placing the palestinian struggle

[Seth Ackerman]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> I don't subscribe to the "It's the power of AIPAC" explanation, but
> it's not at all clear what US military interests are being served by
> the present Israeli policy toward Arafat, the PLO, and Palestinians
> in the Occupied Territories.  Surely a two-state solution would
> better serve US military (and other) interests than what Sharon is
> doing now, no?  Perhaps we need to explain why the Empire is
> incapable of doing what appears to be in its interest.
>
> Those of us who are not happy with "It's the power of AIPAC"
> explanation -- including yours truly -- are obligated to provide a
> credible alternative explanation, rather than a simple assertion that
> Israel serves US military interests; absent a good explanation, it's
> no wonder many gravitate toward a default explanation (= AIPAC).

Although all the explanations about Israel as a counterweight to Arab
nationalism still very much hold true, it's also true that at this moment,
support for Israel doesn't seem like such a brilliant idea from the point of
view of imperial interest. But it's like the the Vietnam War in 1970. US
commitments have accumulated and there is no easy way for it to extricate
itself. At the recent Harper's forum on US support for Israel, the veteran
Mideast diplomat Edward Walker (very centrist, sort of Colin Powell-ish) was
asked why supporting Israel is in America's interest. One of the reasons he
gave was that reversing the policy now would entail a "loss of credibility"
in the Mideast. And, in his view, it would embolden the political forces
opposed to Israel, which are generally also hostile to the US. Unlike
Vietnam, of course, the costs of the policy stalemate in Israel are very
limited. It's not destroying the international financial system or
stimulating rebellions in the streets. So there have not been many
defections from the consensus within the ruling class. I have no doubt,
though, that if the situation were to deteriorate to the point where US
support for Israel was seen as endangering all the other US commitments in
the Middle East, there would be a lot of defections - a lot of very
mainstream pro-Israel Senators would start saying radical-sounding things
about the Middle East.
Seth