From: martillo@stars.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: ADC CHALLENGES WALL ST JOURNAL
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:36:51 GMT
Organization: Clearpoint Inc., Hopkinton, MA

In article <1992Apr16.192429.145322@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>In article <10747@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@stars.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr14.210610.173162@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr14.181316.13585@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>>>>    The article did mention that OAKAR BOUNCED 213 CHECKS, and made 
>>>>    it to the list of the twenty two worst "Rubbergate" offenders.
>>>>    She was also the chairman of a subcommittee that oversaw the
>>>>    House Bank's personnel policies.  

>>>Let's see...Larry Smith, Stephen Solarz are both also on the list
>>>(Smith may have *just* missed the 22, but Solarz bounced hundreds...way, 
>>>WAY MORE that Oakar).  They are the staunchest supporters of Israel in 
>>>the House.  Just what is your point?

>>Actually, Solarz is also one of the staunchest supporters of India and
>>the effort to liberate Kuwait.  Solarz is Jewish, but his political
>>behavior stems from a fundamental commitment to internationalism and not
>>from some sort of primitive tribalism.  Israel has some major problems
>>and the very existence of India as a nation state is an offense against
>>human decency, but Israel and India have historically managed to present
>>themselves in a manner which can appeal to internationalists. 

>If Solarz were a dedicated internationalist, there would be little
>explanation for his continued support for Israeli policies.  My 
>reasoning is as follows:

>Internationalists (of the Western, not Marxist variety) have in 
>the last 40 years or so acted in a manner consistent with the
>goal of resisting the spread of Communism. 

We may be using internationalist in different ways.  Some
internationalists have sought to aid developing nations specifically to
contain communism but those are a specific class of cold warriors with
internationalist inclination and who are typically left anti-communists. 
These people have typically viewed India as a Soviet client state.  When
these people are sympathetic to Israel, they emphasize Israel's ability
to intimidate Soviet Arab clients and in fact Arab states in general. 

The liberal internationalists like Solarz view aiding the developing
world as an end in itself.  Such people have tended to overlook India's
flirtation with the Soviet Union and have generally supported increased
foreign aid to India.  When these people are sympathetic to Israel, they
emphasize Israel's achievements in agriculture and science. 

>                                           Saudi Arabia and 
>Israel have both figured significantly in this.  The Saudi's 
>have done a much better job at presenting themselves to internationalists 
>than the Israelis ever did...until recently. 

Actually, practically all internationalists except those suffering from
romantic delusions about the nature of Arab/Islamic society have
generally disdained Saudi Arabia for its commitment to general Islamic
silliness and its funding of religionist groups which invariably
encourage anti-Americanism.  From a liberal internationalist
perspective, Saudi ideology is completely offensive as it comprises
religionist fanaticism, oppression of women and a reluctance to identify
slavery as an evil.  Yet Saudi Arabia from a realist internationalist
perspective remains a useful tool which the US uses in strengthening the
US position in the world. 

>                                             Saudi Arabia managed 
>to reach secret (and sound, PR-wise) security agreements with the 
>West and still *appear* to have the flexibility to act against 
>U.S. interests.  This type of low-key relationship holds much 
>more appeal for the Nixons, Bushes, and Kissingers of the world...

Actually, Nixon and Kissinger are famous for their tilt toward Israel --
a policy which has apparently led to increasing US influence and
dominance in the ME.  Bush has less sympathy for Israel, but in fact of
these leaders Bush is the least internationalist. 

>especially when they have to deal with persistent isolationist 
>forces in their own organization.  Israel, whether or not this 
>reflects reality, has appeared to live largely on the American's 
>backs.  (Of course, Saudi money figures in well for them.)

An alternative view might identify Bush and Baker as stoking these
forces.  Liberal internationalists in general side-step power politics. 
The cold-warrior internationalists have generally lost interest in the
Middle East and frankly consider Arabs nonentities, Arab countries
nullities and Arab culture a stupidity.  The realist internationalists
will always have tender feelings toward a client state which can fight
like Israel while they will expect and generally obtain obedience from
rich client states like Saudi Arabia which cannot fight. 

>This, of course, will change in some interesting ways in the aftermath
>of Desert Storm and the collapse of Communism.  The Saudis appear to 
>be working it to their advantage, the Israelis do not...

The Saudis have always had their advocates at the State Department, but
the combination of Islamic primitivism and military weakness will never
win them any internationalist hearts even though the US arms industry
loves to sell the Saudis weapons systems which are probably ineffective. 

>Having said all that, it would seem that Solarz the internationalist 
>should understand the benefits of working to change Israeli policies.  

Actually, liberal internationalists like Solarz are likely to be
sympathetic to the observation that Israeli policies are hard to change
without major modifications in Arab/Islamic attitudes and major changes
in Arab/Islamic political structures and leadership.  Not being fixated
on the Middle East, liberal internationalists might rank Israel rather
low in comparison with more pressing world problems, evils and
stupidities like the CIS states, India, Arab states, African states,
Islamic states, the PRC and various Latin American states.  Realist
internationalists care about power more than debatable concepts of
justice and are even less likely to care about changine Israeli policies
unless these policies are clearly harming US interests.  At the moment
Palestinians have provided realist internationalists with no basis for
sympathy but have given realist internationalist Yankees (and many Arab
people also) good grounds for major disdain of Palestinians and
Palestinian causes. 

>However, Solarz the politician has a decidedly pro-Israel constituency,
>and has acted accordingly.  Notice that I am not assuming that his
>support for Israel comes from his Jewishness.

I vaguely remember reading that Solarz district was not an
overwhelmingly Jewish district.  The concept may be hard to understand
but non-Jewish non-Arab non-Muslims can easily be more sympathetic to
Israel than a state like Syria which is a bastion of crazed Arab
nationalism or Saudi Arabia which is a major supporter of Islamic
fundamentatlism.  Shintaro Ishihara (author of The Japan that Can Say No
and not known as being either Jewish or even pro-USA) is a big Israel
booster in Japan. 

>>Arab/Islamic oriented regimes by way of contrast are invariably
>>completely offensive to political figures with an internationalist
>>inclination.  And of course, Arab/Islamic oriented regimes and
>>organizations commit far more heinous and murderous crimes against Arab
>>people than Israel and the Zionists have ever committed or dreamed of
>>committing against Arab people. 

>>Oaker's role in oversight of the Bank's personnel policies makes her
>>check-bouncing perhaps rather more noteworthy than that of other
>>Congressmen. 

>Indeed, possibly.  However, again, this has little to do with the 
>highlighted statements in the article and the ADC's complaints.

I admit I actually missed the original statements, but after checking
the previous articles, I might consider Oaker's anti-abortion position
further from the liberal democratic norm than her position on Israel
which she apparently shares with prominent democratic leaders like Jesse
Jackson.

>>>Anwar Mohammed                           Graduate Student

>>Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami

>Anwar Mohammed                           Graduate Student

Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast