AN
UNEVEN CONTEST
As
they hurl themselves at our armored fortresses, on land as
well as on sea, how long before the mounting casualties begin
to have an impact on the American public? Tens of thousands
of American troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia and throughout
the region, guarding the profits of the big oil companies
– sitting ducks to be picked off one-by-one. While the
mere prospect of American casualties deterred President Clinton
from sending in ground troops during the Kosovo war, to the
Muslim fundamentalists who make up the backbone of the Palestinian
nationalist movement to die in a war against the infidels
is to win a place in Paradise. Seen from this perspective,
two men on a raft may well be more than a match for
the mightiest empire the world has ever seen. . . .
SCAPEGOATS
The
US government has naturally vowed to retaliate, although against
whom is not quite clear. Doubtless they will dredge up
the ubiquitous Osama bin Laden, who is reported to be on his
death bed, or else come up with a suitable substitute –
perhaps Saddam Hussein – to pin the blame on. Hamas,
the Syrians, a renegade Iranian faction, and what about those
politically incorrect Afghans – have we bombed them lately?
A
BEE-LINE FOR YEMEN
Now
we are embarked on a search for the face of the enemy –
but the reality is that our enemy is an entire people, the
Arab people, not a single one of which believes that the US
is acting as "an honest broker" in the region. The suicide
mission blew that idea right out of the water, and all pretenses
are being quickly dropped as the search for the Enemy begins.
The FBI,
the CIA,
the DIA, the NSC and other less well-known federal acronyms
are all making a beeline for Yemen, to gather up the evidence
and pronounce the verdict we all know in advance: that this
was terrorism, and that the face of the Enemy is unmistakably
Arabic.
OCTOBER'S
UN-SURPRISE
Here
is the October "surprise" that is not at all surprising, least
of all to the three principals involved, namely Clinton, Barak,
and Arafat. What is surprising is how on schedule this
series of dramatic events has occurred, almost as if it had
been scripted by some third rate Hollywood hack. Hours after
the two presidential candidates proclaim their undying fealty
to Israel in a formal debate
centered largely on foreign policy, the Israelis "respond"
to rock-throwing Palestinian youths with helicopter gunships
and rocket attacks on Palestinian villages. When asked, during
the debate, how he would respond to the crisis in the Middle
East, Gore let slip the mask of the "honest broker" and blabbed
the real US position in the ongoing Arab-Israeli "peace process":
speaking of Arafat, Gore said "he needs to understand that
he's not only dealing with Israel, he's dealing with us
if he is making the kind of threats that he's talking about
there." Wasting no time the next morning, Gore
was the first to blame the Palestinians: "Israel has really
gone a long way in offering formulas for ending the long conflict,"
he declared, and furthermore "the burden falls on Chairman
Arafat to stop this violence. I want to call on Chairman Arafat
to issue instructions to those who have been perpetrating
this violence to cease and desist."
NO
AUTHORITY
What
Gore well knows is that – here, too – there is
no controlling legal authority. The Palestinian Authority
of Yasser Arafat and the old-line Palestine Liberation Organization
have no more control over their own people than the government
of Ehud Barak had over Ariel Sharon and his nutball Zionist
fanatics when they made their provocative march on the Temple
Mount – the event that started this latest round of trouble.
IN
THE BOSOM OF ABRAHAM
The
Temple Mount, the original site of the ancient Jewish Temple,
is known to Arab Muslims as the Haram as-Sharif, or
Noble Sanctuary, Islam's third holiest shrine and the site
of two famous mosques. It is here where the Prophet Mohammed
is said to have ascended into heaven. For the Jews, it is
the holiest site of all, not only the place where the Jewish
Temple of the Bible was built but also the spot where Abraham
was commanded to sacrifice Isaac, his son, to the glory of
God. This disputatious issue strikes at the very heart of
the Middle East problem, and underscores why it is so dangerous
– and insoluble. For this is a
war over religion, and thus by definition not amenable
to mediation, negotiation, or even rational discussion.
