'Israelization' of U.S. Middle East policy proceeds apace

By DAVID HIRST
Special to The Japan Times

BEIRUT -- Few disputed at the time that Israel was a factor that pushed U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war on Iraq. Just how much weight it had among all the other factors was the only controversial question. But what is clear, six months on, is that Israel is now a very important one indeed in the stumbling neoimperial venture that Iraq has become.

This "Israelization" of U.S. policy crossed a new threshold with the two blows dealt Syria in the past fortnight -- Bush's endorsement of Israel's Oct. 5 air raid on its territory and the Syrian Accountability Act passed by the House of Representatives last week. A community of U.S.-Israeli purpose pushed to unprecedented lengths is now operational as well as ideological.

For the U.S., the main battlefield is Iraq, and any state that sponsors or encourages resistance to its occupation; for Israel it is occupied Palestine, its "terrorists" and their external backers. These common objectives converge on Syria.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20031023a1.htm

that one of the bombers that was thwarted held a Syrian passport. Whether he did or not, it will only fan the fires. I have a feeling Israel would love to take out Syria, and may think it has the ability to do so with the US occupying Iraq.

Let's hope we can get someone sane in the White House in 2004 who can stop the madness. Blindly supporting whatever Sharon wants (and not all Israelis want what he proposes) aids and abets the terrorists, and assures that we will be stuck in the Middle East quagmire for years to come.

honored at the power you give Israel. Israel rule the Mid-East...I always use the analogy of Delaware using military force to coerce the rest of the US.

Foreign policy influence, negligable. And if there is some, so what? Every single group in America from corporations to left-handed Americans has a lobby. Are you upset because the lobby is successful or because the lobby is Jewish?

For a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, post-Holocaust feelings of responsibility and guilt (justified), the position of israel as an "Ally" the cold-war standoff, the political and economic power of a pro-Israel voting and contributing block(this also explains US Cuba policy and the soft line taken re the IRA over the years--so please note that I'm not talking about "Jewish conspiracies" here) and an overall view of Israel as a "western" democracy as opposed to Arab nations which have been held in racial and religious contempt, or just were ignored by US politicians and the public, and who had, until recently, no constituency in US politics .

I personally think that the US has been too uncritical of Israel and has ignored Muslim and Arab concerns to its eventual and ultimate peril--as has become all too evident in recent years.

9/11 and the Iraq War are just two consequences of this 50-year trend in our Foreign Policy.

The reason "they hate us" is because they think we are anti-Muslim.

And the reason we went to war in Iraq, at least in part, was to make the region safer for Israel.

Flame away. but it is true.

Americans are still impacted by Cold War feelings. Since Israel was our only Mideast ally during that time, that has a negative impact on the Arab world.

It would seem to me, though, this isn't a particularly good reason. As you alluded to, the Cold War is long since over.

There are respectable arguements for support of Israel. It's form of government is preferred over that of most countries in the region. It is also a reliable ally, even if the end of the Cold War has diminished this arguement.

I am afraid some support is based on the questionable religious beliefs of some on the Christian right, as well as racism.

Much of the "support" is racism and Muslim-hatred I am afraid...

Sure there is some of that. Everyone always demonizes their enemies. All you have to do is go to a football game to see that.

I think the Cold War issue cannot be downplayed. Even more, because of the impact of WWII, our linkage to the founding of Israel is also key. And, like it or not, Americans identify with the little guy and Israel is still the little guy in a sea of nations that don't like it.

US policy may identify with it, I am not so sure about Americans in general. What I have heard from many, they identify with Palestinians just as much if not even more...

Too many Americans because of bullshit stories emanting from the likes of faux news believe every Arab on the street is resposible for 9/11.

Your statement is a generalization that is probably false as much as you would like to believe it.

American support for Israel is the same as it was prior to 9/11 as much as you would like to not believe it.

9/11 strenghtened American opinion in support of Israel.

It gave Americans a better appreciation of what Israel has been fighting for decades. The PLO support for Iraq BOTH TIMES only solidfies this position.

They have been occupying foreign land for decades and building illegal settlements as well. Much to be appreciated indeed...

Ameicans can identify with that too. Especially when you defeat overwhelming odds, time and again.

Face it, Americans like a small nation that can kick ass against several larger ones, as well as terrorists. How many Entebbe movies were made?

"Too many Americans because of bullshit stories emanting from the likes of faux news believe every Arab on the street is resposible for 9/11."

Those are the right wing public. Progressives/liberals/open minded people don't consider Fox News as credible media. I am sure they have more then just Fox news to form their opinion. And those that do want to know, are aware of the reality. If you are telling me that the majority of US citizens believe every Arab on the street is responsible for 9/11 then you are not serious. Those are bigots and ignorant people, that are a marginal part of the society.

When almost 50% of the people still believe that Saddam is linked with OBL and that is why the US attacked Iraq.

When specific appeals have to be made by many Democrats to the American people to avoid Muslim bashing since 9/11.

When mosques need as much protection as synagogues.

I'm sorry, those are more than just the bigots and ignorant people and God help us the fact that they are just a marginal part of society. That view pervades society and you know it.

I have never stated that Fox news is anything but bullshit. The saddest part is that they have any ratings at all.

"Bigots and ignorant people" are not a marginal portion of society: that is the standard issue, so to speak, and not only in the United States.

The jest of Mr. Stevenson comes to mind: when told his Presidential campaign had the support of every thinking person in the country, he replied, "But I have to get a majority."

Good old Adlai...

to Israel are a factor, without a doubt. I question if they are a particularly good reason. I do believe Americans would be less tolerant of the fate of Palestinians if there were more of an ethnic identity with them.

But Americans don't have the lengthy history of many other nations. That means historical events take on a larger significance and a nation that has been our friend for 55 years seems like a friend for, well, eternity.

The modern states of Italy and Germany only date to the 1860s and 70s, and in Africa they are even younger still.

Have far longer histories as a people. Nation-state is, after all, a most recent form of political organization everywhere.

Speaking different dialects, and sometimes competely different languages---the unifications in both these places were modern movements based on 19th-century notions of races, "peoples" or "Volk" which can only be understood in modern terms.

In the old days--the Dutch, for example, were considered "Germans" because they were seen as part of a regional and broadly-linguistic group....just like Sicilians and and Venetians really were and are very different people, with different languages, customs, etc., but were re-invented as "Italians" in the age of Garibaldi, Mazzini, et al.

It is more than political organization--this speaks to issues of identity, "racial" theories, etc. that propelled the movement to modern states.

Ideas like this also underly the emergence of the modern Zionist movement in the late 19th century, and pan-Arabism in the 20th.

This is nothing controversial--just standard history,.

The patchwork of feudal entities you refer to is really not properly denominated "states", and certainly not "nations". There were indeed broad identities among Germans or Italians from even before the Medieval period. This was the ground upon which the eventual nineteenth century unifications operated.

But not as a nation-state--it is just about how "young" the US is being an oversimplification.

If we mean the English settlers, and a sense of a "people" in the sense you seem to favor, our hsitory goes back to the early 1600s.

If we include the French and Spanish, to the 1500s.

If we include the Native Americans, to the Paleolithic era at least.

Includes the barest traces only of Spanish, French, and Native influence, these can be dismissed from consideration. What is the proper dividing point would seem to be the beginning of conciousness as a seperate branch of the English people, so to speak. That would seem to have taken real hold in the early eighteenth century, though remaining a minority view, even up to (some would say, even during) the Revolution.

The best statement of the case would seem to me to be that we here are very young as a distinct people, rather than as a nation. But most people, of course, tend to conflate those terms, and understandably, as in the present day the form of nation, and the idea there is a nation for every people, is so widespread as to be to thought about the subject what water is to fish.

It would not be worth any degree of digression, beyond the sport of the thing, except that the question does at times come up in the matter of Israel v. Palestine, in the form of question whether there is an Arab Palestinian "nationality", since there was no nation, or whether Israel as the state of the Jewish people is an expression of bigotry, since come confusion is possible over whether Judaism constitutes a creed or a nationality.

There is certainly an identifiable people of Arab Palestine, and has been one for a long time, that began to express nationality in the modern sense to the best of its ability at about the time other peoples in the region did. Judaism has managed to preserve a connection back to the most ancient form polity, wherein religious and ethnic identity were inextricably bound in a national cult, and when viewed in political terms, is best seen therefore as a people rather than a creed.

The people of Israel and of Palestine seem to have come to that conclusion as a result of various historical forces.

Who am I to say they are wrong?

Unlike some on this board, I don't think you have to "Earn" the right to independence by "good behavior."

If THAT was the criterion, neither Israel nor Palestine would have much of a case.

Independence is generally won by success at armed violence, which can never be had without sound political organization, either prior to or growing up during its application.

It is precisely here that the failures of Arab Palestine have been most glaring, and wherein lies the reason they do not, even yet, enjoy an independent state. Their political leadership has never advanced much beyond tribal or warlord structures, and their use of violence has never been informed by sound strategy, but only reflected the amatuer's conception that the "body count" is decisive. That is both strategic and moral bankruptcy.

I am reasonably certain of that.

The "Deutch" were the Germans. The Pennsylvania Dutch, as they were known.

The distinct ethnicity was a serious feature of national politics well into the 19th century.

But it is new for nearly everyone here. All of our collective history is somewhere else. People in Italy, for example, have active history that goes back to Rome. People in the Mideast, well pretty much forever. Here in the U.S. it's much shorter than that. So big events and big friends matter more when they have occurred during that time. Take France, despite the recent stupidity, Americans still recall what France did for us in the Revolutionary War.

Whatever Chirac's motives might have been, he represented the views and, i think, best interests of his people.

In contrast to the looney policies of the Chimp, Sharon, etc.

It was too late to edit, I meant the whole thing was stupid. France was looking out for its interests, not doing the world a favor. But that was no reason to go on an anti-France witch hunt.

And they were right, IMHO.

Lots of migrations in the Middle Ages--Germans, Lombards,
Dalmatians. Normans, Byzantine Greeks, Arabs, you name it.....

And parts of what Italy was supposed by some to be are now in France, Switzerland, etc.

If Israel has the power "to take out Syria", why should the US want to risk it's own soldiers to get rid of Saddam? Israel was willing to help neutralize the Iraqi threat. Why was the US adament that Israel stay out of it?

Israel doesn't like to feel that it is dependent on "Big Brother".

because Israel's assistance would have inflamed much of the Arab world.

however, Israel had every reason to respond if it were struck, as in Gulf War I.

the right to strike back. But to my recollection, both Bush I and Bush II requested Israel not participate in the wars against Iraq. The rationale offered in asking Israel not to strike back in Gulf War I was America was already bombing Iraq heavily and routing their military, so what more would Israel do?