Robert Parry: A Greater Israel

[seafan]

A Greater Israel

By Robert Parry
February 12, 2007

A big part of the crisis confronting the United States in the Middle East can be traced back to what is now more than a quarter-century-old competition among American politicians over who can best pander to Israeli hardliners.
Rather than furthering Israel’s long-term interests – or those of the American people – these politicians seek short-term electoral gains by appealing to blocs of right-wing Christian and Jewish voters who reject any criticism of Israeli policies.
But this calculated positioning – from the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on the Democratic side to George W. Bush and the neoconservatives on the Republican side – has thrown the diplomatic calculus in the Middle East out of whack.
Whereas the United States traditionally served as an honest broker between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the current dynamic is for ambitious American politicians to adopt what they see as the favored Israeli position and thereby deepen the anger of the Muslim world.
So you get former Sen. Edwards appealing to an Israeli security conference earlier this year with tough talk about putting military pressure on Iran – “We need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table” – without offering a word of criticism about Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s policies toward the Palestinians.
You get Sen. Clinton eagerly sharing a platform last summer with Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, a notoriously anti-Arab bigot who joked at a 2006 conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee that “while it may be true – and probably is – that not all Muslims are terrorists, it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim.”

You get President Bush – only 10 days after taking office – giving a green light to an Israeli crackdown on Palestinians. At the first meeting of his National Security Council, Bush jettisoned President Bill Clinton’s efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

.....


After al-Qaeda’s terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush spotted a political opportunity to implement a long-held neoconservative strategy for eliminating anti-Israeli governments in the Middle East, whether or not they represented security threats to the United States.
The invasion of Iraq was sold to Americans alternatively as necessary to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist; to topple a tyrant; or to spread democracy. But the underlying neocon plan was to conquer Iraq for use as a base of American power that would then force additional “regime change” in Iran and Syria.
In 2003, the punch-line for a neocon joke about whether U.S. forces should next go west to Syria or east to Iran was that "real men go to Tehran."
Once those two governments were removed, the theory went, Israel’s front-line enemies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories – would be starved of support, brought to their knees and forced to accept peace terms dictated by Israel.


Though this neocon pipedream has proved to be a disastrous fantasy – with 3,100 dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq and anti-Americanism surging around the world – Bush still earned a reputation in some pro-Israeli circles as “the best friend Israel’s ever had.” .......
The old-fashioned friends of Israel balanced their support for its legitimate security needs with criticism of overly harsh policies against Palestinians or other actions that might unnecessarily estrange Israel from its Arab neighbors.
Yet many of those friends are now smeared with the ugly epithet “anti-Semite” and shouted into silence, while the panderers continue to jostle for position to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel’s hardest of hardliners.
So, Bush’s Middle East policies now neatly dove-tail with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s. In both Washington and Tel Aviv, military force against Islamic militancy is seen as the only acceptable answer, with only periodic lip service paid to the cause of peace.
Though on one level Israel is getting what it wants, the neocon strategy also guarantees eventual catastrophe, the prospect of casting one of the world’s most strategic and volatile regions into a cauldron of violence that, in the end, could jeopardize Israel’s very survival.

.....

While the madness of these Bush-neocon schemes has become apparent to millions of Americans and is even beginning to dawn on Official Washington, U.S. politics is stuck in the rut of pandering to Israeli hardliners, even at the long-term expense of Israel.
Recently, when I mentioned to one former Israeli intelligence official that some American Jews were calling George W. Bush “the best friend Israel’s ever had,” the Israeli laughed bitterly.
“The best friend Israel ever had was Jimmy Carter,” the Israeli said. “He negotiated peace with Israel’s most dangerous enemy, Egypt.”
But Carter’s role in the Camp David accords, which returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace between the two countries, angered Prime Minister Menachem Begin and other Israeli hardliners.
In 1980, Begin’s Likud Party effectively threw in its lot with Republican Ronald Reagan and worked behind the scenes to stop Carter’s reelection.

.....