TWO
MADMEN
This
is why the US stance of being an "honest broker" was bound
to fail – not only because it was a lie (although it
was), but also because no one can broker an agreement between
madmen. For years we have funded and militarily supported
one madman over another, while trying to find, sporadically,
some way out of this eternally entangling alliance, some end
to the perpetual crisis that seems to flare up as regularly
as the change in the seasons. No dice. The madness of religious
fervor emanates from the very stones of the shrines and other
"holy places" of that tortured land, and there is only one
way to ensure that American blood will not be uselessly spilled
on that bitter soil and that is to stay well out of
it. But it is too late, far too late for that. . .
.
MOTHERHOOD,
APPLE PIE, AND ISRAEL
As
the recent presidential debate showed, if there is one subject
that both major parties are united on – other than the
beauties of motherhood – then it is the necessity and
even the centrality of the US alliance with Israel. George
Dubya soon followed Gore in making the point that Arafat,
and not Sharon, was responsible for the tragic unfolding of
events in the occupied territories, following up on his performance
during the previous night's debate, where he had nearly outdone
the pandering Gore in his zeal for the Israeli cause. Putting
aside mere partisan rivalry at the height of a presidential
campaign, he suddenly became Dubya the Statesman, announcing:
"Well,
I think during the campaign, particularly now during this
difficult period, we ought to be speaking with one voice.
And I appreciate the way the administration has worked hard
to calm the tensions. Like the vice president, I call on Chairman
Arafat to have his people pull back to make the peace. I think
credibility is going to be very important in the future in
the Middle East. I want everybody to know, should I be the
president, Israel's going to be our friend. I'm going to stand
by Israel."
ARE
ARAB CHILDREN "ASSASSINS"? ONLY IN NEW YORK
Since
the founding of the Israeli state, we have supported, armed,
and defended what is essentially a colony, a Jewish isle in
an Arab sea. At great expense, and often at the risk of war,
the US has made an enemy out of every Arab nation on earth
– and all for the love of Israel. Why? To even raise
this question, as Pat Buchanan has, is to risk an all-out
smear campaign such as the one the White House speechwriter,
Crossfire commentator and presidential candidate has
had to endure, but the answer is naturally all tied up in
American domestic politics. The legendary political power
of the Israel First lobby is quite real: Israel's "amen corner,"
as Buchanan once put it, is among the most formidable. He,
alone of all the candidates, is speaking truth to that particular
power. To believe that US and Israeli interests can diverge
is proof positive, in some quarters, of "anti-Semitism." But
the American people are not going to side with helicopter
gunships against stone-throwing children, in spite of the
fulminations of some of the
crowd of 15,000 who gathered in front of the UN building
in New York City carrying signs with slogans like '"Arab Children
are Arab Assassins." That is just a little too abrasive,
even for New York.
SHARON
LIT THE FUSE
There
is ugliness on the other side, but justice is clearly not
being served by the ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands.
As Buchanan
put it on Face the Nation a couple of weeks prior to the
attack on the USS Cole, such an explosion of Palestinian passions
was literally inevitable because:
"All
this dynamite was out there for a long time, for decades,
but the individual who ignited the dynamite was Ariel Sharon
when he walked up in that stupid and provocative act on the
Temple Mount, or the Noble Sanctuary, with about – hundreds
of Israeli security guards and triggered this event. What's
followed from that is a popular uprising, or people's revolution,
which is very much running out of control, but it's understandable,
because, look, the Palestinian people have been occupied,
persecuted and oppressed for decades and now they are responding
to that. And certainly, Americans, quite frankly, who drove
the British out of our country in a violent act for offenses
far less than what are taking place here, ought to understand
this."
