What
Are The Root Causes,
Mr. Bush And Ms. Rice?
By Am Johal
27 July, 2006
Countercurrents.org
For
months and years, independent media commentators have been using the
term 'root causes' to highlight the role of Israel's occupation of the
West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as one of the primary contributing
factors to a destabilized Middle East.
At the G-8 Summit, US President
Bush said, "One of the interesting things about this recent flare-up
is that it helps clarify a 'root cause' of instability in the Middle
East - and that's Hezbollah and Hezbollah's relationship with Syria,
and Hezbollah's relationship to Iran, and Syria's relationship to Iran.
Therefore, in order to solve this problem it's really important
for the world to address the 'root cause.'"
Prior to giving the green
light to Israel to continue its bombing campaign for another week, US
Secretary of State Condolleeza Rice said, "We do seek an end to
the current violence, we seek it urgently. We also seek to address the
'root causes' of that violence. A cease-fire would be a false promise
if it simply returns us to the status quo."
As Ms. Rice shuttled to Lebanon,
Israel and Rome talking about peace, the Bush administration approved
rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel after receiving
a request last week.
At virtually every home demolition
in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, the tear gas canisters say,
"Made in the United States."
How is it that a Republican
led administration that has virtually no credibility in the entire Middle
East expect to be seen as a balanced arbiter of interests when Israel
is dropping American made bombs and directly funding the Israeli military?
Russia and the US are arming the region and using it as their proxy
battlefield. Is the right wing Republican Administration the root cause
behind the serious missteps in American foreign policy since 2001?
Why is it that a country
smaller than the state of New Jersey with a population barely over 7
million can dictate world affairs and hold off calls for a ceasefire
by the most powerful nations on earth. Were it not that these nations
had other interests in Iran and Syria, Israel could not come across
as a kind of neo-superpower on the world stage that can make war at
will. Justifying the destruction of an entire country and displacing
close to 750,000 people on the premise that kidnapped soldiers and the
threat of rocket attacks is proportional leads to a deeply problematic
supposition. On that basis alone, by the extension of that faulty argument,
Iran should be bombed in to oblivion next week due to its direct links
to Hezbollah.
While Tony Blair continues
to play the role of George Bush's pet poodle in international affairs,
BBC television is also starting to be instrumentalized as a propaganda
tool due to its uncritical reporting and clear Israeli bias. The daily
humiliation of Palestinians is off the radar for most mainstream news
as BBC presenters throw soft lob questions at Israeli emissaries.
Is holding back a call for
a ceasefire while civilians die by the dozens every day, a sign of moral
leadership that we should all look up to?
Is Hezbollah's use of Syrian
and Iranian missiles any less morally obtuse than the US role in arming
Israel?
The US and Israel are widely
and correctly viewed as the regional bullies. That is not to say that
those on the other side of the debate who use violence in the region
have any credible leadership to offer or in any way respect human rights.
On the contrary, placing
these two dogmatic and ideological forces against one another produces
rather predictable outcomes virtually every time. There are structural
problems associated with this conflict that are directly reinforced
by American foreign policy in the region. Once again, it is innocent
Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese civilians who pay the price of these
power games.
Why is that the narrative
is defined by the combatants rather than by the civilians who are bearing
the brunt of all this bullshit? Who left the idiots in Hezbollah and
the IDF leadership in charge of international affairs? Why do the rest
of us have to put up with this authoritarian nightmare driven by the
lies and distortions of power? How could this escalation possibly have
come as a surprise to those closest to the information?
By superimposing the 'War
on Terror' rhetoric, the US is continuing its bull-headed approach to
foreign policy. Until Americans realize that their country is vehemently
hated in this part of the world, and that only a fundamental shift in
approach to the Middle East can alter this perception, its tainted role
can only do more damage than good. Forget about imposing an outsider's
view of democracy - order, economic development and human rights would
be sufficient in this region. The other changes must happen internally
by the funding and development of civil society.
Letting Dick Cheney and Donald
Rumsfeld loose in this part of the world to set American foreign policy
is not only dangerous, it is terrible for American interests. That the
Republicans have so successfully and pervasively taken over so many
aspects of American political life says something about American culture
that is not particularly flattering. Perhaps what is worse, is that
most Americans still have not realized the extent to which their view
of how the world works has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of
the rest of the world - even amongst its allies. Those who still cling
to a world shaped by "American values" is either deeply deluded,
certifiably insane or a messianic force to be ignored. Even in the European
Union, they have developed an internal gospel that they represent the
highest order of 'civilization' which is still a rather post-colonial
view that reeks of profound arrogance.
The Middle East is a mess
entirely created by US and European foreign policy negligence and weak
leadership in the region itself. Without these factors, there would
be no Hassan Nusrallah or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The West, by not confronting
Israeli policy in an authentic or balanced manner, or by helping to
impose a negotiated peace agreement, inadvertently set in motion a very
predictable outcome which is manifested in the conflict that has transpired
the last two weeks.