Raoul

[quote]Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

Well, it depends on various views I would say. Firstly, if the United States wants to maintain its pre-eminence in world affairs, it has to get involved in many of these situations, even if oil (god forbid) isn't involved. It seems to me you are very concentrated with this issue, and in provoking Arab anger. Honestly, do you think pulling out of this situation will do anything to alleviate Arab anger at the United States. They are already yelling at us to get involved, so sitting back and letting Israel do whatever it wants will hardly bode well with the Arab States. Now, you will probably then argue that, if we cut off Israel's military aid, it wouldn't have such the capability that is has today (hell, it probably wouldn't exist today, but lets say it did), and you have argued that before. However, would that be in America's interest? No, for cutting off American aid isn't going to make any new friends, it will only weaken our only partner in the region while strengthening regimes that are hostile to the U.S.. That would be foolish, to say the least. Now, while the Arab states may not like U.S. support for Israel, their lessening share in the oil market (and it is decreasing, for I talk to OPEC guys here in Vienna from time to time) will make sure that they are careful not to hurt the one thing their economies are so relient upon, and therefore, they will be careful not to do anything to take away big clients (knowing, non-OPEC members would only be so willing to step in and help). Furthermore, the U.S. has to get involved, and has an interest, because it is the only power that is capable of doing such. While the Palestinians may hate us, as Clinton showed, we are still prepared to push Israel to give a lot to them, and Arafat knows this. Europe may be in a better geographic position, but they are biased towards the Palestinians and the Israeli's will have nothing to do with this--and having leverage with the Israeli's is incredibly important. Thus, America's interest is a stable region. States don't have to like each other, but as long as they aren't killing each other, that is desirable. Therefore, I would argue, getting a more stable status quo in the region is in America's best interest, and if it pulls out, the resulting chaos would be detrimental in the long run.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The primary source of Arab resentment toward the United States is it's support of Israel - financially and militarily. Removing that would remove the biggest obstacle to the US having excellent relations with a majority of the Arab world, as well as Iran. Our only intrest in the middle east is the ability to access cheap oil - it's the reason the Gulf War was fought, and it's the reason we're considering a regime change in Iraq - because Iraq with weapons of mass destruction = instability, which in turn equals a threat to the oil supply. The only reason we're mired in trying to help the Israeli-Palastinian situation is because we partially contributed to its creation by supplying Israel with Billions of taxpayer dollars to build up their military. Those billions of dollars, F-16s, Apaches, Armour, etc are in turn what are destroying the west bank and southern Lebanon as we speak. I support the position that Israel has the right to defend itself, but let it be with their own funding.

It is not the US's role to be a global nanny for tribes who have been at war over that land for thousands of years, especially when there's nothing in it for us. That standard should apply to Israel, it should apply to Taiwan, it should apply to all African states who are killing each other off etc. These conflicts have been going on for ages and our participation will not be successful when we're blatantly in bed with one of the sides. These issues are best left to multilateral organizations like the UN or the EU, because it involves the international community in the process, instead of the perception that the US as a foreign policy puppetmaster to Israel.