Zionism, US Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism

[Classical_Liberal]

Personal note: I apologize that this comes from counterpunch which I believe has been uncautious about publishing antisemitic writers, but this is an excellent article anyway.

Zionism, US Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism

By FAWZIA AFZAL-KHAN

Since 9/11, I have written and published several essays examining the reductive discourses that sprang up, mushroom-like, in mainstream media particularly within the US, to explain that apocalyptic moment in terms of an "Us/Them" binary. Many of these limited, and in my opinion, spurious analyses (written and promoted by the likes of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes etc) need to be challenged for obvious reasons. The most important of these, as far as I am concerned, is that linking Islam to terrorism does absolutely nothing to vitiate the anger and resentment millions of Muslims around the world feel toward the West in general and the United States in particular in this unipolar world, for what are essentially political reasons: the economic lop-sidedness of a top-down, winner-take-all globalization that serves to increase the wealth and power of the richer nations at the expense of the poorer ones.

The egregious example of the state of Israel, which is supported unequivocally by the USA militarily and economically to serve as its watchdog and policeman in the Middle East whose oil resources continue to fuel (no pun intended!), the imperial interests of the USA and other western nations, underscores for the vast majority of third world peoples, of whom Muslims comprise a substantial portion, the connection between the maintenance of global hegemony and colonial usurpation of indigenous peoples ' lands and resources and their concomitant subjugation and dehumanization. The ire against Israel that is manifesting itself increasingly vocally across not just the third world but within the heartland of Europe, should thus be seen for what it is: not as evidence of a "rise in anti-semitism" as supporters of Israel wish to paint it (including, unsurprisingly, prominent cabinet members of Ariel Sharon's right-wing government that is busy erecting yet more settlements in the Occupied Territories on a daily basis), but as the legitimate frustration of the world's have-nots against the haves. Israel, seen in this light, is simply the example par excellence, of the oppression and injustice upon which the contemporary world class system, the New world Order with USA at its head, is based. Insofar as the state of Israel proclaims itself to be a state for "Jews only," the expressions of anger directed against it (in its capacity as Colonialism's last outpost)--necessarily take on what appear to some to be the markings of anti-semitism, but are, in fact, the ire of colonized and neo-colonized peoples against the colonial Master.........

http://www.counterpunch.org/khan12012003.html

[Darranar]

1. I do not much like this article...

it scapegoats Israel for things the state is not really responsible for. It ties US foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel, as if Israel was its centerpoint and purpose. That is innaccurate. Israel is but a part of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Israel is not helping the US pursue its interests in the Middle East because it particularly wants to see US economic dominance of the region. Rather, it is a matter of the self-interest of the state; the US is an ally, and the Arab sattes are not; hence, US control of Arab states is a good thing. This is of course also fueled by the billions they get annually in foreign aid from the US. It is not in any way a matter of Israel's economic wishes, aside from the areas in which they relate to security. This is a case in which ideology clouds the reason of the writer.

It is worth pointing out that the economic system in Israel is far more advanced then in the US; in many ways, it is European economically (as it is in many other areas of domestic policy) though Netanuyahu's Finance Ministry is trying to change that. That is something else that must be considered in the drive to condemn Israel for the United States' pathetic foreign policy and corporate globalization.

The generalizations this article makes about Zionism are also dissapointing. Zionism is the belief in a Jewish state in Palestine; a Zionist is one who believes in such. No more, no less. Attempts at equating Zionism with anti-Muslim racism are foolish and innaccurate, as well as attempts to equate Zionism with right-wing extremism and neo-conservatism.

It does make a few nice points, however.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. I didn't see any points made about zionism one way or another

I don't believe that our current foriegn policy is in our interests. I view the pro-israel lobby as an emotional well organized minority like the NRA who have alot of political power basically because they are dedicated, and we have a chrony political system, that rewards well financed and organized interests. Not to mention the fact that they have allied themselves with the religious right. I believe we invaded Iraq primarily because Israel wanted a diversion from occupation of the West Bank, and because some of the Likudniks have actually deluded themselves in believing that lack of democracy and not the occupation of west bank is the reason Arabs don't like Israel. I don't think our policy toward Israel does us any more good for us then giving automatic weapons to nutcases.

