> I think that all the evidence points to the fact that U.S. policies
> in the Middle East are just the usual means that the U.S. uses to
> dominate the resources of third world countries, that the U.S. uses
> similar strategies and tactics in all parts of the world, and that
> the special relationship with Israel is part of the "normal"
> workings of U.S. "imperialism".
Within the normal workings of US imperialism a lot can change. Apartheid South Africa played a role in Africa comparable to Israel's in the Middle East, and yet Apartheid was brought to an end, in part because of activism of South Africans and others, and in part because the US and other power elite eventually decided that ending it would probably serve their interest better than perpetuating it. It turns out that the power elite's bet has paid off: the ANC rule has been arguably better for neoliberal capitalism than the white minority rule would have been had it survived till now.
Bill Clinton, I believe, wanted to solve both the Irish and Palestinian questions along the line of the South African settlement (the economic part, not the part about replacing white politicians by Black politicians). That's what the Peace Processes in Ireland and Israel/Palestine were all about. That policy seems to have worked as well as it could in Ireland (though the current settlement may not be permanent), but it didn't work at all in Israel/Palestine.
George W. Bush has more aggressively pursued the Clinton formula, going so far as to push for leadership change in the Palestinian political structure, i.e., having Mahmoud Abbas become the new leader, presumably slated to play the role of the ANC together with his Israeli partner (to whom he was to be a subordinate). Palestinians, however, weren't going for that and elected Hamas instead, to Bush's chagrin.
If Bush had somehow been able to arrange for the simultaneous rise of dovish neoliberal leaders among both Israelis and Palestinians, who could jointly impose the South-African style neoliberal settlement on Israelis and Palestinians, things might have been different, but Bush doesn't like dovishness himself, nor do Israelis and Palestinians at this moment.
Besides, the stakes are higher in the Middle East than in Africa, so what's been working -- Israel as the sole nuclear power checking any populist currents that might emerge again among Arabs in the future (as they have in Latin America) -- cannot be as easily ditched.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>