|
CounterPunch
February
26, 2003
Israel and the US War on Iraq
A
Lethal Warning to US Client States: Behave or Else
by CARL ESTABROOK
It's remarkable how rarely Israel is mentioned
in regard to the American plans to attack Iraq -- with the exception
of occasional notices of how strongly the Israeli government
supports those plans. A proper assessment of its part in this
war depends upon an understanding of Israel's position in the
United States' overall policy for the Middle East, and how that
policy is being implemented with specific regard to Iraq.
Patrick Buchanan was thoroughly rebuked
when he remarked on the eve of the US attack on Iraq in 1991,
"There are only two groups that are beating the drums for
war in the Middle East -- the Israeli Defense Ministry and its
amen corner in the United States." But he was saying aloud
what few others were. What his national chauvinism prevented
him from noticing was that, in its avidity for war, the Israeli
government was acting -- as it had for more than a generation
-- as the principal US client, our "local cop on the beat,"
as the Nixon Administration had put it. It's this ongoing role
that explains what part Israel has in the current slaughter of
Iraqis.
US FOREIGN
POLICY: THE MIDDLE EAST
Since the Second World War -- from which
the United States emerged as the world's only undamaged major
country and proceeded to organize the economy of the world --
a cornerstone of American policy has been control of Middle East
energy resources, the greatest geopolitical prize in the modern
world. Control, not just access, was what was demanded by all
US administrations, Republican and Democrat, because control
of those resources gave the US control of its principal economic
competitors -- which turned out to be, by the late 20th century,
a German-led Europe and a Japan-led East Asia.
The US has never in fact required Mideast
oil for its own society -- all the energy requirements of the
US could be filled from national sources (especially when we
include in "national sources," our "backyard"
-- Latin America) But Germany imports 80% of its energy resources,
and Japan, 100%. Who controls world oil, controls the life-line
of the modern world.
And the principal threat to U.S. control
has always come from what the US called "domestic radicalism"
-- the dangerous idea amongst the peoples of the oil-producing
regions that their natural wealth should be used for their benefit,
rather than for that of the corporations and the economic elites
to whom the US might assign it. And the chief form of "domestic
radicalism" was Arab nationalism. To guard against it, the
US constructed (and took over from Britain) a series of repressive
Arab governments, the family dictatorships around the Persian
Gulf, with Saudi Arabia at their head.
US FOREIGN
POLICY: ISRAEL
Since it launched a war and destroyed
the center of Arab nationalism in 1967, Israel's job in America's
"overall framework of order," in Henry Kissinger's
phrase, was to guarantee that those conservative Arab governments
were protected from their most dangerous enemy -- their own populations.
Israel was to be the final bulwark against the dangers that would
be posed to US control if "domestic radicals" came
to power in one of the oil-producing states -- as happened in
Iran in 1979.
For that reason (and not because of some
imagined invincibility of the pro-Israel lobby), the US is willing
to provide Israel with vastly more money and support than it
gives to any other country in the world. (In second place is
Egypt, Israel's principal antagonist in 1967, whom the Carter
administration bought off at Camp David in 1978, securing Israel's
southern border; in third, Turkey, Israel's principal military
ally in the present-day Middle East.) Today as a result Israel
has perhaps the third strongest military in the world, with hundreds
of advanced nuclear weapons (Israel did not sign the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty), missiles and submarines with which
to deliver them, and an air force of US-supplied F-16s and attack
helicopters.
For that reason too the US is willing
to support Israel's brutal and racist occupation of the West
Bank and Gaza (condemned by the United Nations thirty-five years
ago in Security Council Resolution 242) and its settlement of
its citizens in the occupied territories (recognized as a violation
of the Fourth Geneva Convention -- a war crime -- around the
world). Not only have these been the consistent policies of all
Israeli governments, Labor and Likud, they also serve the US
purpose of discouraging domestic radicalism, a democratic and
secular Palestine being seen as a "threat of a good example"
even by some Arab states. To discourage the threat of progressive
Arab nationalism, the US and Israel have on occasion been willing
to fund even Islamicist movements (Hamas and the Mujahideen)
that they saw as counters to it. Consistent US/Israeli policy
has been largely successful in destroying secular Arab nationalism
as it existed two generations ago -- and replacing it with religious
fundamentalism.
In 1982, in order to consolidate the
Israeli control over the occupied territories, the US armed and
supported the most extreme terrorist act in the Middle East in
a generation, the invasion of Lebanon, which killed about 20,000
people (many more than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). It was conducted
by the current Prime Minister of Israel and launched because
of the danger that peace might break out in the Middle East.
