Re: Bush mideast policy

A short point: the "Oil Interests" are a fragmented group in the U.S.  The
major group (evolving out of the old Rockefeller interests and now
represented by Exxon-Mobil) does a lot of reselling of mid-east and
Venezuelan oil. Another group has interests in the US (and likes high prices
because their oil is more expensive to produce.) The BP-Amoco group has some
interests in common with Exxon-Mobil, but there is also considerable
conflict as well.

Alan Spector


----- Original Message -----
From: "Boris Stremlin" <bc70219@binghamton.edu>
To: <Threehegemons@aol.com>
Cc: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Bush mideast policy


> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Boris--I'm not following what you think the roots of Bush's policy are.
As this article notes, it represents a striking departure from his father's,
which tended to be influenced by the oil industries desire for closer
relations with the Arab states (besides, as James Baker famously noted, Jews
don't vote for Republicans anyway).  W's policy seems in line with his other
foreign policy--macho militarism (Sharon seems like his type) plus hostility
to 'wimpy' interventionism (we don't want to get overly involved in 'peace
processes'--we have missile defense systems to build!).  Furthermore, given
the importance of Florida, even though most Jews don't vote for them, the
Republicans can't risk losing any of the votes of those who do (the same
sort of considerations are likely to mean no progress on Cuba during this
administration).  As the New York Times is clearly distancing themselves
from Bush's policy, it seems hard to argue that embracing Sharon represents
a consensus amo!
> ng t!
> > he American capitalist class--am
> >  I misunderstanding you?
>
> I'm certainly not saying that.  There was an argument made here at some
> point that the true interests of US capital are in establishing better
> relations with oil-producing states, and the only thing that keeps the US
> state maintain its uncritical support for Israel is its being beholden to
> the Zionist lobby.  Here now we have a president who is an oilman if
> nothing else, and whose support among US Jewry is not that strong.
> Seemingly, he would push for a settlement harder than the previous
> administration given this understanding of US interests (which is clearly
> what the Palestinian leadership expected, not without reason). Instead, he
> gives carte blanche to Sharon - in spite of the fact, incidentally, that
> the majority of Jews in the US do support at least some kind of
> settlement.  It's true that part of Bush's policy is to machoize foreign
> relations and to reject "wimpy internationalism".  But it seems to me that
> an eschatological interest in Jewish control of Palestine, and especially
> Jerusalem, is the cornerstone of a significant part of the US elite,
> especially that part of it that proclaims itself as born again (as W.
> does).  To assume that policy is driven solely by the Zionist lobby (an
> opinion which must necessarily be compounded by the assumption that the
> lack of critical discussion of Mideast politics stems from the Zionist
> control of the mass media as well) is to fall into racialist
> conspiratorialism.
>
>
> --
> Boris Stremlin
> bc70219@binghamton.edu
>