[Peace-discuss] Bricmont on identity…

[Carl G. Estabrook]

[Maybe support for the US/Israeli imperialism is problematic in French  
politics, outside of the major parties. The following is from the well- 
informed and insightful Diana Johnstone.  --CGE]

Foreign policy has been almost entirely absent from this campaign.  
This could be because voters are not thought to be interested, or  
because there is no strong opposition between the candidates.   
François Hollande conforms to the mainstream consensus, saying he  
would support military intervention in Syria if based on a UN  
resolution.  Much of the French left has swallowed the “Responsibility  
to Protect” ideology.

Already last year, Mélenchon dismayed a certain number of his admirers  
by supporting the war in Libya, on the grounds that it was based on a  
UN Resolution.  He now calls for withdrawal from NATO and construction  
of an independent United Nations intervention force.

Not surprisingly, the Gaullist Dupont-Aignan opposes arming the Syrian  
opposition, pointing to the fact that arms provided to Libyan rebels  
ended up in the hands of militias who are destabilizing the whole  
region.  He maintains that France should have acted differently in  
Libya and with Russia, instead of following the anti-Russian policy of  
the United States.

Among the leading candidates, the only clear anti-war policy is that  
of Marine Le Pen, who favors immediate withdrawal from both  
Afghanistan and the NATO command, describes the current French  
government policy of supporting the Syrian opposition as “totally  
irresponsible”, calls for recognition of a Palestinian State and  
opposes threats to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, which have not been  
proven to be military. And she adds: “As far as I know, no nation  
which has atomic weapons has ever asked for permission from anyone,  
neither the United States, nor France, nor Israel, nor Pakistan… Must  
we then plunge the world into a war whose extent we will not control  
because certain foreign counties ask us to?”

Marine Le Pen is regularly stigmatized as “racist” for her desire to  
reduce immigration.  But which is worse: refusing entry to Muslim  
immigrants, or bombing them in their home countries?


On Apr 21, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

> Yes, Melenchon is resonating with a good part of the electorate, and  
> is expected to come in third in the first electoral go-around. He  
> has attracted large enthusiastic crowds. Le Monde has given him  
> considerable exposure, but has been trying to take him down,  
> unsuccessfully. Aside from the fact that he has taken positions  
> radically to the left ("la gauche de la gauche") of the bland  
> Hollande, who is ultimately expected to prevail, he also speaks with  
> fire and eloquence, and with a learned historical perspective. He  
> likes to allude to 1789, calling for a sixth Republic to replace  
> what now exists.
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2012, at 8:52 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>