Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

What motivates US policy toward Israel?

By       Message Lawrence Davidson       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   3 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 3/30/16

Author 79840
Become a Fan
  (14 fans)
- Advertisement -

Reprinted from To The Point Analyses

US-Israel Flags
US-Israel Flags
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org))
  Permission   Details   DMCA


- Advertisement -
Part I -- Richard Falk In early March Professor Richard Falk, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote an essay explaining that American foreign policy generated by Democratic Party presidents has been much to blame for the disastrous fate of the Palestinians. The Democrats have allowed themselves to be suborned by Zionist special interests for reasons we will explore below. It is Democratic officials who also verbally attack any American who stands up for the rights of Palestinians, and do so, if anything, more strongly than their Republican competitors. Falk worked tirelessly from 2008 to 2014 to bring about justice for the Palestinian people -- something that, if achieved, would have raised the esteem of both the U.N. and the U.S. among millions of Arabs. Officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, including national security adviser Susan Rice and current U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power, repaid Falk for his efforts with insulting ad hominem attacks. For instance, Power celebrated Falk's departure from his post by asserting that, "his publication of bizarre and insulting material has tarnished the U.N.'s reputation and undermined the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council. The United States welcomes Mr. Falk's departure, which is long overdue." It is to be noted that at no time did Professor Falk issue a report, or even make a public statement, that was not based on documented fact and a clear understanding of international law. One suspects that Ambassador Power knew this to be so and that her vitriol against Falk was the act of an amoral political agent of an amoral government.
- Advertisement -
Professor Falk sees much of the U.S. government's policy in the Middle East as a consequence of a State Department long populated by Zionists along with the power and influence of an Israeli-directed bloc of special interests. President Obama's own efforts at Middle East policy formulation began, according to Falk, with the rhetorical assertion that the United States is "different because we adhere to the rule of law and act in accord with our values in foreign policy." Yet this claim too has always been false, and very quickly, the president's words lost meaning as lobby pressure bent policy (with the singular exception of the Iran nuclear deal) to the will of the Zionist cause. Part II -- Hillary Clinton Watching the distressing kowtowing this past week to that same lobby by Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has proven Richard Falk undeniably correct. In her speech to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization which, in truth, functions in the U.S. as the agent of a foreign power (Israel), Clinton proclaimed the following: That as president she will take the U.S.- Israeli relationship "to the next level," which entails lavishing on that state most of America's latest defensive and offensive weaponry and the negotiating of yet another defense treaty -- a "ten-year defense memorandum of understanding." This is allegedly necessary because, Israel "faces three evolving threats -- Iran's continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to delegitimize Israel on the world stage." Here she refers to the boycott or BDS movement. These threats make "the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever." Juan Cole's rebuttal to Clinton's assertions is particularly good. He points out that when the situation is looked at soberly, Israel has no conventional security threats, including from Iran, that necessitates billions of dollars of American weapons and a binding defense memorandum. Cole accurately points out that the "rising tide of extremism" is, to a good extent, a function of the U.S. invasion of Iraq (which both Clinton and the Israelis supported), and the dissolution of Syria (which has become a national security goal of Israel). Finally, by describing BDS as a movement that must be suppressed, she is endangering U.S. constitutional rights.
- Advertisement -
Clinton extols the U.S.-Israel alliance as one of "shared values." She describes Israel as "a bastion of liberty." This is de rigueur propaganda and, for the Palestinians, has no convincing connection to reality. Clinton then qualifies her dubious assertion by asking, "will we, as Americans and as Israelis, stay true to the shared democratic values that have always been at the heart of our relationship?" She is no doubt including "America" in this question as a reference to the problematic behavior of Donald Trump and his supporters. However, her question, as it applies to Israel, has already been answered. Part III -- Gideon Levy The well-known Israeli journalist Gideon Levy was in Washington, D.C. last week and had an interview with Max Blumenthal. In it he warned of just how far Israel has drifted from "democratic values" as well as how complicit American liberals, such as Hillary Clinton, are in the process of Israeli moral and political corruption. Levy tells us that "American liberals should know ... that they are supporting the first sign of fascism in Israel. I don't call it yet fascism, but [the] first signs [are] very clear. ... And America keeps financing it. This should be known and should be recognized by any American, mainly the liberals, who care where their taxpayer money goes, and so much of it. "I mean, there is no source of hope right now. There's no alternative to Netanyahu. ...The atmosphere, as I said, is becoming less and less tolerant, and the standing of democracy is minimal and many times very twisted."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign
Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest
; America's
Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli
Statehood
; and Islamic Fundamentalism. His academic work is focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He also teaches courses in the history of science and modern European intellectual history.

His blog To The Point Analyses now has its own Facebook page. Along with the analyses, the Facebook page will also have reviews, pictures, and other analogous material.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Domestic Terrorism American Style -- An Analysis

Nationalism vs. Capitalism: Guess Which One Wins?

Who is Right in Syria?

Australia and the Fight for Justice in Palestine

More On Savage Israel -- An Analysis

Global Warming Revisited: Reality vs Republican Theology