N
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL
Guest
Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby:
This Israel firster is replacing Tom Lantos as the chair of House
Committee on Foreign Affairs as I am sure that AIPAC is very happy
with such!:
Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-BGY7X1ro
Such US support of Israel is what got US tragically attacked at the
World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590
Additional about Mearsheimer/Walt at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Look what Tom Hayden wrote about Berman and his brother after the
Mearsheimer/Walt paper came out:
Tom Hayden: Things Come 'Round in Mideast:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060718_tom_hayden_things_come_round/
Posted on Jul 18, 2006
By Tom Hayden
Editor's note: In this essay, veteran social activist Tom Hayden,
drawing upon his own rude political awakening to the realities of
Israeli and Middle East politics during the 1980s, warns that the
Israel lobby in the U.S. aims to "roll back the clock" and "change the
map" of the region and that its neoconservative supporters will
probably try to use the current Middle East crisis to ignite a larger
war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five years ago I stared into the eyes of Michael Berman, chief
operative for his congressman-brother, Howard Berman. I was a neophyte
running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans
claimed belonged to them.
"I represent the Israeli defense forces," Michael said. I thought he
was joking. He wasn't. Michael seemed to imagine himself the
gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political
interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews
represented one-third of the Democratic district's primary voters,
Berman held a balance of power.
All that year I tried to navigate the district's Jewish politics. The
solid historical liberalism of the Westside was a favorable factor, as
was the strong support of many Jewish community leaders. But the
community was moving in a more conservative direction. Some were
infuriated at my sponsorship of Santa Monica's tough rent control
ordinance. Many in the organized community were suspicious of the New
Left for becoming Palestinian sympathizers after the Six Day War; they
would become today's neoconservatives.
I had traveled to Israel in a generally supportive capacity, meeting
officials from all parties, studying energy projects, befriending
peace advocates like the writer Amos Oz. I also met with Palestinians
and commented favorably on the works of Edward Said. As a result, a
Berman ally prepared an anti-Hayden dossier in an attempt to discredit
my candidacy with the Democratic leadership in the California state
capital.
This led to the deli lunch with Michael Berman. He and his brother
were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam
Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they
calculated that Schiff couldn't win without name recognition, so they
were considering "renting" me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But
there was one condition: that I always be a "good friend of Israel."
This wasn't a particular problem at the time. Since the 1970s I had
favored some sort of two-state solution. I felt close to the local
Jewish activists who descended from the labor movement and
participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. I wanted
to take up the cause of the aging Holocaust survivors against the
global insurance companies that had plundered their assets.
While I believed the Palestinians had a right to self-determination, I
didn't share the animus of some on the American left who questioned
Israel's very legitimacy. I was more inclined toward the politics of
Israel's Peace Now and those Palestinian nationalists and human rights
activists who accepted Israel's pre-1967 borders as a reality to
accommodate. I disliked the apocalyptic visions of the Israeli
settlers I had met, and thought that even hard-line Palestinians would
grudgingly accept a genuine peace initiative.
I can offer my real-life experience to the present discussion about
the existence and power of an "Israel lobby." It is not as monolithic
as some argue, but it is far more than just another interest group in
a pluralist political world. In recognizing its diversity,
distinctions must be drawn between voters and elites, between Reform
and Orthodox tendencies, between the less observant and the more
observant. During my ultimate 18 years in office, I received most of
my Jewish support from the ranks of the liberal and less observant
voters. But I also received support from conservative Jews who saw
themselves as excluded by a Jewish (and Democratic) establishment.
However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the
question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never
vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I
had to be certified "kosher," not once but over and over again.
The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the
multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city's
Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the
American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely
associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli
ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with
statements declaring someone a "friend of Israel."
In my case, a key to the "friendship issue" was the Los Angeles-based
counsel general Benjamin Navon. Though politics drew us together, our
personal friendship was genuine enough. I think that Benny, as he was
called, wanted to pull me and my then-wife, Jane Fonda, into a pro-
Israel stance, but he himself was an old-school labor/social democrat
who personally believed in a negotiated political settlement. We
enjoyed personal and intellectual time together, and I still keep on
my bookshelf a wooden sculpture by his wife, of an anguished victim of
violence.
The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly, in
compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an American
election. We would be seen and photographed together in public. Benny
would make positive public statements that could be quoted in campaign
mailings. As a result, I was being declared "kosher" by the ultimate
source, the region's representative of the state of Israel.
Nevertheless, throughout the spring 1982 campaign I was accused of
being a left-wing madman allied to terrorism and communism. The
national Democratic leader Walter Mondale commented jokingly during a
local visit that I was being described as worse than Lenin. It was a
wild ride.
