|
Warren and others:
There are plenty of other people, besides
"vulgar Marxists"** who believe that control over oil is the PREDOMINANT factor
currently affecting U.S. policy in the Middle East. For example, the oil
companies, hardly a group of "vulgar Marxists."
U.S. oil companies are not hegemonic. One
risks "teetering on the brink of vulgar Marxism" by assuming that there is one,
united. all-powerful hegemonic capitalist class! Capitalists fight among
themselves. Oil companies fight among themselves. Some want to broker
Saudi/Omani/Kuwait oil and block others from brokering Caspian Sea/Iraqi oil to
France, Germany, even Russia, for example and/or block others from getting
Alaskan oil that might compete with the oil that they are brokering. Then again,
sometimes the rivals ally on common projects.
Sentiment does play a role. But it is
secondary. Through much of the 1970's, major U.S. strategy was an
anti-USSR alliance anchored by Turkey/Iran/Israel/ and Ethiopia--mainly
Iran/Israel as military power. When Iran slipped away, the U.S. was forced to
shift somewhat away from Israel in fact in order to try to gain the support of
"moderate Arabs." Consider that Egypt is also a major recipient of U.S. aid, and
while it is currently not-hostile to Israel, it is hardly a "military ally" of
Israel. At various times, the U.S. supported fundamentalists against Arafat and
Arafat against fundamentalists. I believe that the major U.S.
banking-oil interests (Exxon-Mobil-Chase, etc.) do believe that an aggressive
Israel is counter to their interests. I think that they would actually
rather that Israel give up much of the West Bank and Gaza. But primarily,
it is not pro-Jewish sentiment in the U.S. that keeps the aid flowing in
despite Israeli defiance.
The U.S., like Britain and other before,
plays the "divide and conquer" game. It works for a while, but requires a
delicate balancing act. While they often have the upper hand playing
different sides against each other, it sometimes creates a kind of vulnerability
where the different sides can sometimes exert pressure back on the U.S.
The main U.S. oil interests would rather Israel give in somewhat, BUT Israeli
interests do have some hold back on the U.S. -- they are not complete puppets.
It's not as if those U.S. interests would be pleased to have Israel completely
break from the U.S. They still need to have a strong military ally there;
they'd just rather that Israel give in somewhat also. For example,
I think that the main section of the U.S. oil and banking interests were
anti-Likud and more supportive of the Israeli liberals and actually worked to
get the conservatives out of power. But the
Israeli conservatives are forcing the U.S. hand by saying "give us
more--if you try to make us give up too much, we'll force the issue and we know
you won't side with the Islamic fundamentalists."
Sentiment can be important. It can be
especially crucial on the level of consolidating the commitment of the street
fighting soldiers of all sides. It certainly greatly intensified the focus
of the Nazi regime, for example.
But I think that understanding contradictory
economic interests, contradictory political interests, and the sometimes
immediate contradiction between economics and politics mixed in with some
sentiment does a better (more complex, less "vulgar") job explaining how U.S.
policy could have a basic pro-Israel tilt while still being critical of Israel's
intransigene, than, for example an analysis that sees one basic
contradiction--"sentiment" versus a unified political-economic set of interests
of a supposedly unified "imperialist-capitalist-hegemonic
Superpower."
in anti-imperialist solidarity,
Alan Spector
Purdue University Calumet
============================================================= . **Non-vulgar Marxists" utilize the analytic
understanding of contradictions (non-Marxists often do also) as a way of
acknowledging that situations are complex, but as a way of not assuming that
contradictions "cancel" each other out, but rather than they affect each other
and eventually (temporarily) resolve in one direction or another. (Sorry
for all the abstraction here--it's not that complicated
actually.)
=========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: <wwagar@binghamton.edu>
To: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>
Cc: <KSamman@aol.com>; <nveroli@igc.org>; <TGanesh@southampton.liunet.edu>; <ssherman@gborocollege.edu>; <socgrad@listserv.binghamton.edu>;
<jeschurt@hotmail.com>; <chris@gse.utah.edu>; <bh08643@binghamton.edu>; "world system
network" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>; <Arie8K@aol.com>; <GNAA@egroups.com>; <al-awda@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Edward Said - American Zionism (3)
> Alan-- > > If oil and capitalism and profits were all that really motivate > the United States, why have "we" never cut Israel loose? I insist that > the U.S. commitment to Israel runs contrary to the vital national > interests of the U.S. as an imperialist-capitalist-hegemonic Superpower. > You are teetering on the brink of vulgar Marxism if you think that U.S. > Middle East policy is all that cut-and-dried. Sentiment does matter. > > Warren > > On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Alan Spector wrote: > > > Well, I partly agree that ideologically, "Jewish Zionism" is very much to > > blame for the oppression of the Palestinians. The irony is that in some > > ways, the Palestinians bear a similar relation to the Middle East as the > > Jews did to Europe 65 years ago. But I would still contend that it is the > > processes of capitalism/imperialism that have been and are responsible for > > a wide variety of oppressions, including the oppression of the Palestinians. > > When the big capitalists (and even the little capitalists) fight, they often > > use oppressed ethnic/religious minorities on one side or another, and then > > often discard their own allies later. So that in appearance it seems as if > > the root cause comes from those ethnic groups that are fighting on the > > ground. (And indeed, they do bear some of the responsibility.) > > > > How have the U.S. imperialists (seeking control over oil distribution and > > pipelines) helped their allies in Kosovo. Or the Iraqi Kurds. How have they > > played Iran and Iraq against each other, trying to keep both weak. > > India/Pakistan? In other words, the biggest imperialists are also certainly > > quite capable of switching sides as it suits them and "cutting the Jews > > loose" if they think that "Jews" stand in the way of the profits or > > stability that they need. This does not excuse the religious-Jewish > > oriented propaganda that legitimizes the exploitation-oppression of > > Palestinians, nor does it in any way excuse the actual participation by > > various Jewish (or other) people in maintaining that oppression. But keep > > the main point in perspective: that there is a lot of oil in the region and > > that the U.S. and others need to maintain political/military power to > > control the flow of that oil, not just to themselves, but to influence the > > control of that oil as it might flow to their (imperialist) competitors, > > such as Russia, Germany, and France. > > > > > > Alan Spector > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <KSamman@aol.com> > > To: <nveroli@igc.org>; <TGanesh@southampton.liunet.edu>; > > <ssherman@gborocollege.edu>; <socgrad@listserv.binghamton.edu>; > > <jeschurt@hotmail.com>; <chris@gse.utah.edu>; <bh08643@binghamton.edu>; > > "world system network" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>; <Arie8K@aol.com>; > > <GNAA@egroups.com>; <al-awda@egroups.com> > > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 11:42 AM > > Subject: Re: Edward Said - American Zionism (3) > > > > > > > Thanks Wagar for that reply. > > > > > > I agree: Post 1948 Jewish Zionism is first and foremost to > > > blame for its deadly arrogance towards the Palestinians. > > > Our historical analysis is only intended to complicate the > > > present stereotype of a simple binary conflict between Jews > > > and Arabs to one that incorporates the colonialist impact on > > > the region, and hence to discredit the present image of the > > > US as an honest peace broker, the one that brings these > > > two squabbling groups together. > > > > > > On the contrary, our historical analysis is based on the premise > > > that the US and Europe have been involved in the region for > > > sometimes now, not on the side of peacemakers but as crusaders, > > > past and present. > > > > > > Khaldoun > > > > > > > > |