Israel, the "newest" U.S. state?
This is nothing new, that the U.S. helps Israel with arms and aid.
For a while, I was hearing lots how Israel actually controls the U.S., however after reading this Noam Chomsky article, it looks like perhaps the U.S.
is the dominant one:
"Consider the U.S. reaction to Israel's conquest of the Sinai in 1956 and in 1967. In 1956, the U.S. strongly opposed that action. Eisenhower and
Dulles were quite forthright and outspoken about it a few days before the presidential election, allegedly a time when political considerations are
paramount. Political considerations aside, the U.S. openly compelled Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, not caring about its impact in the
presidential election. In contrast, the U.S. supported Israel's conquest of the Sinai in 1967 and has been backing it since that time.
What was the difference between 1956 and 1967? In 1956, Israel was allied with France and England who were trying to reestablish some position of
significance in the Middle East, believing still they had some role to play in regulating the affairs of the region. Since Israel was collaborating
with rivals of the U.S. in the region, the conquest became illegitimate."
So, if anything assists the rivals of the U.S., it's illegal or 'not right'. When it helps the U.S., it's all good.
Now, growing up in Israel, we'd always hear about how much the U.S. was a friend and helping and caring about each Israeli citizen and they're right
to freedom. However, reading further down this article:
"U.S. government support of Israel is more or less in accord with the American perception of Israel's strength. The stronger Israel becomes, the
more it is able to assist the U.S. in maintaining control of the region, so the more the U.S. will support it. Though the pretense has always been
that we're supporting Israel because it is in danger, the opposite would be a much more accurate statement. American support for Israel is contingent
upon its strength and ability to aid in maintaining American domination of the Middle East."
"For one thing, the U.S. would rather not have Israel have its own internal resources. They want it to be dependent on the U.S. Furthermore, Israel
is infringing on the interests of major American corporations in the case of the Gulf of Suez.
American oil companies are linked with Egyptian explorations and liftings and Israel is simply taking over part of the area that they regard as
theirs. The thing is pretty small at the moment and it doesn't involve any major oil resources, so the U.S. isn't pressing very hard. But they've
always described Israeli actions there as illegal and they simply reiterated it at this point. Of course, what "legality" means is what the big
powers determine; it's another rhetorical term. To say that it's illegal is another way of saying, "We disapprove of it and, if we disapprove
enough, we'll make you stop it."
Again, if Israel does something daddy doesn't like, they will be punished.
"There's a tremendous economic drain into military expenditures and that's only going to increase. Furthermore, a commitment to military
production is becoming a larger and larger element in the Israeli economy, both internally and for export, and the tie with the U.S. is a strong part
of that. This drain of resources in the military means that they can't face internal social problems"
Israel's military occupation is taking resources away from social problems. (Sounds like the U.S.) I am so sick of the people who are in charge,
whether they're America and Israeli and Zionist... So now it's not enough to mess up its own country, but others as well. People need to wake up!
"Those two positions differ only on this issue, as far as I can see, on the issue of how to control the Arab population centers. The "extremists"
would accord the Palestinians technical legal rights, which would give rise to the famous demographic problem. The Allon would keep them in a sort of
Transkei, which would "avoid" the demographic problem.
The third, the real dovish view, the one that Moked holds, is that they ought to simply abandon the occupied territory and have a peaceful settlement
with the Palestinian state. That appeals to a very small sector of opinion, which is not surprising. I can think of no historical example where a
country has been willing to abandon territory it conquered. Often that has led to destruction. Over and over in history that has happened, but nobody
ever learns from it, and the next time around... "
The least popular view is the most important one. Why can't we live in Peace with them? Fear, that's why, from lies lies and more lies. Lies from
the government, from family, from the media, all designed to keep this going...
I remember growing up hearing stuff like 'kill all those Arabs' and 'they're filthy animals'... funny, but I still don't believe it. If someone
is an @#%@#$ then it's because that's how they were brought up, not because of what country they're from..
Here's the link to the document.
Thank you for reading.
[edit on 21-11-2007 by quintar]