of that can have gone into trying to fix the election. The first priority would be to try to capture the leaders of the so-called insurgency, a very hard task when it quite possibly has no leaders at all but consists rather of a disorganised uprising of disparate groups ranging from Jihadists through ex-Saddam loyalists to opportunistic amateur and professional criminals. There would have been no open vote buying in this election and, given the complete wall of silence in the leadup, no campaigning by groups favourable to the administration.