[Peace-discuss] Bricmont on identity…

[Morton K. Brussel]

I think you totally missed the point of Bricmont's article. Wanting him to say something else, no doubt. He's a cogent observer of what goes on in France, and why there is no public discussion there about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and their general foreign policy objectives. 

--mkb

On Apr 3, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:

> 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/20120421/4e6af575/attachment.html>