Icana.ir
PrintLogoPrintPrintLogo/Print With Image SendToFriendSend To Friends Whatsapp google_plus Line twitter

'US, Israel Blood Brothers of Death'

Service :
TEHRAN, May 24 (ICANA) – The US dominates countries for its self-interests, and AIPAC is one of its clients serving Israel as it murders Palestinians and steals land for imperialist tendencies.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:52:35 PM
'US, Israel Blood Brothers of Death'

In an interview with Press TV, Brian Becker, national coordinator for A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), elaborates on the close relationship between the US and Israel as they work together in the name of aggression and greed.

Q: Explain why people are protesting AIPAC?

Becker: The AIPAC conference that is, once again, the amplification of all of the positions of the Israeli government which, for the Palestinian people since 1948 and since 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza were seized in Golden Heights, represents a non-stop war against the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian people's rights have been shredded. They live under occupation. In the case of Gaza, they live under siege. People are deprived from food and medicine, the things necessary to sustain life.

And during this whole time, Israel and AIPAC - the political action arm that is mostly identified with the Israeli government - always characterizes or, I should say, caricatures the Palestinian people as terrorists.

If the Palestinian people resist occupation that's a form of aggression. And every time the Israelis carry out a bombing, a missile strike or any of the other impunity-actions, it's always in “self-defense.”

We have in the United States a growing recognition that Israel, its policies and its political supporters, AIPAC, who have so much influence on Capitol Hill, doesn't represent the cause of justice.

So, people are demonstrating, people are coming from the Muslim community, the Arab-American community, the African-American community, people in general and very noteworthy, people from the American-Jewish community who are also sick and tired of AIPAC, trying to seem as if they represent the voice of American Jewry which they increasingly do not.

Q: The controversy behind AIPAC is their influence on US foreign policy. Please explain.

Becker: I don't believe AIPAC is actually running US foreign policy in the Middle East. It's an important lobby. It's a reactionary lobby. It's hostile to the Palestinians. I would say, in many ways, it's a racist lobby against Arab and Muslim people and it has an impact, but not the dominating voice over US foreign policy.

Q: Please share your views on US foreign policy without AIPAC.

Becker: I think it would be largely the same.

I think that there may be more freedom to criticize Israel. There would be less fear in congress and less fear, perhaps, in some parts of mass media, less fear in academia which is routinely attacked for anti-Semitism should they criticize Israel or support Palestinian rights.

I think the US foreign policy, if there was no AIPAC, would largely be the same because the biggest military sectors, the biggest sectors of military thinking in America and Wall Street corporations and the political establishment think of Israel as an extension of American power in a very geo-strategically important and oil-rich, as we know, area of the world.

If there wasn't Israel, there would be other proxy and client elements that would do the bidding of the United States as the US did with Ben Ali in Tunisia, as they did with Mubarak in Egypt, as they did with Saleh in Yemen or, previously, with the Shah in Iran.

The US functions in the Middle East through proxy regimes, clients, because the Middle East is too big, it's too complicated that the US cannot permanently station 2 million soldiers to represent the interests of the American empire in the Middle East so it needs proxies, it needs clients.

Even though AIPAC is a reactionary voice, if it were to disappear tomorrow, I think much of US policy towards Israel will be largely the same.

A fair and just US foreign policy would require a radical transformation because it would mean that the US foreign policy is not dictated by the needs of the biggest oil monopolies, the biggest banks, the biggest corporations, it's not the voice of the US military industrial complex.

It would start off by acknowledging the rights of the indigenous people of historic Palestine - the Palestinian people - to live in peace, in their home, in their villages. In other words, the Palestinian people would be granted, as they must be granted, the right of return from the villages from which they were expelled in 1948 and later during different military occupations.

That would be a premise for a just foreign policy. It would mean mutual respect for the different countries and entities in the region rather than treating them as puppets, and rather than treating them as just a place to unload US military hardware.

A US foreign policy would mean shutting down the large numbers of US military installations and bases that exist throughout the Middle East and around the world. The US has 800 military bases in 130 countries. That's a policy of domination.

A just foreign policy would mean to shut those bases down. The rest of the world doesn't have its bases all over the world; the US certainly doesn't need them either.

Member Comments
Full Name :
Email :
Body :

fa Icana

Copyright © Icana All Rights Reserved

Powerd By : Tasvirnet