ON
THE SIDE OF THE ANGELS
As
the Arab nations unite in anger and defiance at the desecration
of their holy places, and the dynamics of American politics
permit only a single response from US politicians, we are
being dragged into war in the Middle East – and not on
the side of the angels. As in Bosnia, Kosovo, Ireland, and
all the regions of the world afflicted by religious and sectarian
conflict, there are no angels – but, alas, it
only takes a few real devils to make conditions hellish for
everyone. Yet if degrees of deviltry must be assigned, then
Ariel Sharon must be given a place high in the diabolical
hierarchy, with the "liberal" government of Barak a close
second for shooting down children in cold blood. If Arafat
is to be blamed, then it ought to be for his essential fraudulence
– for playing the great leader of the Palestinians, an
Arab Moses who will lead his people out of captivity and back
to their promised land, when the reality is that he is the
one being led, forced to put forward increasingly radical
demands by his long-suffering and frustrated people.
BROKERING
"PEACE"
Will
the Arab nations stand by and watch as children, wielding
stones, are slaughtered by Israelis fairly bristling with
weaponry – including nuclear weapons? It would be almost
impossible to do so without losing considerable credibility
and legitimacy on the Arab "street." The fragile monarchy
of the Saudis would be shaken to its foundations, and Egypt,
too, would be bound to reap serious repercussions from the
bloody spectacle of two fighters so unevenly matched. Even
the most servile US client state in the region, Turkey, has
expressed discontent with this turn of events, urging a negotiated
end to the quickly escalating violence. Synagogues are burned,
mosques attacked; kidnappings, lynchings, and mob violence
on both sides are fueled by religious fanaticism run wild.
But the first provocation, the Sharon visit, was religious
fanaticism funded by US taxpayers: your tax dollars have been
pumped into Israel at a rate well over a million a day, funding
not only the Israeli military but also footing the bill for
the continuing settler movement, the base of Sharon's following,
extremists who preach a messianic military expansionism –
and act as its shock troops. We are brokering "peace" but
paying for war – and that about sums up our foreign policy.
THE
BEST QUESTION
Dubya
plays a great game, and he was widely proclaimed the "winner"
of that phony debate. His rhetorical isolationism – saying
we might bring our troops home from Bosnia and Kosovo
eventually, his dig at Gore that the US must be "humble"
and not "arrogant" (poor Al squirmed at the mere mention of
the word) was designed to appeal to those who, in a less close
race, would be in Buchanan's camp. But this rhetoric was not
matched by his real positions, as elaborated under the agile
questioning of Jim Lehrer, who asked both candidates the best
question imaginable, at least from the viewpoint of us foreign
policy mavens:
"In
the last 20 years, there have been eight major actions involving
the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let
me name them: Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf,
Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president,
are any of those interventions – would any of those interventions
not have happened?"
NATIONAL
ORIGIN AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST
Gore's
answer, in essence, was no – although he said
the Somalian adventure was "ill-considered," while admitting
he supported it at the time. Bush embraced all but Somalia
and Haiti, and resisted Lehrer's persistent suggestion that
we ought to have added Rwanda to the list. Pressed to answer
why not, he could only repeat, like a mantra, that the standard
must be "our national interest" – leaving his audience
to make of this strange correlation between national interest
and national origin what they would.
A
BI-PARTISAN LOVEFEST
Gore,
like John McCain during the primary debates, vowed renewed
support to the Iraqi opposition in an effort to overthrow
Saddam Hussein, and indirectly blamed Dubya's dad for not
finishing the Iraqis off when he had the chance. Dubya duly
admitted that he might "have a conflict of interest there,
if you know what I mean," and the laughter was supposed to
sweep away any consideration of the irony of such an otherwise
brainless remark. For what this debate underscored, and this
exchange on the Middle East most of all, is that the two "major"
parties have absolutely no conflict of interest or
opinion when it comes to the key and very presidential
issue of war and peace. A vote for either of them, or even
so much as an encouraging word, is an endorsement of a policy
of permanent crisis and perpetual war. It is a vote for the
corporate mercantilists who reap the profits from war and
preparations for war. It is a vote for the globalists, who
dream of a "New World Order," and whose bipartisan lovefest
last Wednesday had much to do with the outbreak of violence
the very next day.