The neocons’ intensely pro-Israeli positions frightened Democrats about the possible loss of Jewish voters, a key element of Franklin Roosevelt’s historic coalition. So, the pandering competition was on in earnest.
Even facing the geo-strategic disaster in Iraq and after the uprising of American voters in November 2006, Democratic leaders still tread carefully around any criticism of Israel. For instance, they quickly distanced themselves from former President Carter when he came under attack for his cautionary new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Very few politicians from either American party, it seems, dare offer the constructive criticism that might guide Israel to a brighter and a more secure future. They prefer to play it safe for themselves, politically, even if that means putting Israel and the world in greater long-term danger.

[eagler]

1. As long as Israel is surrounded by countries bent on her destruction

and refusing the right to exist- Israel needs to be defended. There is no excuse for genocide.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. but using apartheid to defend itself is immoral and

ultimately self-defeating. As israel will soon see.

[eagler]

3. I am much more inclined to say that it is largely muslim governments engaged in apartheit

against the Israelies. However,it cannot be denied that it exists in Israel proper. We need another Carter.

[azurnoir]

4. Really? Which countries?

Egypt? Jordan? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? Which countries that could actually do it? Iraq? oh yeah Iran So would that make our invasion of Iraq OK in your book, even now they exactly fond of Israel. What about Iran? Does they're "intentions" towards Israel justify a preemtive strike? or Syria, there are close to 1 million Iraqi refugees in Syria, so should we get them all in fell swoop?

[eagler]

5. You know that it is illegal for Lebanese to travel or interact with

Israelies.It is also unacceptable for any Muslim in most of their middle eastern world to display any favor to Jews. Israel is a sovereign nation and not an occupier in their own country.

[azurnoir]

6. Illegal where?

In Lebanon? If so then is it illegal for Lebanese Christians also? Truly I just don't see many Israelis vacationing in Lebanon right now.

[eagler]

7. That would be suicide

[peacetalksforall]

8. Parry speaks the truth. The truth pains. It was much more comfortable

believing that the U.S. had to help Israel because peace was possible, peace was near.

"Once those two governments were removed, the theory went, Israel’s front-line enemies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories – would be starved of support, brought to their knees and forced to accept peace terms dictated by Israel."

What stupid and abysmal short-sighted logic. Millions of lives. Just a few dollars. Just a few more trillions in debt.

The wrong people here matched up with the wrong people there and got themselves into the top offices. It's all Hollywood style mafia and cowboy outlaw macho schemes played out by powerful think tanks and the most highly trained and armed intelligence forces and operatives (including within the highest offices of our Pentagon, Congress, Executive, Judicial sectors). It appears the money and political support for it is a vast right wing conspiracy.

At the cost of our kids and thousands of innocent people.

We spend 99% of every type of resource we have on war and virtually none on peace.

Now why is that?

Because those who control us in part are headed for total control from which they will prosper and be secure.

But way too many pepole are waking up.

Will some Democratic candidates be left preaching to the same 27-37% that support the right wing?

If not stopped; if the direction is not changed, this country will be laying in rubble.

The concept of sovereign nation is a joke to the leaders of these four countries - Israel, UK, Australia, and the USA.

I am ashamed of these leaders.

[Shaktimaan]

9. US politics pander to hardline Israelis?

While the madness of these Bush-neocon schemes has become apparent to millions of Americans and is even beginning to dawn on Official Washington, U.S. politics is stuck in the rut of pandering to Israeli hardliners, even at the long-term expense of Israel.

It seems to me more apparant that the reverse is true. Israeli politics panders to neocon hardliners even at Israel's long term expense. For example, most Israelis would very much prefer Olmert to talk with Syria, even if Assad is only doing it to placate America, yet it seems that Olmert is afraid to break from Bush's wishes. And understandably so to some extent. Bush is famously focused on loyalty above smart policy and Israel can't afford to embarrass Bush. I mean, if even Israel, who gets so much aid from America, is abandoning Bush's gameplan it serves as concrete and insulting proof that his critics are 100% correct. Whatever he thinks, Olmert won't publicly break from Bush. He's not exactly a strong figure.

So to imply that HE'S the one who's really calling the shots is retarded.

Besides, everyone knows that Israel wants to marry Clinton. The country had a spontaneous, collective orgasm when Hillary announced her candidacy. And they don't really know anything about her aside from her last name. She could probably win an election there easier than here.