If you want to be notified when new articles are posted, email your address to alex@theamericanideaproject.com.
December 3, 2007
A Turn in American Jewry
At the Norman Finkelstein lecture in Toronto last week there was visible police presence. This wasn’t very surprising as Finkelstein is considered by many to be a controversial figure. His strident criticism of Israel and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, along with his work critiquing the way the Holocaust is used in defense of Israel, have caused much contention, most recently leading to his denial for tenure at DePaul University in Chicago.
What was surprising however was that the protest outside the event was so sparsely attended, especially after groups such as the Jewish Defense League attempted to mobilize their supports to come out. As Finkelstein later said to me, “You had exactly three hecklers, and outside you had eight demonstrators. That’s not a big turn out.”
Norman Finkelstein is a world-renewed, although controversial, expert on the Israel/Palestine conflict. His numerous books, including The Holocaust Industry, and Beyond Chutzpa: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, have won praise from figures such as Noam Chomsky and Raul Hilberg (the recently passed away “dean of Holocaust Studies”), but have also had their fair share of criticism. His most famous detractor is Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and vocal supporter of Israel. Dershowitz has called Finkelstein anti-Semitic, and “a spreader of false quotations, assertions, and propaganda.”
Given Finkelstein’s notoriety within the pro-Israel community, the lack of visible protest seemed further proof of Finkelstein’s subject for the talk that evening; that there is growing criticism by North American Jews over the continuing occupation of Palestine. At the lecture Finkelstein argued that as the debate over the Israel/Palestine conflict has become increasingly more public (one of his examples was Jimmy Carter’s newest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid), American and Canadian Jews have become more vocal in their criticisms of Israeli policy.
When asked in an interview following the lecture whether the growing critique of Israel by North American Jews would have a direct effect on Israeli policies, Finkelstein said that it would, by directly decreasing the power of the Israeli Lobby. “The Lobby will continue to do what it does but it can’t really do it in the absence of a large amount of support. As American Jewry becomes more disaffected from Israel one major result, and you can see it now, is that it opens debate.”
Finkelstein argues that it is the Israeli Lobby, rather than strategic foreign policy, that keeps American support of the Israeli occupation strong. In the interview he explained that the US’s relationship to Israel is far more complex than just the issue of Palestine.
“In my opinion there are two aspects to the Israeli relationship in the Middle East. There’s the Israel/Palestine conflict, and then there’s Israel’s relationship with the Arab world generally. Israel’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza doesn’t serve in the US interests, and frankly were Israel to resolve the conflict and fully withdraw from the occupied territories, I think the United States would be very happy about it.
That’s one aspect, but then there’s Israel’s relationship with the neighboring Arab countries, places like Iraq, Iran and so forth. There is a fundamental conflict, namely Israel’s role is to enable the US to control the Arab world and the Arab world doesn’t want to be controlled by Israel and the United States.
Israel’s position in the Middle East will not be completely solved even if the Israel/Palestine conflict is resolved.”
Finkelstein was also very dismissive of the current peace attempts by the Americans, Palestinians, and Israelis. When asked what was the significance of last week’s peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland between Israel, the US, Palestine, and 46 other countries, Finkelstein said, “Nothing. It will just be more of the same, and the Annapolis conference will be forgotten in about a week.”
When I asked Finkelstein what could be done to work towards a just solution to the conflict, he said that he believes that the main activity now has to come from within America, to try to change the US government’s policy of blanket support for Israel. As Dr. Finkelstein put it, “I think the main battleground now is here.”
August 01, 2007
Do We Want A President Pelosi?
The debate over the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney within the progressive media has so far been limited in scope. On one side stand those who argue that by ‘getting rid of the madmen’ we can solve the crisis in Iraq, Afghanistan, end the United State’s aggressive stance against Iran, etc. On the other are those who say that the best way to solve these same issues is to make sure that a Democrat wins back the White House, and that impeachment endangers this possibility. At the root of both of these arguments lies the same desire, and fallacy, that a Democratic president in the White House would lead to less death, less suffering, less despair. This fallacy is compounded by a personal obsession by most of the progressive media with President Bush and Vice President Cheney that has the very real danger of leaving an anti-war movement in January 2009 that is toothless, impotent, and silenced.