That motive grows to the extent that the state is militarized.
In the principal American client as perhaps nowhere else in the
world is it true that war is the health of the state. And that
war is principally a war against Palestinians.
That war is not simply killing. To take
one example from far too many, Israeli forces closed the Islamic
University and the Polytechnic Institute in Hebron last month,
actions to which even the US State Department took mild exception.
Elsewhere, the Israeli army looked for similarly creative forms
of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing: in east Jerusalem,
they sealed the apartments of three imprisoned Hamas militants
(one of whom had been sentenced to thirty-five consecutive life
terms) by filling the rooms with concrete. The Guardian (UK)
reports that now more than a thousand Palestinians are held by
the Israeli army under detention without charge (the sort of
thing we used to think only totalitarian governments did -- it
is of course now US practice, too).
This oppressive and anti-intellectual
policy is practiced by other American clients as well. US financial
and military aid to Turkey was used brutally to suppress the
Kurds in the southeast in the 1990s, creating millions of refugees,
destroying some 3500 villages, and killing tens of thousands
of people -- an ethnic cleansing supported by the Clinton administration.
Since the military coup in 1980, Turkish universities have been
rife with police spies, and evidence of Kurdish culture, to say
nothing of Kurdish nationalism, has been suppressed. America
and its clients in the Middle East have as their enemies whole
peoples of the region.
Any understanding of Israel's role in
the coming US attack on Iraq has to begin with the Jewish state's
continuing position in US policy. Those on the American Right
(and elsewhere) who think that the Israeli tail is wagging the
US dog have got it quite wrong: the dog is firmly in control.
Israeli governments, whether Labor or Likud, do nothing without
the approval of their American paymasters. Noam Chomsky offers
three recent examples, beginning with the first Bush administration:
"--The Bush #1 case involved $10
million in loan guarantees, which Israel was using (illegally,
but with US connivance) for settlement in the territories. The
Shamir government was doing it in a brazen way that annoyed Baker-Bush.
Bush suspended the guarantees, ... Israel returned to the preferred
Labor-style hypocrisy ('thickening settlements,' 'natural growth,'
etc.) and all was well. "--In 2000, Israel's highly militarized
high-tech economy was counting heavily on a huge sale of Phalcon
air war technology to China. The US didn't like it. Barak said
Israel would never back down. Clinton told them quietly, 'Sorry,
no.' End of story. "--Sharon's siege of Arafat in Ramallah
was interfering with Bush administration efforts to garner support
for the war on Iraq. The orders came quietly from Washington.
Same [result]."
Chomsky points out that there are many
such cases, "some major ones (like Eisenhower ordering Israel
out of Egyptian territory on the eve of a presidential election),
others minor ones like Ramallah, many in between." Were
it not for the part that Israel plays in the US government's
decades-long plan for control of Middle East energy resources,
it would be of no more concern to us than any other state with
a questionable racial policy and a population less than that
of New York City -- Zimbabwe, say, or Uganda (even if the latter
had become a Jewish state, as was once proposed).
Israel's military usefulness to the US
is not limited to the Middle East. In two of the worst examples
-- near-genocidal campaigns in which the US government was hampered
by political pressure at home -- Israel carried out the bidding
of its patron. In the 1970s, at the request of the Carter administration,
Israel transferred war-planes to Indonesia to aid in the suppression
of the East Timorese, a massacre comparable to those in Cambodia.
In the 1980s, Israeli military advisors aided the Reagan administration
in genocidal campaigns in Guatemala (for which Clinton later
apologized, with monstrous inadequacy).
Chomsky refers to Israel as "virtually
an offshore US military establishment." An Israeli journalist
recently described the country as "an army with a state,
not state with an army," and that army is "almost an
offshoot of the Pentagon," Chomsky adds. He points out,
"Unfortunately for Israel, it's coming to resemble the US
in other ways. It approximates the US in having the highest inequality
in the industrial world, and its social welfare system, once
impressive, is visibly declining. It may end up being almost
a caricature of the worst features of American society. These
are consequences of the choice of confrontation and dependency
rather than peaceful integration into the region, fateful choices
decades ago." It also makes the Israeli polity dependent
on war: Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the US, is
quoted as saying recently to Israel's Military Radio (GALATZ),
"The postponement of the war against Iraq is against the
Israeli interests."
US FOREIGN
POLICY: IRAQ
In 1934 Fascist Italy invaded the impoverished
kingdom of Ethiopia to build its new Empire, and in the event
the principal contemporary organ of international law, the League
of Nations, was destroyed. The US war on Iraq resembles Italy's,
not least in that it shreds international law and subverts the
UN. The comparison perhaps reverses a famous observation about
everything in history happening twice: the first time it may
have been a farce, but the second may be a great tragedy indeed.
The Bush administration has at least
three important goals in launching this criminal enterprise:
First, consistent with the fundamental
principle of US foreign policy, this is a war for oil, for control
of (not just access to) Iraqi oil reserves, the second largest
in the world. That control rather than access is the issue, is
shown by the hesitation of the large oil companies about this
war: they have access now and fear its disruption.
Second, it is a demonstration war, as
all US wars since World War II (including Vietnam) have been:
a state which refuses to obey Washington's orders -- or has the
dangerous idea that it wants to use its resources for the purposes
of its population, rather than integrate them into the world
economy on terms set by the US -- must be punished severely.
Third, the war distracts from our wretched
economy at home; the administration mobilizes for war and encourages
the fear of terrorism to cover over their understandably unpopular
economic policy -- nothing less than the transfer of wealth from
the poor to the rich -- and nevertheless to assure their reelection
(if you agree that they were elected in the first place).
The war is meant to secure and defend
the long-term foreign policy of the US, in the Middle East and
in the world at large. To understand why that policy requires
the reduction of Iraq -- and indeed the destruction of any regional
power with "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) --
we need to grasp what might be called "asymmetrical deterrence,"
the way in which a weak state may have just enough weapons to
deter the threats of a strong one.
The US enjoys nuclear dominance in the
world and Israel, with a stronger military than any European
NATO country, nuclear dominance in the region. (General Lee Butler,
head of the Strategic Command under Clinton: "It is dangerous
in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call
the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with
stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds,
and that inspires other nations to do so.") These weapons
are used primarily as a threat against weaker, non-nuclear countries.
Thus every US president since Truman has threatened to use nuclear
weapons against a Third World country. But the US ability to
threaten another country is limited if, even though the US reduced
that country to nuclear waste, it could itself be hit with even
one nuclear weapon.
Similarly, Israel has an overwhelming
dominance of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological,
and chemical) in the region, but the possession of only a few
-- or even one -- by a rival to the US cop can neutralize the
cop's offensive dominance. Of course it would be insanity for
Iraq or any other state to attack Israel -- it would be immediately
obliterated by Israel and the US -- but Israel has to hesitate
to use its weapons of mass destruction, or even threaten to do
so, if there is any chance that the cost would be Tel Aviv...
The American "framework of order"
is endangered if its regional enforcer can be constrained. It
is in this way that the possession of a few WMDs (by Iraq, Iran,
or any other state in the region) is a defensive posture, not
an offensive one -- and surely the policy that would have to
be adopted even if the government in Baghdad were democratic
(highly unlikely, because the US doesn't want it). Similarly,
on an international scale, China developed nuclear weapons and
the missiles to deliver them a generation ago and produced about
twenty, which they still have -- not an offensive threat, but
a defensive caution to the US and Russia.
The new US attack on Iraq, then, is based
first of all on maintaining the persistent US position in the
Middle East and eliminating a check on America's regional enforcer.
But it is a good deal more than that. It is also part of a plan
for a new colonialism, a plan quite publicly announced by the
most extreme elements in the US government, in league with the
most right-wing elements in Israel (much to the right of the
current prime minister, war criminal as he may be).
As Kurt Nimmo explained in CounterPunch,
"...the idea of killing Saddam Hussein and inflicting depredation
on the Iraqi people is not a Bush idea (it can be argued Bush
has no original ideas of his own) -- the current scheme was a
roughcast devised by Likudite Richard Perle. In 1996, Perle (and
Douglas Feith) wrote 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing
the Realm,' which he presented to then Israel Prime Minister
Netanyahu. The plan called for not only eliminating Hussein and
installing a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, but also for trashing
the Oslo Accords, Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza,
and overthrowing or destabilizing the governments of Syria, Lebanon,
Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Perle's master plan for Likud regional
dominance ... was crafted for the Jerusalem and Washington, D.C.-based
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS)..."
The plan had been announced in the Clinton
administration (which was more extreme on Israel than the first
Bush administration), but the planners came to power in the Pentagon
and the State Department in the second Bush administration. They
saw 9/11 as a heaven-sent opportunity to put the plan into operation.
As the Washington Post recently reported, Bush signed a document
directing the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq
less than a week after the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington -- although the administration has never had any evidence
of Iraqi complicity in those attacks. And, quite consistently
with the views of the Washington hawks ("chicken-hawks"
who avoided the military themselves), Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon told The Times (UK) that Iran -- one of the "axis
of evil" powers identified by Bush -- should be targeted
"the day after" action against Iraq ends because of
its role as a "centre of world terror". The plan is
clearly underway.