GETTING
AWAY FROM IT
As
both US presidential candidates ignored Sharon's provocation,
and gave Israel the green light to start "retaliating" with
rocket attacks against Palestinian villagers armed with sticks
and stones, how can anybody be surprised that the Israelis
accepted the invitation? Well, surely most Americans are surprised:
their experience with and knowledge of religious wars is thankfully
quite limited – our ancestors, in large part, came here
to get away from all that. But is there any real getting
away from it, if both "major" presidential candidates and
the leadership of both parties are united in their pursuit
of a policy of servile adherence to the interests of a foreign
power?
OUR
WENDELL WILLKIE
Wednesday's
debate dramatized what I have long said: Of the two of them,
Bush is the more dangerous. He mouths the rhetoric of isolationism,
while actually supporting interventionism almost right down
the line, as his answer to Lehrer's question makes all too
clear. He is the Wendell
Willkie of our age, albeit one that might actually make
it to the White House. At least we always know where Gore
stands: firmly in the ranks of the War Party. But Bush is
not exactly shy about his allegiances: he openly acknowledged
the opposition to interventionism within his own party, and
went out of his way to distance himself from it, joining
hands with Clinton and Gore on Bosnia and Kosovo, and only
shyly venturing the suggestion that perhaps the Europeans
could be somehow bribed into doing "their share."
THE
GOP IS THE WAR PARTY
Republican
opponents of a policy of global intervention – who can
plainly see the possible consequences of that policy in the
bloody drama being enacted in Palestine today – have
been rejected by Bush, and they should return the favor. If
Clinton doesn't come up with an October "surprise" to help
Gore get elected, then whoever wins this election is likely
to pull a January surprise of his own, perhaps to divert attention
away from the deteriorating economy – and to fix the
public imagination on a scapegoat, preferably one with Arabic
features. Bush is the more dangerous because he exhibits one
of the greatest perils of hereditary monarchy: the tendency
of the sons to avenge their father's defeats. George Herbert
Walker failed to take Baghdad, but Dubya, given the chance,
will take it: and he will take it the first chance he gets.
The profits to be had from such a war, particularly for the
big oil companies as well as the more traditional "merchants
of death," would enrich the corporate entities that paid for
the Bush campaign – including Halliburton Co., and its
subsidiary, Brown and Root, both run until recently by vice-presidential
candidate Dick Cheney, and a key military contractor. Big
Oil would love to eliminate the competition, get rid of the
middle man, and seize direct control of the vast oil wealth
of the Middle East. Bush, with his background, is their logical
instrument. Today, the Republican Party is the War
Party – different only in a stylistic sense from the
equally interventionist Democrats.
PLUTOCRATS
RULE
The
debates have taught us a lesson, and it is this: instead of
sending "observers" to give the seal of democracy to other
people's elections, why don't we invite a few observers from
abroad over here to check up on things? Not only were the
two other major candidates for President, Pat Buchanan and
Ralph Nader, excluded from the debates – which do receive
some public monies, in spite of the quasi-official debate
Commission's protestations to the contrary – but their
respective parties were systematically obstructed by restrictive
ballot access laws, which impose nearly impossible conditions
on new political parties. In an age when corporate "soft money"
contributions buy access to markets and deny entry to others,
new parties have no leverage because they have nothing to
sell – not even ballot access. This ensures the rule
of the plutocrats unto perpetuity – or so they like to
think.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
A
contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald
Radosh's out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives,
Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics
of American Globalism. Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
or
Have an e-gold account?
Contribute to Antiwar.com via e-gold.
Our account number is 130325
Your
Contributions are now Tax-Deductible
|