The idea that the impeachment of President Bush would lead to institutional change, or create any real alleviation of suffering for Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, is dangerous, self-deluding, and historically inaccurate. If both President Bush and Vice President Cheney were successfully impeached, leaving President Pelosi in charge, what would she do? Would she abandon the draconian Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law, depriving unimaginable profits to America’s most profitable corporations (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips)? Stop the agricultural subsidies (recently endorsed by Speaker Pelosi) that are one of the causes of starvation and poverty from Mexico to the Philippines to small farmers in California? Reverse her rejectionist position on Palestinian rights? End the massive allocation of U.S. funds and arms given to support the IDF, Fatah paramilitaries, the Saudi Arabian dictatorship? Ignore the wishes of AIPAC, the pharmaceutical lobby, the telecommunications lobby? End the stranglehold that the mega-corporations have on the American economic system, and their oppressive tactics against the American worker? Even if she had the desire to take on these issues instead of being a pivotal element in their continuation, as she is now, it would make very little difference. Such is the nature of the Imperial machine.
Let’s be clear as well that those arguing against impeachment because they believe it will decrease the possibility of a Democratic win in the 2008 presidential election are guilty of the same erroneous thinking. All of the leading Democratic candidates for the presidency have been stepping over each other trying to appear more militaristic and aggressive than the other. The leading candidates refuse to take ‘any option off the table’ in dealing with Iran. That is code for the use of tactical nuclear weaponry. The idea that the United States would attack, using nuclear weapons, a non-nuclear state that not only has never attacked the mainland United States, but does not even remotely have the capabilities to do so, gives you an indication of the type of Democratic president we could expect. A further example occurred at the last Democratic ‘debate’ on July 23, 2007. A controversy was born out of whether the two leading candidates, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, would be willing as president to simply meet with the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. How can we expect progressive action from those who would find it controversial to meet with the popularly supported, democratically elected leader of a vital nation that shares our hemisphere?
Yet, the problems go still deeper. Would a Democratic president actually end the U.S. military aggression and domination of Iraq? Would he or she relinquish control of Iraq’s almost incomparable energy reserves, essential not only for U.S. corporate profits, but more importantly, as a crux of American Imperial control? Would a Democrat leave this enormously powerful resource to the government of a country where the populace detests America and would most definitely ally itself with its Shiite neighbor Iran? This Shiite ‘oil crescent’ spanning from Iran, through Iraq, and into the oil-rich Shiite dominated area of northern Saudi Arabia is the worst nightmare of those who wish to continue American hegemonic domination. The Democrats know this, which is why they do not mention the dramatically increasing air strikes in Iraq, the mammoth U.S. embassy in Baghdad under construction, the hundreds of thousands of private mercenaries under contract by the U.S. state and defense departments. The Democrats wish to find a cosmetic end to the war in Iraq while maintaining the necessary control that the continuation of American hegemony demands. If this can be done, fine, if it can’t the war will continue. For Iraqis it won’t make much difference either way.
In a year and half from now President Bush and Vice President Cheney will no longer be around, but the American Empire will and the anti-war movement is in serious danger of repeating the same mistakes it made three and a half decades ago. After much protest and public action Nixon was removed, but a generation later the Empire still stands and around the world a huge number of people continue to die and suffer to maintain U.S. hegemonic goals. We must not repeat the same mistakes over, of which the drive for impeachment is one. We must not loose sight of our real goal, which is to end as much suffering in which we are complicit as we can, not the removal of one or two specific men. We must continue to fight against Bush and Cheney as tools of U.S. hegemony without ever forgetting that the problems go far beyond any one person, one administration, one party. The fight isn’t against them; it is against the system of oppression itself.
July 20, 2007
A New Model of Engagement
"Our hope is that President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad will be strengthened to the point where they can lead the Palestinians in a different direction"1
- President George W. Bush
Many are calling the recent events in Gaza a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine within Palestine. The unanswered question remains, which Bush Doctrine is meant to have been disproved?
