[Peace-discuss] Bricmont on identity…

[Carl G. Estabrook]

It takes some effort to see Iraq as a threat to Jordan/Israel in 2003.  
Any Iraqi military move against even Jordan would have been seen as an  
answer to a maiden Bush Jr. administration prayer - giving the son the  
excuse the father had to enforce Mideast discipline in 1991.  Saddam  
Hussein would have said to himself, "Fool me once, shame of me; fool  
me twice - you can't get fooled again...

On Apr 3, 2012, at 10:27 AM, David Green wrote:

> In  his very insightful and thorough book "Carbon Democracy,"  
> Timothy Mitchell writes that "there was no shortage of reasons for  
> the (Iraq 2003) war." He mentions "security to oil supplies" and  
> removal of a threat to Jordan/Israel. But tellingly, he doesn't even  
> mention the Lobby, even to bother to dismiss its alleged influence  
> on the invasion. He quotes a British intelligence official: "Since  
> the decision to invade had already been made, "the intelligence and  
> facts were fixed around the policy." Unfortunately, many of those  
> who rightly object to Atzmon's approach do not equally object to the  
> Mearsheimer/Walt thesis, and indeed many support it.
> From: Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: Morton K. Brussel <mkb0029 at gmail.com>
> Cc: peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bricmont on identity…
>
> 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
>> ...
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120403/dfa2b3b1/attachment-0001.html>