 |
 AfricaSpeaks Weblog
Rootswomen Weblog
Rootsie's Weblog
|
Is Senator Charles E. Schumer that naïve?
Posted: Friday, May 3, 2002
By Matthew Riemer
(YellowTimes.org) – Recently Senator Charles E. Schumer, in a speech delivered to his colleagues in the Senate, expressed his incredulousness at George W. Bush's reversal of policy with regard to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the war on terrorism. Specifically, he was referring to Bush's repeated orders to Ariel Sharon to "pull back."
The New York Times reported that Schumer felt current U.S. policy towards the crisis "was 'muddled, confused, and inconsistent.' "He also cautioned that a Powell meeting with Arafat would be a mistake.
Israel, he said, "which is simply trying to defend herself," should be allowed to continue incursions into Palestinian territory to destroy the infrastructure of the suicide bomber networks as well as those of Hamas and other recognized terrorist organizations.
"No democracy would let its leaders do nothing when a bomb everyday goes off in a hotel or pizza parlor or on a street or on a bus," Schumer said. "I would like the administration to explain themselves. What has brought about the 180-degree turn?"
But are the comments by Bush unconvincingly warning Sharon to "cool it" really a reversal of policy?
Now I would expect a U.S. senator to be a pragmatic realist and not an idealist (that horrible thing conservatives accuse liberals of being). So I ask: Is the senator that naive?
Senator Schumer sees these comments by the president and other officials as a reversal of policy because he considers Israel and Ariel Sharon, as well as the U.S. and its leaders, to be benign, freedom fighters, while the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat are outright terrorists who cannot be reasoned with. Added to this limiting and highly unrealistic model of thinking is his belief that U.S. foreign policy is based on fighting terror and championing justice and freedom. Herein lie the deception and the senator's confusion.
U.S. policy, contrary to what Schumer apparently thinks, is based upon the specific interests of the United States in the region and wider geopolitical concerns, not lofty ideals. Considered in this light the situation unfolding does not represent a reversal of policy at all and, in fact, makes perfect, predictable sense.
Israel has long been a client state of the U.S., receiving massive financial and military aid; its location is also geographically crucial to U.S. influence in the area. Israel has also long appealed to this importance in diplomatic relations and used it to win favors from Washington. Because of this, the relationship between the two countries has become "special" with the U.S. essentially using Israel as a launch pad for many of its Middle East endeavors and as a proxy for maintaining a foothold in the area. All other ties between the two countries, however revered by tradition or history, remain secondary to these critical military and political ones.
The Bush Administration allows Israel to do whatever it pleases as long as it doesn't interfere with U.S. plans in the region, which includes, most importantly, an impending war in Iraq. The U.S. is not interested in the "bringing to justice" of suicide bombers or Palestinian militants any more than they are concerned with disciplining the gangsterism of the IDF, which has numerous terrorist atrocities on its tick list.
What the U.S. does want in the area is stability (achieved by any method, the ends justify the means) whereby a more or less acceptable assault on the entrenched Hussein regime could take place. Chaos in the West Bank, international scrutiny of Israeli military action, and indecisive U.S. officials do not facilitate such goals.
This is why Bush has asked Sharon to finish things up – not because he cares about the destruction of the Palestinian people or is having second thoughts, but simply because this wasn't part of the master plan. In the New World Order's symphony of destruction, minor players are allowed only so much improvisation.
Lip service paid to the tragedy of dead Israeli soldiers should only be scene as obligatory rhetoric when coming from the mouths of U.S. officials. The brains of the current administration, as well as the casual observer, also know that the idea of an ill equipped and haphazard Palestinian resistance armed only with a few homemade bombs and rifles posing a credible threat to Israeli security, let alone existence, is absurd. And while fervent pro-Israeli hawks along with the Sharon camp are calling for an indefinite, destructive search for suicide bombers, the silent agenda of Team Bush calls for different measures and ultimately considers such actions to be undesirable.
So to hear such words spoken by a U.S. senator in today's day and age of ultra-violence, naked hypocrisy, and scandalous doubletalk could almost be seen as refreshing and inspiring. Perhaps Schumer as a man is truly concerned for the downtrodden and the oppressed and seeks justice blindly as it should be rightly sought. Yet somehow I think not.
I wonder if the senator has ever heard of the tiny island territory of East Timor off the northwest coast of Australia? Is he aware of his country's silent acceptance of the systematic terrorism carried out by General Suharto and the Indonesian army, which resulted in the slaughter and demoralization of the native population who simply wanted to secede and form their own sovereign nation? Over the past quarter century nearly 250,000 East Timorese have been exterminated by the Suharto regime with U.S. complicity while their only crime was their desire to be free. Every president since Ford has overseen the lavish arming of the Indonesian military. This is just one example among many.
We must ask ourselves then: Do the principles rhetorically and meaninglessly appealed to by the president and virtually every politician who has ever walked this earth, the same ones that have tricked the senator, apply to the East Timorese? To the Palestinians?
In short, do the ideals espoused and supposedly upheld internationally by the U.S. really apply to all human beings regardless of ethnicity, religion, or income or do they just sound good and secure votes while only applying to our "friends" or when it's convenient?
Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org
Source: http://www.YellowTimes.org
 Printer friendly version
 Send page by E-Mail
|
