Muckraking the myth

Abdel-Razzaq Takriti takes a critical look at the Israeli lobby in the US and debunks the myth of the strategic asset

---

An astonishing marriage of convenience has taken place in the United States between the neo-cons and the left, with both camps in absolute agreement over the false claim that Israel is America's strategic asset in the Middle East. The former use it to justify their unqualified support for the Armageddon state: the harbinger of the messiah and the forerunner of "God's Kingdom" as US President George W Bush and the Christian right would have us believe. The latter, to perpetuate the idea that the Israeli apartheid regime is a mere tool in the hands of hungry American imperialism.

Both parties bestow magical roles upon the state of Israel, the most fantastic being that it is safeguarding the "greatest prize" on earth: Middle East oil. This claim has accrued enormous currency with the literati, and any analysis that pairs Chomsky with Cheney is highly compelling. But things are not always as they seem, and the historical record often bellies the most resounding of arguments, including this one.

In actual fact, Israel has nothing to do with guarding American oil interests. Most of the world's known oil reserves are located in the Gulf, several thousand kilometres away from the Israeli state. The Gulf has a specific history of its own, one that is conveniently expunged from much of current analysis.

The main features of the region's "security system" emerged a century before the establishment of the state of Israel.

In the 19th century, Britain violently domesticated the local powers in the area and imposed a series of agreements which bound them to its hegemony. The Gulf became a British zone, jealously monopolised for the sake of protecting India.

This was done with the utmost economy and tact, for Britain had chosen to avoid the costly path of formal occupation. A long stick was always manifest, but so was the carrot: cooperative sheikhs were granted full British protection from internal threats. External dangers from today's Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia were all contained by imperial domination. The region played its designated role, its sheikhs were given autonomy, its political development was stifled, and the Pax Britannica reigned supreme.

The regional system continued well after the discovery of oil. When Britain withdrew from the region in 1971, America placed its slippers by the bed. At first this was done indirectly, via the Shah's Iran and Saudi Arabia. After the fall of the Shah, America took a more direct role and established its Rapid Deployment Force while installing a massive presence in the region.

The power of the new empire peaked with the advent of the Gulf war.

As to internal threats such as the Dhofar revolution, they were neutralised by Gulf governments with a combination of a lavish welfare system and crushing force. Hence the oil flowed. It continues to flow, cheaply and abundantly, fuelling America and the rest of the world. It has been supplied willfully and enthusiastically by states that are fully incorporated into the world capitalist system. Gulf states invest heavily in Europe and the United States and continue to play a key role in stabilising their economies.

In the two-centuries-old system that I have just described, Israel appears nowhere except as a nuisance to America's truly strategic allies in the region; namely Saudi Arabia and the former Trucial States. In these countries, support for the Palestinian cause has been a main rallying point against Britain and the US since the days of the 1936 revolt, when Kuwaiti civil society protested Britain's pro-Zionist policies. The Palestinian cause was also popular among the ruling circles of the Gulf; for years it was the major point of contention with the west. Nationalists, Communists, Americanists, and Islamists, have all been disturbed by -- and often took action against -- unabashed American support for Israel.

When it is not absent or bothersome, Israel is actually threatening to the Gulf. Israel's possession of the region's only nuclear arsenal is pushing Iran towards nuclear armament, a reasonable move in the context of Israeli bullying and American vagary. This is causing substantial anxiety in the region, and threatens to further tip the precarious balance. Moreover, Israel's propaganda machine is launching a massive campaign against Saudi Arabia and encouraging America to turn against its most important global ally.

In light of these realities, why does America support Israel against its own imperial interests? Scholars have been grappling with this question for a while. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have recently produced a well-documented study which examines the Israeli lobby's role in steering American policy. Unsurprisingly, these scholars were attacked from the right and the left, and were forced to publish their study abroad. Their analysis is significant because it emphasises the fact that the Israeli lobby is not a conspiracy, but a political reality rooted in the American system, its ranks including a mass of Born-Again Christians as well as traditional Jewish supporters.

It is a matter of fact that American imperialism would have operated in the region regardless of the Israeli lobby. Imperialism, however, can take many forms. The logic of effective imperialism is a realist one centered upon a smooth and maximal appropriation of resources. Its central axiom -- the establishment of stable, long-term relationships with local regimes invested in the imperial structure -- is currently undermined by America's pro- Israeli policies. Instead of giving local regimes a stake in the system, America threatens them with destruction. Instead of supporting them, it creates further internal pressures upon them. The only winner in this game is Israel, which is increasingly perceived as the gatekeeper to America's heart.

As the late Edward Said noted a few years ago, American Zionism has succeeded in turning Israel into an internal issue. Today, one may add that Israel is better supported than New Orleans. To suggest, along with many neo-cons and lefties, that this support is connected to Gulf security and oil is to deny historical reality. Not only is this analysis flawed, it is also dangerous. Sealing the Israeli enterprise with the stamp of imperial necessity, it obscures the fact that America's support for Israel is a paradigmatic example of its Middle Eastern politics of irrationality.