After Hamas’ success in the January 2006 legislative election, the Bush Administration became actively involved in attempts to reverse the democratic decision of the Palestinian people in order to place back in control Abu Mazen’s Fatah government, whether by a ‘hard’ coup, or if impossible, other means. When it became obvious that a military coup was not in the cards, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams began forming other plans. Although halted by congress for a brief time, tens of millions of dollars worth of aid and weaponry were funneled to the Fatah factions in Gaza (under the direction of the head of the Palestinian National Security Council, and America’s favorite Palestinian, Mohammed Dahlan), and also into the West Bank, to increase their offensive capabilities over Hamas. During this time tensions between Fatah and Hamas flared and settled repeatedly until the events of last week when Hamas responded as a last resort to the growing disparity in arms between them and Fatah in Gaza through aggressive action.
Aside from the ridiculous claims by the western media of a Hamas coup against Fatah (without, as Robert Fisk states, answering how “we deal with a coup d'état by an elected government?”), the talking heads and pundits have generally seen Hamas’ successful military takeover of Gaza as a strike against Bush’s plans for Palestine. A recent Washington Post article argues this exact point. It portrays the goals of Bush’s Mideast policy as such: to “use his ‘political capital’ to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term.” If this truly was the goal of the Bush Administration it could correctly be said that the recent activity in Gaza is a blow to these plans. However, even a cursory examination of U.S. actions within the area, historically and contemporary, show an absolute rejectionist position concerning the ‘peace process,’ Palestinian human rights, and the desire to force Israel to comply with the international consensus solution to the Israeli occupation, recently restated by the Arab League’s proposal. In fact, one gets a much clearer picture of Bush’s goals in Palestine only three paragraphs later in the same article: “The evolving U.S. strategy would let the Hamas-run Gaza Strip fend for itself while attempting to bolster Abbas as a moderate leader who can actually govern and deliver peace with Israel.” This plan is then titled a “new model of engagement.”
This ‘new model’ for Palestine has already begun to be implemented. On June 18, as Abu Mazen’s newly installed ‘crisis cabinet’ began its rule over the West Bank, USAID started requesting large scale project proposals from the new government on an “accelerated basis… on condition that these projects be capable of showing quick results in the life of people in the West Bank and that they involve large numbers of Palestinian workers.” All this on the precondition that the newly installed government is “not allowed to let even one dollar reach the Gaza Strip.”2
This move is a clear effort by the U.S. to lend further support to the unelected Fatah government by steadily improving the quality of living for the Palestinians in the West Bank while letting the citizens of Gaza suffer, enclosed in their tiny open-air prison. The plan, which has been clearly enumerated, goes like this: Fatah, with U.S. and Israeli support, brings increased infrastructure and economic development to the West Bank; the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip becomes further isolated and destitute; an election is called six to nine months down the road and a clear choice is given to the Palestinians - vote Fatah and eat, vote Hamas and starve.
None of this should come as a surprise as these U.S./Israeli/Fatah plans have already been clearly exposed. In February 2007, a 16 page document titled “Action Plan for the Palestinian Presidency” was drafted by U.S. planners, and then leaked and published last month to much controversy and censorship by a weekly Jordanian paper (for more information see arablinks.blogspot.com, and www.conflictsforum.org). The document detailed plans to support Abbas in ways clearly demonstrable to the suffering Palestinian population, simultaneously build up President Abbas’ security forces, and then to call an election as soon as possible, bringing a quick end to the Hamas rule and the unity government. This planning is underscored by further attempts to increase the disparity of arms in favor of President Abbas’ security forces over Hamas in the West Bank (where the populace’s support for Hamas is still strong contrary to the simplistic Hamas/Gaza, Fatah/West Bank dichotomy depicted in the western media) and then a reclaiming, violently if necessary, of Gaza once Fatah’s popular support and military leverage has been firmly solidified. The events of this last week fall directly in line with these previously stated U.S./Israeli goals for Palestine.
While it is true that Hamas has accomplished the removal of Fatah’s paramilitary groups from Gaza and interrupted the U.S./Israeli plans to support the Fatah militias in Gaza to the point of military supremacy, Hamas’ victory is only superficial and the future of Gaza still unknown but clearly moving deeper into critical danger and debilitating isolation. It is the people of Gaza who will now suffer most, and the Palestinians as a whole whose continued suffering is guaranteed by the swift dissolution of their democratically mandated government. Although recent events may make it seem that American plans for Gaza have encountered a set-back, their larger goals of a client regime within the Occupied Territories is now only closer to being within their reach. An outcome that, because of the Palestinians’ inability to quietly sit by as their land is further annexed and their basic human rights denied, may not occur. What is certain is further disaster and instability to an already devastated and dangerous region.