I won the hard-fought primary by 51% to 45%. The Bermans stayed
neutral. Willie Brown, Richard Alatorre and the rest of the California
Democratic establishment were quietly supportive. I easily won the
general election in November.
But that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The Israel
Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and Benny Navon wanted Jane and me to
be supportive. It happened that I had visited the contested border in
the past, witnessed the shelling of civilian Israeli homes, and
interviewed Israeli and Lebanese zealots--crazies, I thought, who were
preaching preventive war. I opposed cross-border rocket attacks and
naively favored a demilitarized zone.
Ever curious, and aware of my district's politics, I decided we should
go to the Middle East--but only as long as the Israeli "incursion," as
it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near
the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon
assured me that the "incursion" was limited, and would be followed by
negotiations and a solution. I also made clear our opposition to the
use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political
identification with what Israeli Peace Now would say.
There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that
still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border,
the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of
a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of
Lebanon--with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the
Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had
been Gen. Ariel Sharon's secret plan all along, and I never will know
with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with
everyone else.
For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel's "right" to
self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I
was becoming. In the meantime, Israel's invasion was continuing, with
ardent Jewish support in America.
Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave,
took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: "Tom, you can't do
this. You have to stop." He was right, and I did. In the California
Legislature, I went to work on Holocaust survivor issues while
withdrawing from the bind of Israeli-Palestinian politics. When the
first Palestinian intifada began, I sensed from experience that the
balance of forces had changed, and that the Israeli occupation was
finished. Frictions developed between me and some of my Israeli and
Jewish friends when I suggested that Israel must make a peace deal
immediately or accept a worse deal later.
It is still painful and embarrassing to describe these events of
nearly 25 years ago, but with Israel today again bombing Lebanon and
Israeli officials bragging about "rolling back the clock by twenty
years" and reconfiguring the Middle East, I feel obliged to speak out
against history repeating.
How do I read today's news through the lens of the past?
What I fear is that the "Israeli lobby" is working overtime to
influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel's military
effort to "roll back the clock" and "change the map" of the region,
going far beyond issues like prisoner exchange.
What I fear is that the progress of the American peace movement
against the Iraq war will be diverted and undermined, at least for
now, by the entry of Israel from the sidelines into the center of the
equation.
What I fear is the rehabilitation of the discredited U.S.
neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas,
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives' 1996 "Clean Break"
memo advocated that Israel "roll back" Lebanon and destabilize Syria
in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of
the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the
"Lebanonization" of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of
nation states into "a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects,
tribes, regions and parties."
This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region's British
colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew
a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power
and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against
those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification
for American troops to remain.
What I fear is trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters
and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats,
who last week were moving gradually toward setting a deadline for U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq. The politics of the present crisis favor the
Republicans and the White House in the short run. How many politicians
will favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq under present conditions?
Isn't this Karl Rove's game plan for the November elections?
What I know is that I will not make the same mistake again. I hope
that my story deepens the resolve of all those whose feelings are
torn, conflicted or confused in the present. It is not being a "friend
of Israel" to turn a blind eye to its never-ending occupation.
One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah
and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings
of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that
the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated
prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant
rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of
vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories
by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits
that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is
about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an
escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that
the present Israeli government will never accept an independent
Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide
which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.
In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries
in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was
born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit
for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive
alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching
Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective
punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the
only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting
collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason
today.
It is clear that apocalyptic forces, openly green-lighted by President
Bush, are gambling on the impossible. They are trying to snatch
victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq through escalation in Lebanon
and beyond. This is yet another faith-based initiative.
If the American people do not see through the headlines; if the
Democrats turn hawkish; if the international community fails to
intervene immediately, the peace movement may be sidelined to a
prophetic and marginal role for the moment. But we can say the
following for now:
Militarism and occupation cannot extinguish the force of Islamic
nationalism. Billions in American tax dollars are funding the Israeli
troops and bombs.
There needs to be an exit strategy. The absence of any such exit plan
is the weakest element of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Just as the White
House says it plans to deploy 50,000 troops on permanent bases in an
occupied Iraq, so the Israelis speak of permanently eliminating their
enemies, from Gaza to Tehran. The result will be further occupation,
resistance and deeper quagmire.
The immediate conflict should not become a pretext for continuing the
U.S. military occupation of Iraq. American soldiers should not be
stuck waist-deep in a sectarian quagmire. Congressional insistence on
denying funds for permanent military bases is a vital first step.
Otherwise we will witness a tacit alliance between Israel and the U.S.
to dominate the Middle East militarily.
Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was
25 years ago. Silence is consent to occupation.
This Israel firster is replacing Tom Lantos as the chair of House
Committee on Foreign Affairs as I am sure that AIPAC is very happy
with such!:
Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-BGY7X1ro
Such US support of Israel is what got US tragically attacked at the
World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590
Additional about Mearsheimer/Walt at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Look what Tom Hayden wrote about Berman and his brother after the
Mearsheimer/Walt paper came out:
Tom Hayden: Things Come 'Round in Mideast:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060718_tom_hayden_things_come_round/
Posted on Jul 18, 2006
By Tom Hayden
Editor's note: In this essay, veteran social activist Tom Hayden,
drawing upon his own rude political awakening to the realities of
Israeli and Middle East politics during the 1980s, warns that the
Israel lobby in the U.S. aims to "roll back the clock" and "change the
map" of the region and that its neoconservative supporters will
probably try to use the current Middle East crisis to ignite a larger
war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five years ago I stared into the eyes of Michael Berman, chief
operative for his congressman-brother, Howard Berman. I was a neophyte
running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans
claimed belonged to them.
"I represent the Israeli defense forces," Michael said. I thought he
was joking. He wasn't. Michael seemed to imagine himself the
gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political
interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews
represented one-third of the Democratic district's primary voters,
Berman held a balance of power.
All that year I tried to navigate the district's Jewish politics. The
solid historical liberalism of the Westside was a favorable factor, as
was the strong support of many Jewish community leaders. But the
community was moving in a more conservative direction. Some were
infuriated at my sponsorship of Santa Monica's tough rent control
ordinance. Many in the organized community were suspicious of the New
Left for becoming Palestinian sympathizers after the Six Day War; they
would become today's neoconservatives.
I had traveled to Israel in a generally supportive capacity, meeting
officials from all parties, studying energy projects, befriending
peace advocates like the writer Amos Oz. I also met with Palestinians
and commented favorably on the works of Edward Said. As a result, a
Berman ally prepared an anti-Hayden dossier in an attempt to discredit
my candidacy with the Democratic leadership in the California state
capital.
This led to the deli lunch with Michael Berman. He and his brother
were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam
Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they
calculated that Schiff couldn't win without name recognition, so they
were considering "renting" me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But
there was one condition: that I always be a "good friend of Israel."
This wasn't a particular problem at the time. Since the 1970s I had
favored some sort of two-state solution. I felt close to the local
Jewish activists who descended from the labor movement and
participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. I wanted
to take up the cause of the aging Holocaust survivors against the
global insurance companies that had plundered their assets.
While I believed the Palestinians had a right to self-determination, I
didn't share the animus of some on the American left who questioned
Israel's very legitimacy. I was more inclined toward the politics of
Israel's Peace Now and those Palestinian nationalists and human rights
activists who accepted Israel's pre-1967 borders as a reality to
accommodate. I disliked the apocalyptic visions of the Israeli
settlers I had met, and thought that even hard-line Palestinians would
grudgingly accept a genuine peace initiative.
I can offer my real-life experience to the present discussion about
the existence and power of an "Israel lobby." It is not as monolithic
as some argue, but it is far more than just another interest group in
a pluralist political world. In recognizing its diversity,
distinctions must be drawn between voters and elites, between Reform
and Orthodox tendencies, between the less observant and the more
observant. During my ultimate 18 years in office, I received most of
my Jewish support from the ranks of the liberal and less observant
voters. But I also received support from conservative Jews who saw
themselves as excluded by a Jewish (and Democratic) establishment.
However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the
question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never
vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I
had to be certified "kosher," not once but over and over again.
The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the
multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city's
Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the
American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely
associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli
ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with
statements declaring someone a "friend of Israel."
In my case, a key to the "friendship issue" was the Los Angeles-based
counsel general Benjamin Navon. Though politics drew us together, our
personal friendship was genuine enough. I think that Benny, as he was
called, wanted to pull me and my then-wife, Jane Fonda, into a pro-
Israel stance, but he himself was an old-school labor/social democrat
who personally believed in a negotiated political settlement. We
enjoyed personal and intellectual time together, and I still keep on
my bookshelf a wooden sculpture by his wife, of an anguished victim of
violence.
The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly, in
compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an American
election. We would be seen and photographed together in public. Benny
would make positive public statements that could be quoted in campaign
mailings. As a result, I was being declared "kosher" by the ultimate
source, the region's representative of the state of Israel.
Nevertheless, throughout the spring 1982 campaign I was accused of
being a left-wing madman allied to terrorism and communism. The
national Democratic leader Walter Mondale commented jokingly during a
local visit that I was being described as worse than Lenin. It was a
wild ride.