[Darranar]

4. Of course it is not in our interests!

I am radically against many elements of US foreign policy, but that's not the point.

My point is very simply that Israel is but a piece of US Middle Eastern policy. The author seemed to acknowledge that, but saw it in a different way. He or she saw it as a mini-America, which is an innaccurate picture.

The "Israel lobby" has its power exxagerated because it happens to be in line with the interests of the US - meaning the interests of those with power in the US - in the Middle East. Because of this, it is supported. The power of the lobby itself is only minimal in influence on US foreign policy.

Israel also benefits in this deal; it gets aid and a picture for the Middle East where the entire region is under the control of its ally, which can't be wrong.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. How does Israel help Bush except for the mobilization of

christians and right wing zionists as a voting block and the neocons as Bush's brains?

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. I think he gives ideology too much credit

I agree with him about the colonialism aspect of Israel, as well as Israel as US guard dog, but I don't think that the US gives a rat's ass what kind of economic system Israel has, as long as money flows in the directions in which it is supposed to flow. And I don't think that the US really cares one way or the other what Israel does to Palestinians or anybody else, again, as long as enough tension is maintained to keep the gunrunners happy.

But ideology of any kind is and has always been a useful tool of greed more than a moving force of its own. That goes for Israel and Sierra Leone and wherever else you want to go.

I think opposition to zionism has more to do with opposition to an ethnically based state. If you took the European immigrants out of Israel, and said ok, it's just Middle Eastern Jews and a handful of Ethiopians and Judaism is the state religion, I don't think that there would be the fervor of opposition that is the inevitable reaction to anything that advocates European colonization of an ancient land - any ancient land.

Conversely, many white supremists are ardent "zionists" for similar reasons, in addition to the ever-popular Apocalypse-Rapture-lake of fire scenario, there are many who feel that acceptance of an ethnically based state in Israel sets a precedent that will favor their own dreams of this or that Elysian Whiteland.

The best way that Israel could combat that would involve both assimilation on the part of the European invaders, as well as becoming less South Africa-like socially. Both politics and the economy are dominated by Europeans, especially Russians.

That is the face of Israel for the rest of the world, people don't think of Israelis as brown and beige people from the Middle East and Africa, they think of them as ethnic Europeans who exist in a constant state of rage that there are so many Middle Eastern people defiling the Middle East, which they have decided should belong to them. In the US media, that is all you see. And the American voting class sympathizes with that rage, as it resonates with US racism.

Religion has less to do with it than Afzal-Khan or most Americans realize ;)

[Darranar]

5. The area where I disagree with you...

is the importance of Israel in US foreign policy. As I said above, it is not a mini-America; it is rather a state with its own interests that happen to coincide with that of the powerful elite in this country. The area where you and I agree is exactly WHAT the interests of that powerful elite are.

It is also true that ideology is often a useful tool for greed.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. I don't think it can be that until it is independent from the US

I know that there are many Israelis who would LIKE it to be a real state with its own interests, but in order to do its job as Uncle Sam's pitbull, it must act in direct opposition to its own interests!

Obviously, it would be in the best interests of ordinary Israelis to have a peaceful independent nation, with friendly and productive relations with its neighbors, and its neighbors as well would be a lot better off if they were not neo-colonies of the US.

US policy is the root cause of a hell of a lot of suffering worldwide - not just in the Middle East.

And THAT is not in the best interests of ordinary Americans!

[tinnypriv]

8. On the image/presentation of Israelis - a tidbit

Remember that Columbia hostages story? Ha'aretz and nearly all print media used the image of the blond Israeli (forget his name) as the backdrop to their story.

Funnily enough, checking the video (and what was in yediot), it turns out the other Israelis resemble an Arab appearance.

I thought that was a nice touch. :)