I will repeat my overall view: "Israel" is best viewed as an internal American problem, the US in the Middle East. This reality is enforced by the US itself, as it consistently vetoes any international presence within this particular territory, and insists in dealing with it as if were an internal civil war between, say, Missouri and Illinois.
It also accurately represents the political cultural reality which underlies this tight bond: the deep embeddness of Zionist politics within the US political mainstream as a reactionary _domestic_ political trend, among many others, which intervenes on many other issues besides "Israel". Not to mention the obvious military and intelligence ties.
In this regard it is interesting to note Geoffrey Wheatcrofts' OpEd piece in last Mondays' NYT, "Europe's Chance in the Mideast". What is noteworthy is not it view of "Israel" as an "European" state, a characterization obviously diametrically opposed to the one presented here. Wheatcroft's view is incorrect, because it cannot explain how the present situation came to be, and why it continues to be. It can no more explain reality than can the fact that Zionism's historical roots as a 19th century European nationalist movement can explain the current reality of Zionism as a quintessentially _American_ political movement centered in the USA. Zionism and its product, "Israel" have been utterly transformed from their origins, in a process begun around 1967 and evolved through several phases. What is noteworthy is that Wheatcroft's article appeared, now, on the NYT editorial pages with the suggestion that Europe could bail out the US. It is a symptom of the increasing desperation of the editors of this publication, whose anxieties no doubt find reflection in other parts of the US ruling class, and which were manifest in the Bush Administrations recent pathetic gyrations around the issue of the intifada.
The NYT isn't making much of a fuss on its front pages, of course. So far, they have been joined in silence by most US leftists, but, if we make enough noise, we may be able to prevent an impending catastrophe. This isn't the spector (let alone advocacy) of "three more decades of endless warfare", but the potential catastrophe of a Final Solution to the Palestinian Question, which is Jordan, obviously, after much blood is shed.
So far, most US leftists prefer to wait around until the catastrophe is fact, whereupon, in the style of Chris Hitchens, there will be a great wailing and moralizing gnashing of teeth demanding war crimes tribunals and international justice. This is the scenario that those of us who have made this a top concern NOW, seek to prevent in the first place. It may mean breaking some old friendships - I have personally lost friends and made enemies over this - but it will be well worth it in the end.
-Brad Mayer Oakland, CA