[Peace-discuss] Bricmont on identity…

[Carl G. Estabrook]

Bricmont: "...the plain facts of the matter are that the Israelis do  
not want to make the concessions that would be needed to live in peace  
and that a main reason for that attitude is that they think they can  
enjoy Western support ad vitam aeternam. Therefore, it is precisely  
this support that the solidarity movement should attack as its  
priority. Another frequent error is to think that this support is due  
to economic or strategic considerations. But, at least today, Israel  
is of no use to Western interests. It turns the Muslim world against  
us, doesn't bring in a single drop of oil, and pushes the United  
States into a war with Iran that the Americans clearly don't want. The  
reasons for this support are obvious enough: constant pressure from  
Zionist organizations on intellectuals, journalists and politicians by  
endlessly manipulating the accusation of anti-Semitism and the climate  
of guilt and repentance (for the Holocaust) kept on artificial life  
support, in large part by those same organizations. As a result, the  
main task of the Palestine solidarity movement should be to allow free  
speech about Palestine, but also to denounce the pressure and  
intimidation by various lobbies..." [Emphasis added.]

I think this - roughly, the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - is incorrect.  
The effective alliance between the USG & the government of Israel was  
established in 1967, when Israel served US geopolitical interests by  
defeating secular Arab nationalism in the form of Nasser's Egypt.  
Since then Israel has been a "stationary aircraft carrier" for US  
domination of the oil-producing region of the world. Now the  
integration of US and Israeli high-tech ("defense") industries makes  
it even clearer that US support "is due to economic and strategic  
considerations."

Imagine what the US would do if Israel stopped serving those  
interests. If per impossibile Israel allied with other regional powers  
- Iran, Pakistan - to exclude foreign control of hydrocarbons (by the  
US, EU, and their client Saudi Arabia), the US would regard it as  
treason and act accordingly. (One can barely imagine a YIPI alliance -  
Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Israel - attempting to eject NATO from the  
Mideast; but it's no effort at all to imagine Obama's "stab in the  
back" speeches in those circumstances...)

Vulgar Mearsheimer-Walt-ism has been called "the higher anti-semitism"  
- "The Jews Made Us Do It!" - e.g., invade Iraq, which wasn't in "the  
US national interest." M&W specifically exclude control of oil as a  
USG motive in the invasion of Iraq. They must therefore attribute an  
inordinate influence to the Israel Lobby (there are obviously at least  
equally powerful lobbies in the US - "defense," oil) and a peculiar  
obtuseness to the USG, about its service to the 1%. I don't think  
that's accurate.

--CGE

On Apr 2, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

> I thought that you might be interested in this article, appearing in  
> Counterpunch.
>
> In Defense of Gilad Atzmon
> By Jean Bricmont
> ...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120403/70f7ddcd/attachment.html>