Democratic Palestine : 17 (ص 20)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 17 (ص 20)
- المحتوى
-
Ungquestionable Alliance
The article below begins a study on the US-Israeli relationship and the role of the Zionist state in the
Middle East, which we plan to continue in subsequent issues of Democratic Palestine. This first installment
concentrates on the US’s intervention in the Israeli economy and how this will affect the role of ‘Israel’ in the
future.
Political Zionism and the international Zionist organization
emerged as a «direct result of the struggle of the Jewish bour-
geoisie to expand its influence in the capitalist countries inter-
nationally.» ! This occurred around the turn of the century with
the development of capitalism into imperialism. It is, therefore,
not surprising that Zionism and imperialism should find
common grounds to serve and expand their individual aspira-
tions, throughout the various stages of history. Zionism has
always been an active participant in various imperialist activi-
ties. «The history of Zionism from the moment of its emergence
up till this day is inseparable from the history of imperialism,
from major imperialist policies, from the changes experienced
by imperialism as a whole, as a political, economic and social
system.»2 Thus, the continued assertations of US politicians on
the strategic importance of ‘Israel’ - coated with statements
about ‘moral obligations’ to Jews - are nothing earthshakingly
new.
When the US replaced Europe as the leading imperialist
power after World War II, it was not surprising that Zionism
shifted its main allegiance to the US as well, in order to survive.
The US itself was only too aware of the significance of having a
base in a region which contained half the oil reserves of the
world. It also realized the Zionist state’s significance as a
doorway to markets which could accomodate the expansion of
imperialist producers. No less important is the US need of a
reliable base from which to strike at progressive movements in
the region, whose rising influence poses a threat to imperialist
dominance.
NO. 1 ALLY, BUT...
US aid and involvement with the Zionist entity grew as a result
of the expansion of imperialist interests in the Middle East as the
years passed. The US left no room for doubt that ‘Israel’ was its
number one ally. This fact has been seen not only in the astro-
nomical amounts of aid, but in the more significant fact that,
most recently, all aid is to be in the form of grants. The Zionists
now receive one-third of all US foreign aid. On an annual per-
capita basis, this amounts to $1000 per Israeli. The closest
country after that was Oman with $61 per - capita, then Egypt
with $55 and Lebanon with $7. In contrast, US ‘aid’ for Pales-
tinians of the West Bank ($7 per capita) was not only miniscule,
but also subject to a maze of restrictions set up by the Zionist
legal network which retains the right to withhold this aid.
Although the US has many stooges to promote and protect its
interests in the region, none of these regimes are as dependent on
the US for their very existence as is the Zionist entity. This
should not, however, be interpreted that ‘Israel’ is in a «your
wish is my command» position. Zionist leaders wield a relati-
vely heavy club, for they know full well the significance of the
role they play with respect to US imperialist interests. «The US
is dealing with us with a weak hand because we both know that if
we are in trouble they will help us,» said an Israeli official. «We
know it. They know it. And they make no bones about it.»3 True
the US is willing to allow the Zionist entity a margin of freedom
considerably broader than any other ally. However, in the light
of the acute Israeli economic crisis, which the US views as
endangering its own national and international interests, the US
make no bones about showing the Zionists where to toe the line.
A massive campaign of US intervention in the Israeli eco-
nomy took place between 1983 and 1986, and is still going on.
US quarters are questioning whether the influx of dollars to
‘Israel’ could do anything more than simply put off economic
reckoning, making remedies more complex if not impossible.
Thus, for the «first time (the US administration) has found it
20
necessary to place economic conditions on its aid--- despite the
special relationship» with the Zionist entity. The US adminis-
tration and media underscored over and over that US aid is seen
as «necessary to meet growing security threats in key areas such
as the Middle East,» that «it is not unusual for the Israeli aid
figure to be increased some annually by the administration and
nudged up by the Congress.» However, the leap being dicussed
for FY 1986 is 86%. (For 1985, aid was $2.6 billion; for 1986, it
is $4.56). Thus, the «Israeli increase will receive considerable
scrutiny» .4
Pushing along these lines are statements made by well-placed
officials like Samuel Lewis, former ambassador to ‘Israel’: «I
do not take pride or pleasure in the fact that we will undoub-
tedly be giving more (aid to ‘Israel’) next year.» In other words,
although there is no threat that aid will be denied the Zionists,
the same aid is now to assume a definite role reversal which is
perceived by both partners as ‘buying Israel’ and not ‘selling it’.
This new role of aid is reflected in phrases like «aid is aid and
business is business» or «we would rather give (Israel) business
assistance than economic aid.» The stress is on working towards
long-term economic gains which would have a more lasting and
effective influence, rather than pumping in aid with fleeting
political and economic effects.
Even foreign banking circles have expressed increasing
doubts as to the future of ‘Israel’ and how effective doling out
aid is in keeping this state alive. One senior banker said that
foreign bankers were treating ‘Israel’ cautiously and were likely
to do so even if extra aid came from the US. «What we are con-
cerned with,» he said, «is where the economy here is headed, not
whether it can survive,» i.e., more aid in itself will not guarantee
‘Israel’ better access to foreign bank loans. Some top US banks
are thinking of opening branches in ‘Israel’ to reestablish its
shaky credibility in the world financial market, according to
“Voice of Israel’ radio, July 1985.
AID FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE
In the past, economic and monetary problems were solved
between the US and ‘Israel’ by one or more of the following
methods: rescheduling debt payments; cancelling or waiving
payments for certain years; postponing payments, cancelling all
or part of the debt, or simply providing the Zionist entity with
cash to make payments.
The 1983-4 Israeli economic crisis showed the adverse effects
of these solutions and how they have caught up with the
US-Zionist partners. This pressed upon them the necessity of
taking more drastic measures than in the past - measures that
would result in doubling unemployment and reducing wages to
the 1982 level. Although the US went out of its way to stress that
‘Israel’ would have to pull itself out of its own mess, well-placed
administration officials did not rule out the possibility of
extending help when needed. This help was the code name for
the millions in aid being allotted to achieve structural reforms
without «massive unemployment (which) would weaken Israel’s
strained social fabric.»°
Thus, $3 billion in military and economic aid for 1986 was
approved, although US government loans extended for other
purposes were halted until ‘Israel’ could register progress in
some or all of the following areas: (a) elimination of all
government subsidies, including export subsidies; (b) unifica-
tion of effective protection rates; (c) elimination of all anti-
competitive government regulation; (d) denationalization of the
Israeli capital market and particularly the elimination of
‘directed’ and ‘earmarked’ government credit; (e) reform of
labor legislation allowing increased labor mobility; (f) selling - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 17
- تاريخ
- يونيو ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed