 |
.American
Free Press |
| |
| ...Volume
VI.
#12. March 20,
2006...americanfreepress.net |
| |
P. 12, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS * March 20, 2006...
Behind the Scenes
with Michael Collins Piper
Support Palestine,
Says Jewish Philosopher
Intellectual calls for U.S. foreign policy
about-face in regard to Israel, Islam
By Michael Collins Piper
A
well-known and highly regarded Canadian academic, the son of German
Jews, has sent shockwaves through pro-Israel circles in the West.
Michael Neumann, a professor of philosophy at Trent University in
Ontario, Canada, has called for the United States to break its “special
relationship” with Israel and, instead, openly and boldly
side with the Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim states around
the globe. He is urging the United States to lead an international
coalition to force Israel to accept a negotiated peace settlement
with the Palestinians and — most importantly — give
up its giant arsenal of nuclear weapons.
REPRESSIVE
POLICIES: Above,
a Palestinian man in a donkey cart approaches
an Israeli soldier guarding a checkpoint that
is opened thrice daily for local Palestinian agricultural
workers who have been cut off from their land
by Israel’s "Great Wall" separation
barrier. Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s
cabinet approved economic sanctions against the
new Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, including
reducing the number of Palestinians allowed to
work in Israel. It is just this kind of fascist
behavior that has led one Jewish intellectual
to urge the United States to stop its blind support
for Israel, claiming such actions would receive
the blessing and good will of most of the world.
|
|
|
Writing in his new book, The Case Against
Israel, Neumann candidly asserts, based on his own
study of the problem, that although he considers himself “pro-Israel
and pro-Jewish” that it is still “definitely the Palestinians,
not Israel, who deserve the world’s support.”
Neumann views “the Zionist project” — the displacement
of native Palestinians and the establishment of Jewish settlements
in Palestine, leading to the creation of Israel — as being,
in his words “entirely unjustified” and that “some
form of violent resistance” by the Christian and Muslim natives
of the land was to be expected.
In the end, Neumann says, “The illegitimacy of the Zionist
project was the major cause of all the terror and warfare that it
aroused.”
Neumann dismisses the standard claims that Israel is any sort of
“special” friend of the United States and disregards
the notion that the much-touted “bond” between the two
countries is beneficial to U.S. interests. The relationship, he
believes, “has turned poisonous to America’s security
and its future.” It is time for action, Neumann says flat
out.
The Canadian professor writes:
America would be far better off on the other
side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would instantly gain
the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more
valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the governments
of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist
movement! The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might
well be won at nominal cost, and quickly. Perhaps, the most likely
scenario would simply involve an embargo on Israel sponsored by
the U.S. in cooperation with the United Nations.
If this happens, Israel might have to be made the object of the
kind of coalition forged against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Of
course, against Israel the coalition would be far broader and
stronger, including all the countries of the former Soviet Union,
Iran, Libya, Pakistan and many others. And though Israel is quite
strong enough to persist in its policies without U.S. support,
it could not stand up to such a coalition. Israel would be forced
to follow its own best interests.
Neumann also believes that if the United States
were to come down on Israel and take a firm stand against this nation
that many in the world perceive to be a rogue state, it would go
a long way toward reducing the risk of a nuclear holocaust that
is a continuing possibility as a consequence of the Arab-Israeli
conflict.
Neumann says that there are two main reasons why some nations resist
surrendering their own nuclear arsenals: “fear of American
attack,” and what Neumann calls “the outrageous exemption
of Israel from non-proliferation initiatives.” Says Neumann:
It is simply absurd to suppose that any serious
effort to stem the development of nuclear weapons can proceed
in the absence of any attempt to disarm Israel, which is estimated
to possess between 200 and 500 nuclear warheads. Having launched
its own satellites, it clearly has the capacity to hit targets
anywhere in the world, and it possesses cruise missiles that have
hit targets 950 miles away. Until it is forced either to disarm
or to establish good relations with its neighbors, the pace of
proliferation will simply increase. On the other hand, U.S. efforts
to neutralize the Israeli nuclear threat would win support for
nonproliferation efforts from Pakistan and Iran.
Ultimately, Neumann believes, this tough love
from the United States would be of benefit to Israel itself and
ensure the tiny yet wealthy and powerful nation’s survival
in what is now a very hostile world.
While some years in Israel the most popular song was the politically
charged anthem, “The Whole World is Against Us,” the
sad truth is that the song title is essentially correct. But Neumann’s
new book provides a solution to the problem of Israel that could
be workable indeed and bring Israel and its supporters worldwide
into the community of mankind.
(Issue #12, March 20, 2006, American
Free Press)
