There is not much that I disagree with in what your write above. I think it is a matter of emphasis.
I would just like to point out that the U.S.G. opposed change in South Africa to the very last and there was much elite criticism of the ANC even after the change occurred. For good reason too. The ability to use South Africa as a terrorist state in that part of the world is a blow against many of the normal operations of U.S. power. Also their are many economic changes in South Africa that are still opposed by the U.S.G. and U.S. business. For instance intra-Third-World economic connections between Brasil-India-South Africa is also looked at as a bad-deal by many U.S. corporations. There was an article in a foreign policy journal I read in the 1980s tht predicted such deals and said that they were a danger to the U.S. which was why the author advocated a "slow" transition in South Africa. Now it seems that these elite fears of intra-Third World economic alliances are coming true.
All in all, in my view, it was politically "irrational" for the U.S.G. to oppose the ANC for as long as it did. But these kind of politicalirrationalities are standard problems that crop up in powerful systems of domination, such as U.S. imperialism. When at all possible imperial domination is maintained by funding a thin ruling group that usual resorts to violence. This was true of every empire I have ever learned about and it is true of the U.S. Thus trying to co-opt the ANC, what the state department labeled a "terrorist organization," was only a last resort and not the preferred solution.
Finally, I would like to point out. as you know, that it was the struggle of the South Africans themselves that transformed the apartheid state, and where-as their was plenty of support among United States citizens for the struggle of black South Africans, that struggle was constantly undermined by the official and unofficial policies of the USG and of US corporations.
It is true that Israel may find itself an imperial cast-off someday but most likely for reasons our rulers would prefer not to ponder.
Again what we are talking about when we argue over the pro-Israel lobby and its effect on the U.S. is the nature of U.S. imperial goals.
On 3/31/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
> Jerry wrote:
>
> > 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>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060331/8b54af03/attachment.htm>