Editorial-- on Bush/Israel symbiotic relationship

[TexasLawyer]

From the Middle East Times

Opinion: King George
Uri Avnery
Published January 25, 2005

http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050125-075232-6576r


<snip>

Some people say, only half in jest, that the USA is an Israeli colony. And indeed, in many respects, it looks like that. President Bush dances to Ariel Sharon's tune. Both Houses of Congress are totally subservient to the Israeli right-wing - much more so than the Knesset. It has been said that if the pro-Israeli lobby were to sponsor a resolution on Capitol Hill calling for the abolition of the Ten Commandments, both Houses of Congress would adopt it overwhelmingly. Every year Congress confirms the payment of a massive tribute to Israel.

But others assert the reverse: that Israel is an American colony. And indeed, that is also true in many respects. It is unthinkable for the Israeli government to refuse a clear-cut request by the president of the United States. America forbids Israel to sell an expensive intelligence-gathering plane to China? Israel cancels the sale. America forbids a large-scale military action, as happened last week in Gaza? No action. America wants the Israeli economy to be managed according to American precepts? No problem: an American (circumcised, to be sure) has just been appointed as governor of the Central Bank of Israel.

<snip>

The ideologues who govern the thoughts and deeds of Bush are called "neoconservatives", but that is a misleading appellation. Actually they are a revolutionary group. Their aim is not to conserve but to overturn. Mostly Jewish, they are the pupils of Leo Strauss, a German-Jewish professor with a Trotskyite past who ended up developing semi-fascist theories and propagating them at the University of Chicago. He illustrated his attitude toward democracy by citing the story of Gulliver: when a fire broke out in the city of the dwarfs, he put the fire out by urinating on them. This is the way, in his view, that the small elite group of leaders must treat the ignorant and innocent public, which does not know what is good for them.

In his coronation speech Bush promised to bring freedom and democracy to every corner of the world. No less, no more. He cited the two countries in which he has already achieved this aim: Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have been devastated by American planes that dropped the message from their bomb doors. Recently the American soldiers wiped a large city from the face of the earth in order to convince the opponents of "American values". Now Fallujah looks as if it had been struck by a tsunami. It is no secret that the neocons intend to "bring democracy" to Iran and Syria, thereby eliminating two more traditional enemies of the USA and Israel. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, has already prophesied that Israel may attack Iran, as if threatening to unleash a Rottweiler.

<snip>

Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist and veteran peace activist

[googly]

1. What does this writer have against democracies?

What is so wrong with giving people all over the choice of
selecting their leaders and their government? Syria and Iran
are both dictatorships, rabidly anti-american and deserve to
have a change of regime.

[yinkaafrica]

2. Syria/Iran have never harmed the US.They hate Sharon for good reason.

Neither 'deserves' to have a regime change.
The fact that a country hates Sharon and the fetid likkud
is no reason to invade them. Americans should wise up
and take the same tact.

[googly]

9. I am no fan of Sharon, but Syria & Iran are another matter....

Saddam's henchmen who escaped capture or death during
our invasion of Iraq are living in Syria and carried
with them loads of cash stolen from the Iraqi people. They
are living there in luxurious villas's complete with
bouganvillae trees.

Our soldiers in Iraq have found tons of evidence that the
insurgents are being supplied from Syria. There is
satellite evidence of a large number of trucks heading
to Syria before the fall of Baghdad. What was in those trucks?
That is reason enough to force a regime change on the
dictatorship in Syria.

The polls are showing Iraqi's will have a 80% turn out on
monday's election. That surely should give hope to the people
of Syria that they too will soon be able to vote.

As for Iran, they have supported the Hezbollah for years and
years. And Hezbollah is categorized as a terrorist group. But
there is no need to attack Iran. The population there is
growing tired of the autocratic mullah's. That regime change
is likely to happen from inside.

[salin]

12. is forced (by external military) regime change

good foreign policy?

I do hope that the turnout in the Iraqi is as high as you suggest, but I haven't read anything that suggests it will be that high.

