Re: The American Road to Self-destruction

["Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" <Bruce.McFarling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First, an apology that two versions of the same
email were sent ... I did not realise that the
second was still queued in my computer at home
when I composed and sent the first one to appear
on the list.

>Bruce R. McFarling suggests--
>
>        "Instead of the state owning the newspapers,
>         the same corporations that own the major news-
>         papers own the state, which is a substantial
>         distinction."
>
>    The NY Times and Washington Post do not sup-
>    port the current administration. They are critical of it.
>    Were they in Iraq where they did for Sadam what
>    they do for Bush they would long be dead.

For the sake of my argument, it is fortunate that I did
not claim that there was a massive conspiracy and that
all of the major corporations were behind it.  There
isn't, there is just the ordinary way that institutions
work in the US.

Disputes over what the government should do are by no
means surprising.  Of course, the simple fact that
there is some dispute doesn't even undermine the "its
no different to the USSR" argument, since there were
ongoing political disputes there as well, over goals
as well as means.

>    Bruce does not admit that the leftist press here
>    (and all over the English speaking world) have
>    fed him the very ideas he claims no one here
>    can read. Millions on the left believe the claims--
>    all of which are twisted and false. Many more
>    millions have a balanced view on these matters

I would not call The Economist leftist press, and
that is all you need to read to find out how massively
corrupt the American political system is.

>    "Sixty Minutes", the most popular newscast in
>    the US tonight featured the head of the Israeli
>    Labor party presenting a position Bruce and I
>    might agree with.  It is approximately the US
>    position on the future of Palestine. Nobody
>    censored the program because is opposed
>    the Likud approach to the same issues.

Which, John, the Labour party position, or the position
that I would agree with?  My position is the same one
as Wilson and FDR gave as the foundation position to
the problem of this type of pseudo-colonial activity
within the boundaries of a state: franchise.  All of
the people born and residing within the boundaries of
the state that Israeli policy declares are minimum
defensible borders should be allowed to vote in the
upcoming election.  In such an election, around 36% of
the electorate would be Palestinian Muslims, 30% old
guard establishment Israelis, another 30% Jewish (at
least nominally) Isrealis with less political clout,
and around 4% Palestinian Christians.

When the dust settled, the Intifada would be over,
there would be no more atrocities committed by
occupation forces in the West Bank, and if the US
continued support at anything like the support it
gives to the current regime, we might even see the
first hospital built in the West Bank or Gaza since
Israel annexed the territory.

Is that what Sixty Minutes aired? Or was it more of
the "good cop / bad cop" Labour/Likud shell game? I
am confident that nothing presented was any more
radical than the plan to establish dozens of islands
of Palestinian administration, to offload the burden
of administering the annexed territory.  As the
British showed long ago in West Africa, indirect rule
can be a cheaper method of colonial administration
than direct rule, provided that you can get the proper
local quislings to run the bottom rungs of the show.

The odd thing is not the muting of the American left,
which would normally get itself into a complete,
albeit impotent, slather over such a brutal colonial
administration.  The odd thing is that the American
right wing not only accepts but tends to gleefully
support the subordination of American strategic
interests to the interests of the ruling clique of
Israel.