P. 1
Samson Blinded

Samson Blinded

|Views: 145|Likes:
Publicado porAdamhman

More info:

Published by: Adamhman on Apr 29, 2008
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Israel’s army today can stage a military confrontation in order to
annex certain territory, which the superpowers would tolerate for a number
of reasons. History shows that American tolerance knows no limits:
Dresden and Hiroshima, the Vietnam defoliation campaign, standing by
during Rwandan massacres, acquiescence in Russian atrocities in Chechnya
and of Iraq in Kurdistan during the Anfal campaign, and disregarding
unspeakably brutal suppression of the Muslim Brothers’ insurgency by
Syria, as well as many other shameful incidents which would have made
Caligula blush. America accords still higher tolerance to its allies who
brutalize non-white and ideologically alien populations: Japan was virtually
acquitted for its WWII crimes, not incomparable with the German variety,
and atrocities by anti-communist forces in Guatemala and Nicaragua
propped by the United States made few headlines there. In even more
relevant example, oil was a major reason for the United States annexation
of a chunk of Mexico. No American politician offers now to return the
supposedly illegally acquired land, nor does Mexico raise an outcry. The
more brutal a regime is, less morality America demands of it, especially if
the regime opposes a larger evil: Maoist China, which butchered millions of
its people, was America’s ally against the U.S.S.R., while the minuscule
Tiananmen incident led to sanctions. Acting brutally but efficiently, Israel
need not fear Western opposition. European powers are more cynical (or
realistic) than the Americans and would not protest annexation if done
quickly and cleanly. The West was unconcerned with a short war in


What would be otherwise termed aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq is
rationalized and made into international case law when perpetrated by a country
sufficiently strong to establish its arbitrariness as law, and make scores of countries
accept it. The precedent is useful for Israel regardless of whether the American
actions were justified. The precedent also conforms to historical norm when even
harboring hostile rulers in exile was often a cause of war.


irrelevant Afghanistan but protested protracted war in economically viable
Iraq. After the occupation of Poland by the U.S.S.R. and Germany, Britain
declared war on Germany but not on the Soviet Union; the powers care
about stability, not losers like Poland or Palestine.
As recently as in 1972, the United States supported Israel’s rebuff
of Sadat’s settlement plan, since after 1967 Israel seemed able to handle a
military confrontation with Egypt easily. The Americans showed no
concern about the Palestinian issue until the media made it prominent.
There is no inherent opposition to annexation among Western powers.
Israeli schizophrenic indecisiveness provokes their antagonism.
Israel should offer the West cheap oil and gas from the annexed
land, perhaps even at cost. At the beginning, some resources could even be
internationalized to reduce the price of gasoline to one-fiftieth its present
level, winning Israel the goodwill of foreigners who care more about gas
than Arabs. Expropriation can be rationalized: the tribal royalty of a handful
of states should not control a resource so important to all humanity as oil at
the expense of the rest of the world by the accident of being established by
colonial powers in oil-rich places. Gambling winnings are generally heavily
taxed, as are inheritances. Some people are lucky this way and unlucky that,
so the odds are even. Many countries have mineral resources, yet they do
not internationalize them; but wealth of the magnitude of the Arab oil
reserves, which they could not even exploit by themselves without
international corporations, should be heavily taxed. Instead, the world like a
herd of lambs suffers from O.P.E.C.’s monopoly prices, a collusion illegal
in any civilized country.59

The common explanation of this defeatism,


The oil-price hike cannot be meaningfully compared to embargo America
instituted against its adversaries. Arabs employed embargo against Israel, but the
oil-price increase affected every country regardless of its Middle East policy,
disqualifying the move as a foreign-policy device. Arabs did not reduce the price
even when the U.S. defended Saudi Arabia and Kuwait against Iraq; the American
tolerance of such abuse for all its help is bizarre.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided in 1981 it has no
authority over the acts by foreign states, but non-sovereign oil companies effect
price hikes. The Supreme Court’s Keeton vs. Hustler established jurisdiction of a
state where the product is intentionally sold. The U.S. prosecutes foreigners
violating American laws without entering the country, such as heads of drug cartels
and terrorists. O.P.E.C., which engages in market manipulation and other
operations illegal in the U.S., should be treated similarly.
The U.S. applies anti-dumping sanctions to foreign companies exporting
the goods to the American market below the cost. Exporting at monopolistically
high prices should be similarly punishable.
O.P.E.C. could be also indicted on Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act because its members include rogue states known for
supporting terrorism and anti-American incitation. Oil proceeds conditioned on the
O.P.E.C.’s monopolistic pricing are the major source of funding the activities
illegal under the U.S. law.