* *
*
IN SUMMARY, ISRAEL'S PART in the US attack
on Iraq depends on its central role in the on-going American
policy of controlling Middle East energy resources, which gives
the US a strangle-hold on the world economy; the US attack removes
the defensive constraint that even one weapon of mass destruction
might have on Israel's ability to threaten its neighbors with
its overwhelming nuclear advantage, while the US issues a lethal
warning to the world of what happens to American clients who
stop obeying orders.
The conservative columnist Robert Novak
said on Meet the Press in December that the extremists in the
Bush administration never wanted inspections in Iraq: "This
is really about change of regime in Iraq and change of the political
outlines in the Middle East more to Israel's benefit. That's
what this has all been about, and since it's very hard to sell
that to the American people, they have done it on a weapons of
mass destruction basis." With the proviso that "Israel's
benefit" here means the enhancement of the role that US
foreign policy provides for a militarized Israel -- hardly to
the benefit of the people of Israel -- the comment seems about
right.
Carl Estabrook
is a Visiting Scholar University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
and a CounterPunch columnist. He can be reached at: galliher@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
Yesterday's
Features
Gary Leupp
The
Weekend the World Said No to War:
Notes on the Numbers
Jason Leopold
Powell Warned Bush About
Bloody Price of Unilateral War
Ross Vachon
Joe
Lieberman: Yankee Tartuffe
Ahmad Faruqui
Killing
with Sanctions, Then Bombs
Estimating Civilian Casualties in Iraq War
Reza Ghorashi
Why
War with Iraq?
What Should Iranians Do?
Craig Axford
Environmentalism as Homeland Security
Harvey Wasserman
There's
Nothing Patriotic About It
Ramzi Kysia
Dispatch from Baghdad:
Living Against Disaster
Charles Sullivan
The
Failure of Mass Education
Gilad Atzmon
The Birth of the Tragedy:
On Reason, Justice and the Victim Mentality
Website of the Day
Lysistrata
Project
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 22
/ 23, 2003
Laura Flanders
Security Threat?
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey Barred Entry to US
Alexander Cockburn
The Trouble with E-Bombs
Kathy Kelly
Letter from Baghdad
Tight Squeeze
Subcomandate
Marcos
A Universal
No to the War of Fear
William Cook
Armageddon Anxiety
Jo Freeman
Conservative Women
Michael Colby
Howard Dean is No Green
Ben Tripp
Fact-Checking the Constitution
Joanne Mariner
Pets Unite!
Richard Falk and David Krieger
Iraq and the Failures of Democracy
Uri Avnery
War Crimes and Sharon
Ian Williams
John Bolton in Jerusalem
Michael Wolff
How Sanctions Destroyed Iraqi Education
William Hughes
The Zev and Ari Show
Susanna Sonnenberg
Boxing Missoula
Michael Ortiz Hill
Peace and Humility
Anis Shivani
When Kafka Aligns with Orwell
John Mihelich
The Hidden History of Butte's
Working Class
Rich Procter
Bush and His Fabled Gut
Adam Engel
Voice of the Nation
Becky Johnson
The Hopscotch Rebellion
Krieger, Tripp, Ashley
Poets' Basement
Website of
the Weekend
The
Pedro Martinez of Palestine
February 15
/ 16, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Colin
Powell and the Great "Intelligence Fraud"
Rep. Dennis
Kucinich
The Whole World is Watching
Edward Said
A Monumental Hypocrisy
Wouter Hijink
Report from Amsterdam
"War: Do Not Feed!"
Linda Heard
At Last! Proud to be British
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Taking a Stand on Iraq
Robert Fisk
The Case Against War
Lev Grinberg
Lessons from Israel
A War Without Legitimacy
Chris Floyd
Cold Fronts:
Bush War Profits
Ahmad Faruqui
Stepping Back from the Brink of War
Norman Madarasz
French Kisses from the Citizens of France
Adam Lebowitz
Scott Ritter in Tokyo
Kurt Nimmo
Bring Us the Head of Osama bin Laden
Forrest Hylton
The Revolt in Bolivia
Col. Dan Smith
Irrelevance and Credibility:
Bush, NATO and the UN
Wayne Madsen
The Lies of Tom Lantos
Ranjit Hoskote
The Invisible Modernities of the Islamic World
Emily Zitter-Smith
Who's Safe Now?
An American in Cairo
Rich Procter
Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?
Poets Basement:
Eliot
Katz, Scott Handleman, and Bruce Tomczak
Website of the Weekend
Anti-War
Posters
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|