Footnotes:
1) http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00775620070619?src=061907_1229_DOUBLEFEATURE_backing_abbas
2) http://arablinks.blogspot.com/
June 10, 2007
A Blind Spot in the Anti-War Movement
by Alex Wolfson
There is endless attention paid by the anti-war movement on issues that are important, but also peripheral to the realities of why the American empire landed in Iraq, and the possibilities to force its departure. Article after article is written on Bush’s stubbornness, his bubble, the Democratic Congress’s timidity, their ineptitude. Calls are made to pull out by this date, or cut the funding by that. Condescending discussions on the ability of the Iraqis to control their own democracy fills the pages of the left-wing media, but hardly ever is addressed the disastrous effects for American hegemony that disengagement from Iraq would produce. Too many in the anti-war movement have not allowed themselves to face the bitter truth that it will take a lot more than a Democratic congress or someone new in the White House to truly liberate Iraq from American control. Unless we are willing to honestly look at what the stakes are for all involved, we will not be able to concretely understand the necessary steps that must be taken to end the illegal and disastrous occupation.
The original goal of the Iraq war was the same as is most imperial wars, to quickly topple the governing body, repress local democratic activity, and install an acquiescing client regime, almost always autocratic in nature. In this way the war in Iraq has been a failure for U.S powers. The client regime has been unable to maintain any control over the country except for a small parcel of Baghdad, nationalist sentiment has grown immensely, and the all important Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law, as of now, has not been able to be forced down the throats of the prostrate Iraqi congress. Even America’s international bullying power, a central tenet of U.S hegemony, has been fundamentally wounded by its inability to militaristically repress the Iraqi dissent to occupation. Only for the giant American corporations has the war been a colossal success. They can feast on Iraq, still licking their lips in anticipation of the immense dessert that might still come in the form of the world's most lucrative oil and gas law, and a client state eagerly waiting to fill the already filled coffers of the American empire.
It is these awaited desserts that America cannot let go of. Let’s suppose that the United States had to immediately and completely withdraw from Iraq. No matter the specifics of what then would occur, it can be presumed by the demography and political landscape of Iraq, that a Shiite dominated governing body would eventually be established. It can further be presupposed that this government would be closely attached to their predominantly Shiite neighbor, Iran, who would be incredibly influential both economically and diplomatically. This would mean two of the world’s largest oil reserves, ruled by Shiite regimes, allied against U.S. interests, and bordering the oil rich Shiite dominated part of Saudi Arabia, which is aggressively repressed by the U.S- backed, Saudi dictatorship. This new block of hydrocarbon power, opposed to American hegemony, and moreover having the ability to ally itself with any of the competing players in the international system (Venezuela, Russia, China, etc.), could create great shifts in global power through the diversification of oil production deals, trade initiatives, and new partnerships. These potential shifts in alliances have the capacity to greatly undermine America’s unparalleled standing in the world, and are, at present, probably the gravest danger to American global domination.
It is important to remember that the enormous profits that Iraq promises for the multi-national corporations is an essential aspect of the occupation, but not the central one. The original intent to go into Iraq was to establish an American power base in the middle of a crucial region and then to gain all the riches that would follow. The catastrophe that has occurred instead has the potential to be much more disastrous to U.S. hegemonic power than what the equivalent gains would have been if the occupation had gone according to plan. Although Saddam periodically fell in and out of favor with the U.S. government, there was no danger that he would ally himself with his long time enemy Iran. As a result of the first Gulf War and then the sanctions, Saddam’s Iraq was isolated and impotent. While the massive potential profits from Iraq were not available to U.S corporations under Saddam’s regime, neither was the very real and present danger of the formation of an Iraqi/Iranian allied block threatening not U.S. security but supremacy.
There is no doubt that the elites of America will only let this happen kicking and screaming, be it a Democrat or Republican in the White House, or filling the seats of Capital Hill. The anti-war movement must move away from politics of the individual (including its obsession with the Bush/Cheney regime) and begin to analyze and discuss in depth the fundamentals of why American power is being spent on Iraq, and the very real difficulties faced in helping to free the Iraqi people from imperial control. Otherwise, we are in danger of running around in circles, barking loudly, but only grasping at our own tails.
