Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Un colpo al cerchio e uno alla botte (2)

Quell'antisemitismo che amo
Giano
-------
Jewish Voice for Peace
WHO DECIDES US MIDEAST POLICY?
May 14, 2003 -
The comments by Rep. James Moran (D-VA), just before the invasion of Iraq,
regarding the role of the Jewish community in the march to war set off a
small firestorm in Washington. Moran’s statement that “if it were not for
the strong support of the Jewish community for the war with Iraq, we would
not be doing this” was obviously offensive to many Jews, especially the
great many who were opposed to the war. More than just ascribing a pro-war
stance to an entire community (one which, according to polls, was well in
line with the general population in its stance on the war and less
supportive than other groups of Americans of European descent), the
statement carries with it the implication that there is Jewish control over
American policy, a control that subverts US policy to its own ends. On that
level, the reaction of many Jews is correct.
Yet it does not suffice to simply react to such a comment without a deeper
analysis of what leads to such views. It is insufficient, and in the long
term quite dangerous, to write such views off as nothing more than
irrational hatred, and ignore any basis it might have in fact, whatever one
might think of the interpretation of those facts. We need to ask what
evidence might support these views, if we hope to refute them. Furthermore,
as American Jews it is also incumbent upon us to examine these questions
fairly. No one would deny that American Jews certainly work very hard to
have influence well out of proportion to our numbers in the general
population when it comes to matters regarding the Middle East. On the one
hand, there is no doubt that the notion that a Jewish “cabal” has some sort
of mystical sway over the policymakers in Washington holds in it a familiar
ring of classical anti-Semitism. On the other hand, this notion that the war
on Iraq was executed at the behest of Jews and for the sake of Jewish
interests does not come out the ether. And while it is likely the case that
some of the proponents and adherents to this idea are indeed motivated by
hatred of Jews, it is also true that many also do so because of the
evidence. We need to consider if that evidence is incomplete, deceptive or
persuasive and, as Jews, to act accordingly.
The most obvious link that is repeatedly drawn is the fact that many of the
key people in the Bush administration responsible for our Iraq policy have a
long history of backing, and even recommending some of the most draconian
Israeli policies. Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are the people most
commonly identified with this small group of neo-conservative hawks, and
they are two of the primary formulators of Bush administration policy with
regard to Middle East. There is also the fact that Israel has, from the
earliest rumblings of war on Iraq been the most vocal supporter of military
action against Iraq on the part of the United States and Britain. Underlying
all of this is the near-mythical status the pro-Israel lobby enjoys. All of
these deserve careful scrutiny to see where Israel and its supporters fit in
to policy formation, but one can see easily how these factors lead to a
conclusion like that of Jim Moran. Yet, if we are ever to hope to see
American foreign policy wrested from the hands of those who hold it now, we
must not ignore the fact that Israel, its supporters and its political
position are integral parts of foreign policy formation. What we need to do
is understand where and how they fit in, and to what degree they hold sway.
In order to do that, we need to first review how the current state of
affairs came about.
It is an obvious truism that American policy toward Iraq and American policy
regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict are both parts of a larger American
foreign policy regarding the Middle East. In 1945, the US State Department
referred to the vast oil reserves of the Middle East as “…a stupendous
source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world
history . . . probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field
of foreign investment." No major power, let alone a superpower, would ever
willingly allow the fate of such a “prize” to be left to political chance or
ideological whim, let alone to the capricious interests of those who
actually live on the land above that great prize. If this was the case in
1945, how much more so is it now, with the global economy being even more
dependent on oil now than it was half a century ago, and with anticipation
that reserves may run dangerously low within a few decades? Indeed, it can
hardly escape one’s notice that the current administration is stocked with
people with major interests in mid-level oil companies—companies which might
well have prime access to some of the world’s largest reserves, and,
subsequently, may become considerably less “mid-level”. But we ought not
only look at the prurient self-interest of a few people in the
administration, neither for greed nor for fanatical ideological devotion.
The large contracts handed out to American corporations to “rebuild Iraq”
were an inevitable consequence of any war, whether fought for legitimate
reasons (whatever those might be) or not. Instead, we need to see the entire
US policy in the Middle East in the context of the US desire to control “one
of the greatest material prizes in world history”.
[CUT]
A chi interessasse tutto l'articolo, un po' lungo, lo si puo`leggere qui:
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/about/newsletters/2003/newsletter0514.html

mid-level oil companies—companies
La solita ca***ta tirata fuori.
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Ciao amore!
Erano due giorni che mi mancavi; ti ho cercato pazzamente , ma non ti
trovavo e cominciavo a diventare nervoso....
Dove sei stato...in Kossovo?
Cosa hai fatto...l'hai salvata la pompa?
Non lasciarmi piu`solo, ti prego, non farlo piu`o ti cancellero`anche dai
miei sogni.
Bacini passionali.
G.