Ludicrous Positions By Michael Ventura

[Guest guest]

Columns: August 4, 2006

 

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A392270

 

Letters @ 3AM

Ludicrous Positions

By Michael Ventura

 

Israel – no country so tiny has ever generated so many

headlines. The Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac 2006

lists Israel's population at 6.5 million – 1.5 million

less than New York City's. Area: 8,367 square miles, a

thousand square miles smaller than New Hampshire. No

natural resources to speak of. Average income:

$16,020. Under " production " the Almanac lists

manufacturing, electronics, and some minor agriculture

– but fails to mention Israel's well-known arms

industry, which was not above selling 508 TOW missiles

to Iran (yes, Iran) in 1985 (Newsday, March 1, 1987).

But the figure that leaps out of the Britannica

Almanac's list is Israel's national debt: $111.6

billion.

 

That money mostly comes from United States taxpayers.

No practical person expects such a tiny country, with

no natural resources and a minimal per capita income,

to repay $111.6 billion anytime soon. Or anytime ever.

The " loan " is a continuing subsidy, the cost of doing

business if the U.S. is to have a strategic

client-state in the Middle East. As MSNBC's Tucker

Carlson observed, Israeli soldiers go into battle

" with the words 'property of the United States' on

their rifles " (July 21). That's true in many more ways

than one, and it is why Europe, Russia, China, and the

Muslim world hold the United States accountable for

any action of Israel's.

 

The greatest danger to Israel, in the long term, is

its dependence on the United States.

 

It's widely reported that at present our government

borrows $2 billion a day (mostly from China) to stay

solvent. Even with these loans, the strain of Iraq has

placed the U.S. Army in big trouble. The Christian

Science Monitor (July 24, p.1): " The service is fast

running out of money. ... Like many bases, Fort Carson

in Colorado has [tightened its belt], closing two mess

halls and skimping on staffing – even at a time when

the base is growing. ... The picture that emerges is

that the Army simply can't make ends meet. " Military

expert U.S. Rep. John Murtha, The Christian Science

Monitor (July 24, p.3): " We have no strategic reserve.

Our forces in the United States, 70% of them, are

below deployable level overseas. ... The Army is

struggling every day to meet their bills. It is a

disaster. " It is hard to imagine a greater danger sign

for our or Israel's future. If our government is

having trouble keeping its army intact, what will that

mean for Israel's military?

 

Israel's foreign policy has been predicated on the

United States remaining a superpower indefinitely. But

nothing goes on indefinitely, and it is questionable

whether a nation that must borrow $2 billion a day is

still a " super " power. When it is no longer in the

strategic interests of China to support our

consumerism (and that day will come), what happens to

Israel? Nations are coldhearted; they rarely do what,

in their vision (however flawed or blind), is not in

their interest. No one but the U.S. has a strategic

interest in Israel; it benefits no one else to support

it financially. If the day comes that we cannot, then,

having followed our lead in alienating most of the

world, how does Israel survive? Can it?

 

That dire question is for the future to answer. The

present crisis is another matter.

 

So much havoc because three soldiers were kidnapped?

As Roky Erickson said in another context, " You can

believe that story if you want to. " The New York Times

(June 27, p.8): " Israel has at times made deals and

exchanged prisoners. In October 2000, Hezbollah

abducted three Israeli soldiers in an effort to free

imprisoned leaders. " The soldiers were murdered. " The

same month Hezbollah abducted ... an Israeli civilian

.... in exchange for the three dead soldiers and the

[civilian's] release. ... Israel released more than

430 prisoners in January of 2004. " What's changed so

much since then? Iran's nuclear program has become an

unavoidable, and perhaps intractable, issue.

