[Peace-discuss] Bricmont on identity…

[Carl G. Estabrook]

The reason that there is "no public discussion [in France] about  
Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and their general foreign  
policy objectives" is that all parties (i.e. Sarkozy, Hollande, LePen)  
subscribe to the US/NATO/Israel domination of the world's greatest  
store of hydrocarbons.

It may be - but it's by no means clear - that the rise of Mélenchon in  
the closing days of the campaign will in fact introduce that public  
discussion. The following is from a recent interview:

Pourriez-vous nous décrire la politique de la France à l'égard du  
conflit israélo-palestinien en cas de victoire du Front de Gauche? La  
politique du parti socialiste est-elle si différente de celle de l'UMP  
qui affiche une complaisance trop grande à l'égard du gouvernement  
d'extrême-droite israélien?

Voilà un sujet qui me touche particulièrement car j'ai vu de mes yeux  
vu ce qu'est la situation des Palestiniens et Palestiniennes en  
Cisjordanie. Je suis revenue de ce voyage révoltée. Nous disons  
clairement qu'il n'y aura pas de sortie du conflit sans reconnaissance  
d'un Etat palestinien, dans les frontières de 1967, avec le partage de  
Jérusalem. Il est absolument inadmissible qu'Israël ne respecte pas  
les résolutions du droit international. Les différentes organisations  
du Front de Gauche se battent depuis longtemps aux côtés des  
Palestiniens, pour la paix dans cette région, pour le respect du  
droit.  [Par LEXPRESS.fr, publié le 17/04/2012]


On Apr 21, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

> 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/e36b41bf/attachment.html>