If red and blue represent Republican and Democrat in the United States, warfare and diplomacy reflect their respective approaches to the Middle East. The Carter and Clinton administrations can be criticized for many failings; but both had made significant gains on creating regional peace in the Middle East despite the Republicans’ concerted efforts to play gods with peoples’ lives. While the blindness of ensuring the state of Israel’s supremacy in the region continues to be the centerpiece of both US parties’ platforms, as flawed as that promise has become, the many differences in their approaches does delineate a fundamental contrast, as between fanaticism and sobriety respectively.

Like chickens in need of a rooster, neocons perched on their proverbial eggs during the Clinton administration’s efforts to promote Middle East peace. They had an omelet recipe, and they needed an emasculated rooster to break some eggs and combine them with hallowed ingredients, like the state of Israel’s continued hegemony – a necessary component for protecting the Israeli governance while it abuses human rights, abrogates international laws, and snubs common decency. A righteous puck, George “Dubya” Bush, could not have made a better evangelist for the state of Israel’s supremacy, crowing the virtues of supporting a mass murdering Israeli Prime Minister whom he crowned as his teacher. And thus red becomes the color of the Middle East at the beginning of the twenty-first century. It’s very easy when national conscience can be defined by events like Nine Eleven.

Count how many American pundits have reflected on “chickens coming home to roost”, in reference to the Middle East, and one might view a cross-section of the many opinions asserting that the United States has helped create its many avoidable challenges in the region. Irrespective of what the world’s scourge, Ossama bin-Laden, was planning, Dubya’s teacher dismantled Palestinian hopes and aspirations as effectively as any international terrorist, but with the blessings of the vast majority of the American people.

Thus we are now presented with comprehensive options to undo self-inflicted complications that have only made the apparent inevitable appear more sinister, which is symptomatic of America’s chronic denial that Israel is flawed fundamentally. Zionists of all religions have so dominated the American dialogue on Israel that criticism of that country’s many critical failings are quickly parried as anti-Semitism, which, in effect, includes subsequent criticism of America’s blind support of that regional scourge. Americans, Israeli Jews, and Israel’s Arab neighbors, therefore, find themselves in a rooster-like existence, crowing at the beginning of every peaceful effort as if it’s a dawning of a brand new day, either forgetting or dismissing the circular revolution that always seems to lead back to the point where peace is paramount.

There are many angles to the newly proposed American Middle East policy, and, it appears, many will find its American-centric approach troubling, in view of the parallel between American and Israeli policies. Lebanon’s options under this “new” US blueprint are symptomatic of the complications created by previous US folly.

Without rehashing the details of Israel’s latest Lebanese adventure, Seymour Hersh’s The New Yorker article alludes to the collusion between Israel and the US on the latest bombardment of Lebanon. Hotly debated in the Middle East, it is hard to ignore the allegation that the US is focused on promoting Israel’s interests at the expense of its own, and, in light of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the United States appears on the verge of sacrificing more Arabs in its swinging Middle East diplomacy.

In supporting Israel’s barbaric attacks on Lebanon’s infrastructure, environment, and civilians, the Unites States, for example, weakened its Lebanese allies. It is to Lebanon’s credit that a civil war has not erupted, given the Lebanese government’s cuddling of the US’ agenda vis-à-vis Syria and Iran, and the government’s stance has indirectly placed it in collusion with its enemy – a treasonous offense in any country. The Lebanese opposition, led by Hizballah, can thus claim the status of being Lebanon’s patriotic defender in the face of a Zionist agenda – an agenda that includes denial of Palestinian human rights (which for Lebanon means the denial of the Palestinian right of return), occupation of Lebanese territory, and avoidance of restitution payments to Lebanese victims of Israeli aggression (which most Zionists argue is reciprocal, arguing both sides of the issue as victim and aggressor.)

The Iraq Study Group’s report does recommend engaging Syria and Iran in order to neutralize Hizballah’s power and influence in Lebanon; but in view of other lofty goals the US had for the region, it is hard to understand how the US proposes to do that without addressing Israel’s culpability in the Middle East’s conflict. Besides, the Israeli Prime Minister has already stated his disagreement with engaging Syria, as Zionists are loath to give up the Golan or any inch of Israel’s battle-won territory in exchange for peace with Arabs, especially if it places Israel’s beloved comatose warrior Prime Minister, Dubya’s teacher, in code blue.

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Hugg Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace MyWeb

Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Sphere

Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Worlds Movies Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Powered by Bookmarkify™