 

Is it a coincidence that violence escalated into

Lebanon the day George Bush was in St. Petersburg for

the G8 conference? The common line, parroted by every

talking head I witnessed, is that Iran instructed

Hezbollah to kidnap the soldiers and fire some rockets

to prove something to the G8 conference. That's

possible. But, as events later proved, Russian

President Vladimir Putin was firmly in Iran's corner

at the G8. It strains credulity that Russia would have

kept its support secret from Iran before the G8. With

or without Iran's instigation, Hezbollah selected that

day as an auspicious one to jump into the fray in

support of Palestine's Hamas, which had been in

furious contest with Israel since June 25. But

Hezbollah's action was not terribly out of the

ordinary. So why the escalation?

 

(Speaking of possibilities: Rockets were fired, but

there is no proof who fired them; people were

kidnapped, but there's no proof who kidnapped them;

and there's no proof that some Hezbollah cell or other

hasn't been co-opted by other powers. We must always

remember that, in these matters, we're taking the word

of official press releases. It's perfectly in

character that Hezbollah performed these actions on

its own or with Iranian instigation. But, in fact, you

and I know nothing for certain.)

 

Again: Why Israel's massive escalation on that day?

George Bush is in Russia face-to-face with leaders of

the world's great powers. It simply is not credible

that, at such a crucial juncture, the guy who's paying

the freight doesn't have final say on whether or not

such an escalation takes place. Whatever the

provocation, the scale of escalation was a Bush-Cheney

decision because, I believe, a larger plan was

envisioned.

 

The initial Israeli reason given for the devastating

bombing of Lebanon's infrastructure that day was

" Hezbollah plans to transfer the kidnapped soldiers to

Iran " (The New York Times, July 14, p.1). Next step:

action against Iran.

 

But action against Iran would entail economic

disruption – gas prices would shoot up to $4.50 a

gallon, easy. Bush needed G8 support for such

disruption. He came to the G8 with a very large carrot

for Vladimir Putin, something Putin has desired very

much: Russian entry into the World Trade Organization.

For weeks, reports from all quarters signaled that the

U.S. was ready for Russian entry to the WTO. According

to The Christian Science Monitor (July 14, p.5):

" Analysts say this 'carrot' that the White House is

dangling is really more about Iran and winning

Russia's support for a tougher stance. " A much tougher

stance. Action of some sort.

 

Putin turned Bush down flat. As much as he's wanted

membership in the WTO, whatever Bush was planning for

Iran was too high a price. That is the only way to

make sense of Putin's statement after Bush blocked

membership: " We will not participate in any crusade,

in any holy alliances. "

 

Putin made a point of calling the Iranians " our

partners. " Russia has oil. Lots. That oil could have

mitigated the effects of an attack on Iran. Putin said

no. In no uncertain terms. By his language he said

clearly that anyone attacking Iran is attacking " our

partners. "

 

Then Bush " pressed to cite Iran and Syria in the joint

[G8] statement with the other leaders and suggested

that both countries were involved, if indirectly, in

the attacks on Israel " (The New York Times, July 17,

p.10). Putin blocked that. And told the world that he

blocked it. The U.S. would have no statement from the

world's major powers that excused any action against

Iran. Like magic, Israel published no more statements

about kidnapped soldiers being whisked to Iran.

 

Bush thought he could buy Russia's collusion on Iran

with a WTO membership. It didn't work. And Israel and

Lebanon are left holding the very bloody bag.

Palestinians, too.

 

Poor Israel. So foolish as to trust the United States

– not that, at this point, it has any choice.

" Property of the United States " is engraved on its

rifles, and now no one else has any interest in giving

it more rifles. Or anything else.

 

Meanwhile, the U.S. had defended the ludicrous

position of denying accountability for Israel's

actions.

 

In a press conference, White House spokesman Tony Snow

declared, " We're not engaged in any strategy session

with the Israelis, we're not cooperating, we're not

conspiring " (CNN, July 19).

The very same hour, in Tel Aviv, The Christian

Science Monitor's Rafael Franco told MSNBC that high

Israeli officials " told me they're in close

conversation with the U.S. ... It's coordinated at the

very highest levels. "

 

High levels of government, yes. High levels of

behavior – ludicrous.

 

Or it would be, if it weren't so terribly bloody.

 

2006 Austin Chronicle Corporation