I won the hard-fought primary by 51% to 45%. The Bermans stayed
neutral. Willie Brown, Richard Alatorre and the rest of the California
Democratic establishment were quietly supportive. I easily won the
general election in November.
But that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The Israel
Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and Benny Navon wanted Jane and me to
be supportive. It happened that I had visited the contested border in
the past, witnessed the shelling of civilian Israeli homes, and
interviewed Israeli and Lebanese zealots--crazies, I thought, who were
preaching preventive war. I opposed cross-border rocket attacks and
naively favored a demilitarized zone.
Ever curious, and aware of my district's politics, I decided we should
go to the Middle East--but only as long as the Israeli "incursion," as
it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near
the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon
assured me that the "incursion" was limited, and would be followed by
negotiations and a solution. I also made clear our opposition to the
use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political
identification with what Israeli Peace Now would say.
There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that
still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border,
the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of
a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of
Lebanon--with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the
Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had
been Gen. Ariel Sharon's secret plan all along, and I never will know
with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with
everyone else.
For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel's "right" to
self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I
was becoming. In the meantime, Israel's invasion was continuing, with
ardent Jewish support in America.
Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave,
took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: "Tom, you can't do
this. You have to stop." He was right, and I did. In the California
Legislature, I went to work on Holocaust survivor issues while
withdrawing from the bind of Israeli-Palestinian politics. When the
first Palestinian intifada began, I sensed from experience that the
balance of forces had changed, and that the Israeli occupation was
finished. Frictions developed between me and some of my Israeli and
Jewish friends when I suggested that Israel must make a peace deal
immediately or accept a worse deal later.
It is still painful and embarrassing to describe these events of
nearly 25 years ago, but with Israel today again bombing Lebanon and
Israeli officials bragging about "rolling back the clock by twenty
years" and reconfiguring the Middle East, I feel obliged to speak out
against history repeating.
How do I read today's news through the lens of the past?
What I fear is that the "Israeli lobby" is working overtime to
influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel's military
effort to "roll back the clock" and "change the map" of the region,
going far beyond issues like prisoner exchange.
What I fear is that the progress of the American peace movement
against the Iraq war will be diverted and undermined, at least for
now, by the entry of Israel from the sidelines into the center of the
equation.
What I fear is the rehabilitation of the discredited U.S.
neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas,
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives' 1996 "Clean Break"
memo advocated that Israel "roll back" Lebanon and destabilize Syria
in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of
the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the
"Lebanonization" of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of
nation states into "a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects,
tribes, regions and parties."
This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region's British
colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew
a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power
and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against
those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification
for American troops to remain.
What I fear is trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters
and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats,
who last week were moving gradually toward setting a deadline for U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq. The politics of the present crisis favor the
Republicans and the White House in the short run. How many politicians
will favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq under present conditions?
Isn't this Karl Rove's game plan for the November elections?
What I know is that I will not make the same mistake again. I hope
that my story deepens the resolve of all those whose feelings are
torn, conflicted or confused in the present. It is not being a "friend
of Israel" to turn a blind eye to its never-ending occupation.
One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah
and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings
of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that
the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated
prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant
rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of
vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories
by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits
that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is
about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an
escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that
the present Israeli government will never accept an independent
Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide
which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.
In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries
in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was
born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit
for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive
alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching
Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective
punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the
only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting
collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason
today.
It is clear that apocalyptic forces, openly green-lighted by President
Bush, are gambling on the impossible. They are trying to snatch
victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq through escalation in Lebanon
and beyond. This is yet another faith-based initiative.
If the American people do not see through the headlines; if the
Democrats turn hawkish; if the international community fails to
intervene immediately, the peace movement may be sidelined to a
prophetic and marginal role for the moment. But we can say the
following for now:
Militarism and occupation cannot extinguish the force of Islamic
nationalism. Billions in American tax dollars are funding the Israeli
troops and bombs.
There needs to be an exit strategy. The absence of any such exit plan
is the weakest element of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Just as the White
House says it plans to deploy 50,000 troops on permanent bases in an
occupied Iraq, so the Israelis speak of permanently eliminating their
enemies, from Gaza to Tehran. The result will be further occupation,
resistance and deeper quagmire.
The immediate conflict should not become a pretext for continuing the
U.S. military occupation of Iraq. American soldiers should not be
stuck waist-deep in a sectarian quagmire. Congressional insistence on
denying funds for permanent military bases is a vital first step.
Otherwise we will witness a tacit alliance between Israel and the U.S.
to dominate the Middle East militarily.
Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was
25 years ago. Silence is consent to occupation.