Wednesday, March 14, 2007

UNFORTUNATELY

So the Democrats backed down on their move to force the White House to get permission from Congress for any military funds used in an attack on Iran.

And they did so, according to all accounts, because of the influence of “the Israel lobby,” which has generally been shown to be one powerful Jewish-American lobbyist with some control over large campaign contributions.

First of all, Jews everywhere should be protected from the kinds of anti-Semitic violence and discrimination that has too often been their lot throughout much of history.

But, this has nothing to do with that.

Yes, Isaraelis have a right to fear Iran when its president says that Israel shouldn’t even exist. Just as citizens of the U. S. have a right to fear Osama Bin Laden and his followers who say the U. S. no longer has the right to exist.

But one of the main reasons for Islamic hatred toward the U. S. is because of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. If a party or faction in the Isaraeli government gets enough power to force the Isaraeli prime minister to have to clear funding for all military attacks and invasions of other countries with the Israeli parliament, the Kneset, would it be okay for a “U. S. lobbyist” to intervene and make sure that didn’t happen?

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Our government shares Israel’s interest in keeping Iran—and the Shi-ite sect of Islam that makes up most of its population—in check to protect itself from attack, only our reasons are because, as Cheney made clear recently, these Shi-ites now “straddle the world’s most optimum oil reserves” which includes the Shi-ite control of Iraq, that we allowed and even encouraged to happen and now are regretting because they seem to be aligned with their Shi-ite brethren in Iran.

But another “of course” less noticed is, it is Israel and the U. S. who have done most of the attacking in recent years. Individual attacks on Israeli citizens and on U. S. citizens and interests have been carried out, but state sponsored attacks and invasions have only been initiated by Israel, the U. S. and Saddam’s Iraq.

If you were to take an objective measurement of what countries are most likely to initiate attacks and invasions of other countries, the record shows it to be Israel and the U. S. and Iraq under Saddam. Looked at from one perspective, the Shi-ite one, the axis of evil would be Iraq under Saddam (and therefore Sunni rule), the U. S. and Israel.

But now that Saddam is gone and the majority Shi-ites of Iraq are out from under his and his fellow Sunnis oppressive rule, naturally they don’t want to give it back, and every attempt by the U. S. and Israel to quash Shi-ite influence and control of their own territories and resources is seen as what it is, a total reluctance to let Shi-ites control the oil on their lands.

Just as it would have been total suicide for the Soviets to have launched a nuclear attack on the U. S., or anyone else, during the Cold War—and so they waged mini-proxy-conventional wars with the U. S. throughout Africa and Asia and parts of the Middle East—it would be total suicide for Iran to launch any kind of nuclear strike, or even conventional military attack, on Israel, so it fights them through Hesbollah in Lebanon and is trying to get a foothold among the Palestinians.

Just as we are now fighting Iran (and therefore Shi-ites in general) through supporting, as always, the Saudis (and richest Sunnis) bankrolling of Sunni attacks on Shi-ites in Iraq and Iran and Lebanon, etc.

For the current administration to change policy and support Sunnis, who were responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and for most of the deaths of American troops in Iraq, as they have recently done (though as always most of the media seems to not have noticed yet), and intend to do more of, vis-a-vis Iran, is understandable, because for them it is always about the oil.

But for the Democrats to back down and allow them to do this, out of fear of “the Israel lobby” and the campaign money it supposedly can make flow or cut off, is such a disappointment, and too cowardly almost to comment on. But I just did anyway.

2 comments:

messineowyman said...

ML,

Thank you for acknowledging Sylvia Schuster .. her work in all of its richness in tone and content, pierces the soul and wrings the heart. As her New York
Dealers we are seeking a wider audience and
Museum recognition. Her time is now! HGW (Wyman Contemporary)

messineowyman said...

ML,

Thank you for acknowledging Sylvia Schuster .. her work in all of its richness in tone and content, pierces the soul and wrings the heart. As her New York
Dealers we are seeking a wider audience and
Museum recognition. Her time is now! HGW (Wyman Contemporary)