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict


namely that the U.S. feared confrontation with the Soviets, is irrelevant.
America clashed with the Soviets in West Berlin, Greece, Korea, Vietnam,
Cuba, and many other places—to the extent of nuclear alert. The Kennan
doctrine of containment dictated firm opposition to O.P.E.C. policy, at least
if it was Soviet-backed. The real reasons behind the West’s acceptance are
the Vietnam syndrome, liberal free markets, the nationalist concept of
sovereignty over resources, and the lobbying oil corporations which
profited enormously both through the increase in value of their reserves and
the Arabs’ ability to pay for their services.
The United States government gets royalty-in-kind payments from
domestic oil producers unrelated to profits, and price raises drive
profitability up. The same accounting system that let corporations fake
profits in the 1990s boom lets them hide profits from taxation. Since
America imports about half its oil, its domestic output only needs to double
instead of unnecessary conservation. An alternative is to explore and
promote other energy sources to eliminate dependence on the Middle East
or O.P.E.C. altogether—which will require overcoming important vested
interests of oil corporations relying on O.P.E.C. for price benchmarks and
lucrative service contracts. American corporations collaborated with Nazi
Germany; now they cooperate with Islamist governments. But when Israel
offers them oil concessions and uninterrupted supplies and profits, they will
lobby their governments to accept annexation. The countries and
corporations that cooperated with fascists would not care about
dispossessed Arabs.

A hundred years ago oil extortion would have been a casus belli. If
the United States priced some scarce resource almost hundred times above
the costs, there would be an outcry. Not so with the Arabs. Would the world
sit silent if someone monopolized fresh water and jacked the price up? The
Arabs not only practice extortion but also use oil for political pressure and
fund terrorists and fundamentalists worldwide with the profit. They fund an
anti-Western ideological and military campaign, and still have audacity to
accept American foreign aid. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, defended and
directly fought for by the United States, steer the oil racket.
Breaking O.P.E.C. would lower monopolist prices. Whether the oil
price is too high, or, as ecologists claim, too low, is unimportant. Absent
price-fixing, the price would be lower.
Natural resources should not belong to a nation only because it
owns the geography but rather to those who find them, which did the
colonial powers. Socialists do not recognize unearned profit and should
oppose Arab wealth. There are abundant grounds to challenge Arab claims
to the oil. Islamists think plundering enemies is legitimate; Al Qaeda
specifically called for it in a statement of February 1998. They should not
complain if Israelis plunder them.
Ecologists should be mobilized to decry the irresponsible
development of oil resources by the Arabs and their corporate partners. The


Antarctic is under international control; inter-government agencies regulate
the use of rivers and lakes. Public control over oil is not inconceivable. Oil
is one of the last resources that justifies a colonial foreign policy, and
annexation would pay. Even if the West firmly opposes annexation, Israel
would agree to internationalization to devastate the Arab economies, only
1% of which is not oil-related.
If the United States suspended arms shipments to Israel, she could
still overcome her weak opponents with her existing arsenal. Yet why
should the United States be upset if Israel takes control of the Saudi
oilfields? The American government resents Saudi financing of
fundamentalist Islam and terrorism. America supported dictatorial Iraq
against Iran and authoritarian Saudi Arabia against Iraq to assure an
uninterrupted oil supply. Why not let Israel do the job? The Americans will
acquiesce if Israel provides stability, crushing Arab will to fight instead of
protracted conflict and pitiful moralizing.
The current Saudi crackdown on fundamentalists is temporary.
Monarchy has zero legitimacy with nationalists and democrats. Handing
sovereignty over to a royal family undermines nationalism. Westernizers
think monarchy is obsolete. Socialists also oppose it. Rank-and-file Arabs
expect a bigger share of oil revenues in democracy and have no reason to
support the ruling dynasty. The Saudi monarchy cannot disregard the
clerics who support autocracy, which alone can shield them from religious
competition. The Saudi theological monopoly trust fundamentalism to keep
a firm grip on the population. Fundamentalism and monarchy reinforce one
another. The crackdown has singled out only clerics who accuse the regime
of atheism, insufficient promotion of Wahhabism, or accommodating
heathen instead of declaring military jihad, and has not affected the scores
of religious extremists preaching hatred of Jews and Christians alike.
Claiming to counter the fundamentalists, the Saudi rulers have imprisoned
many political liberals to avoid upsetting the clerics. Saudi politics drifts
ineluctably to the right as the monarchy refuses to fade into insignificance.
To take over the Arab states, Israel could rely on the fifth column
of resident aliens in those countries, people discontent with their low status
and longing for Western-style equality and a share of the oil profits. Arab
states prohibit naturalization even for people who have lived there for
generations; compare this with Israel's treatment of her Arabs. Aliens,
mostly Indians, but also Filipinos and other Asians, constitute close to
100% of the workforce—not government employees or foreign company

—in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
Socialist and nationalist propaganda among them would disrupt Arab


Those countries prohibit non-citizen ownership of domestic corporations,
creating a bonanza for locals who "sponsor" foreign companies.

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict


You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->