A question, you assert that the 80% turnout (for now lets assume your assertion is correct, for the sake of this question) in Iraq elections would give Syrians hope that they will soon be able to vote... is this hope a premise that from within their desire to vote would create the impetus for regime change from within? Or would the hope be due to a hope for a repeat of Iraq (eg US invasion to force regime change) as the vehicle for which they would be able to soon vote? Your assertion for the reason that the Iraqi turnout would be a sign of hope that Syrians would "soon" be able to do the same, isn't clear to me.

[googly]

14. I confess I have not read many news items on the internals of Syrian

situation. You read tons of articles on what is going on in Iran,
but very little about Syria. My belief is the Syrian dictator is not
as brutal as Saddam. And it is not run by mullah's imposing sharia
on the population. But there is no question that the Bathist party in
Syria was in lock step with the Bathists in Iraq.

[salin]

17. My question is more about the logic that you were using

in the assertion that a huge election turnout (your estimate of 80%) would give Syrians the hope that they too would have free elections soon (your word, but my emphasis.)

Trying to follow on what logic you link a) iraqi election to b) Syrian expectation of elections... in the near future.

Given that elections, to my knowledge, are not scheduled in Syria in the near future... what makes a. lead to b. (given that some change in circumstance in Syria would be needed for elections to be held... what is that change, and how would it be created?)

[googly]

18. Assuming even if the Iraqi election is a success, it will be many

years before Syria will turn in that direction. Unless,
some very big event has been proved to have Syrian connection.
In that case you can bet the neocons will give orders to
attack Syria.

[salin]

20. Ah, so the assertion

is that it will give Syrians hope that the US will come in and invade them so that they may have elections.

Given our diminished capacity due to an overstreched military with no end in sight for current commitments - seems very unlikely that the US will be able to act on their rhetoric to do this. Sadly, that is clear to much of the world, and thus our bellicose rhetoric, while disturbing - doesn't carry as much fear into action spurring as it did shortly before (and after) the Iraq action in 2003. Of course, the situation of diminished capacity to do as you suggest would be changed drastically if our overall size of the military were expanded... say due to a draft. That point would be so hard to sell, that it is an unlikely option.

[googly]

23. Draft is extremely unlikely for two reasons:

One, the weapon systems are far more complicated than in the
days of draft, and the draftees rarely stay over the minimum
of two years which was then.

Two, the military likes the all volunteer army because of
higher morale and they believe the volunteers make better
soldiers.

[salin]

25. ergo, there can be no attack/invasion

as we do not have the manpower.

[googly]

27. It seems to me that we have the manpower to easily conquer any

country the size of Iraq, but we do not have the manpower to police
after the takeover.

[salin]

28. and currently - our manpower is sapped

by trying to do the latter. Unless we are relieved of the latter in Iraq, there is not the manpowr to wage another campaign at this time.

[salin]

13. Second question

per your statement "Polls are showng Iraqi's willhave a 80% turn out on Monday's election".

Source, please?

[googly]

15. I am going by what I read in newspapers and hear on TV news.

You may wanna do a google search.

[salin]

16. I read an Iraqi official (in the current govt) guessed a 25%

turnout earlier today. That sounds as much a low ball as 80% sounds a (huge) high ball.

[googly]

19. I am going by what happened in Afghanistan where they had a

huge turnout. If my memory is correct, there was threat of
violence directed at voters, but that did not stop them.
IMHO no one really knows how the sundays election will turn
out. It could very well be 25% and then it could be 70-80%.
Only time will tell.

[salin]

21. but I can't find any assertion beyond yours

of a turnout so high.

The policy of not disclosing where polling places will be located until just prior to opening (understandable due to security threats), the policy of not allowing motor vehicles to carry voters to polling places (again, understandable due to security threats) alone (just to mention two conditions) are pointed to as factors likely to further lower turnout. Not to mention that many parties (esp all Sunni, iirc) have pulled out of the elections (so why should affiliated folks bother going voting) is another indication. The one area of the country that I have read repeatedly should have a stronger turnout than elsewhere is in the predominantly Kurdish areas.

Back to that 80% assertion - still looking for any source to suggest such a high turnout... please link if you can find any.

[googly]

22. Like I said, the polls in Iraq are no more reliable than a tip at the

race track. So, I would'nt put much stock in a link which
leads to some rinky dink poll available at some rinky dink
sight. But remember in Afghanistan, which is a much poorer
country than Iraq, there were hardly any voters getting motored
to the polling places. They walked miles to get there. These are
not your typical American voters who will walk away if the line
is longer than a 15 minute wait.

I will not be surprised if the turnout in Iraq will be 80% in
most areas, especially the shia and kurd dominated areas. The
sunni's lost the golden goose of all top level jobs in Iraq,
courtesy of Saddam, and you very well know how nasty people
get when their high wages are threatened. So a 50% turn out in
those areas would be more like it.

I have seen first hand, growing up in India, how the poor
masses turn out to the polling place. It is unreal. The
motivation is very difficult to understand for those born in
the US and have never lived in a poor country.

[salin]

26. but the estimeates that I have read

are not from folks in the U.S.

[rkc3]

3. You're right googly - why do they hate freedom?

[TexasLawyer]

4. No country deserves to be turned into Fallujah

The cure is much worse than the underlying disease. 100,000 Iraqis dead, and that was the body count before Fallujah and the run up to the elections.

And look at the cost to the United States! $100s of billions/ year just to maintain military presence in one country; thousands of US troops killed and injured; lost allies;... NYT says today that we'll be in Iraq at least until 2007.

What is so wrong with diplomacy? Who made the US the final arbiter over which of the world's governments get to continue in existence and which have to go?

[googly]

10. US is the oldest democracy in the entire world, and the only

remaining superpower remaining in the world. If we can't
spread democracy, who will?

Why do you think we suffered over a million casualties in
world war II liberating Europe from Hitler and the Nazi's?
And was it worth liberating China, Burma, Cambodia etc. from
Japanese occupation done in the name of the king of Japan?

Yes my friend, like president Kennedy said in his inaugural
address "we will fight any foe, make any sacrifice, pay any
cost in the name of liberty and freedom" (paraphrasing).

[Monkie]

5. he wasnt talking about democracies he was talking about the usa and israel

:)

[googly]

11. I am not in favor of Billions of $$ foreign aid to Israel either.

SInce 1948, we have averaged 3 to 5 Billion dollars every
year in aid to Israel. That money, if invested in the stock
market would have wiped out all our national debt.

[FreepFryer]

6. The USA has squandered its' chance to fairly address Israel & Palestine...

Since the UN resolutions, the U.S. has favored implementation of the Israeli side of the agreements, with little intervention if any on the part of the Palestinians.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is an real imbalance in the relationship between Israel and the U.S., but the relationship is also unique and must be strong, if Israel is to survive, in the midst of the Arab nations of the Middle East.

I believe the reason there is such blind and unbalanced pro-Israeli support is because Israel represents two things to this administration:

1. Israel as the outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East

Israel is a forward base against the Arabs, and a means to continue to influence the region. {edit: this may change as Iraq becomes and American puppet state.} Keeping the peace out of reach keeps the justification for the imbalance intact, and the Palestinians become more and more pro-Jihad.

2. Israel as the keepers of the Promised Land, for the End Times

To the evangelists, the nation of Israel, land of the Jews, is where Jesus will come and bring the 'true believers' to Heaven. Jews ain't going, don't worry... but they'll keep it nice n' Arab-free till then.

Yes, it's really that mercenary.

[KissMeKate]

7. us/isreal not so simple a relationship

I think the defense industry is the third party that makes the glue stick in regards to US and Isreal.

Alot of our aid to Isreal is in the form of tanks, helicopters, etc- corporate welfare for ratheon, etc, the other defense corps.

They have a direct financial incentive.

[FreepFryer]

8. Indeed. That, however, isn't unique. That's our mode all across the world.

(n/t)

[KissMeKate]

24. true. eom