Few things are more exasperating than the mentality that denies someone the right to say something true for some alleged psychological or sociological reason.

"Anti-Semitism is, of course, a misnomer. The term "Semitic" properly pertains not to "races" but to a linguistic grouping that comprises diverse peoples and cultures. As for "anti-Jewism," to coin a neologism, it is a feature, not of the Muslim world, but rather of the Christian world, for reasons which ought to be apparent to anyone possessing even a smattering of history. Pogroms existed in Europe centuries before the Ottomans of the nineteenth century. As for the Muslim world generally, on the whole the Jews prospered there, in particular in Spain during the Muslim centuries. To say that "Islam" is "anti-Semitic" is simply an ignorant parroting of the mass media propaganda. Both Christians and Jews are deemed "people of the Book" (ahl-al-Kitab), that is to say, possessors of authentic Revelations. True enough, both the Christians and the Jews are felt to have been unfaithful to the perspective of pure Monotheism, which Islam feels it incarnates most perfectly, and which it feels was the true intention of both "Mosaism" and Christianity. That theological point, however, has never been held to abrogate the more important principle first mentioned, and which over the centuries allowed the Christians and the Jews to practice their religions within the bosom of the Muslim world. To this day, the Iraqi and Egyptian Christians are amongst the oldest Christian groups in the world. That modern fundamentalists twist the religion to suit their purposes should surprise no one, any more than it should surprise them that Christian fundamentalists can twist their own religion. Human beings are capable of abusing anything and everything.

The US has committed itself in the Middle East--and now also in Africa, and to some extent in South America--in a manner that guarantees violent reactions. It has learned nothing from its experiences in Vietnam. It completely supports the current brutal regime in Israel--which is a veritable taboo in American politics, which is absurd and no more than brilliant propaganda on the part of the Zionists. As if to disagree with the policies of a man of the likes of its former leader, Sharon, or with the current thug, is to be "anti-Semitic," or as if to wish for justice for the Palestinians means that one is an enemy of Jews.

Some Americans are beginning to understand that their government has been hijacked, as it were, by certain extraordinarily ambitious and ruthless private interests, comprising a certain fanatical fundamentalism in some of its members, and also coupled to the interests of a militant Zionism--and plenty of Jews, incidentally, including Israelis, agree with this, not to mention the visible presence of avowed Zionists in key government positions. Far more perceptive commentary emanates from Israeli sources than US ones as regards the Israel-US connections.

The modern nation-state feels it can be "on God's side" even when it acts like the devil. To be sure, the terrorist groups represent groups of thugs, but so do the Middle East dictators behind most of their governments, and so do the Israeli leaders. And yet, since the time of the colonial period, who is largely responsible for supporting--and in some cases even placing (even while later removing, according to convenience)--these oligarchic dictators? The US and the Europeans. And who invented the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" in the first place, and then hypocritically sold them to these governments? The US and the Europeans. Who is largely responsible for the creation of Al-Qa'idah, and for the spread of Wahabbism which fanned the tremendous surge of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere--not to mention the efflorescence of the drug trade there? The US. Which corporate interests did, and continue to do, business with these dictatorships? US and European transnationals, certain executives of which also occupy high positions in their governments. And so on, and on. All talk of "regime change" and "democracy" here amount to nothing other than the final destruction of all traditional life in these areas--a form of life which Americans scarcely comprehend, to their great disadvantage--and a demagogic cloak for outright conquest and rapaciousness. The truth is, if the Middle East had no oil, and if it were not the "soft underbelly" of Russia, and a strategic corridor, the area would hold no interest for the industrialized West, which evidently, in the grip, as it is, of greed and the will to power, believes that its moment has come, and that oil and the total control of the region are the keys to global hegemony, to be achieved at all costs, and through no matter what means. Together with the Zionists, the US has seized upon terrorism as the lever to obtain carte blanche for all its initiatives in the service of big business and big money and global hegemony--these being identified with "our way of life," which presumably has unique and quasi-sacred rights. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. will not awaken someday to find that it--and its money--has been used to further aims quite distinct from those it imagines.

One may assume that the grand strategy of the U.S. is more or less along the lines of Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard." It foresees that competition for finite energy resources--above all from Russia and China--are the great long-term threat to U.S. interests, which absolutely will rely in long run on the petroleum in the Mideast, and that what Churchill termed "Russia's soft underbelly"--the Caspian area--is absolutely critical. Hence the policy should be one of "divide and rule." The idea is to establish a permanent ring of military presence in the "stans" and along the Gulf, and to break-up the Muslim countries and render them powerless. The book is not particularly pro-Israel, if I recall correctly. The aim is rather to ensure long-term control over the Persian Gulf resources and to keep Russia and China at bay. At the same time, the idea of splintering the Mid-East states so as to assure Israel's military predominance has long been a well-known and published Zionist aim, so that both policies--those of the US and those of Israel--seem to converge fortuitously. Of course, in reality, Israel is a U.S. liability, but misperceived as an asset, thanks to a very powerful Jewish lobby in the US. And, as with the Zionist neocons, the extremely aggressive methods of the Israelis work to make them their own worst enemy by far.

What escapes most readily available political commentary, laden with political myths and sentimentalisms, is that the US is not in the last analysis run by politicians, nor is it run by people who have national interests and values in mind above all else. The powers behind the throne, as it were, are in the first place internationalist not nationalist in orientation. And above all, they are the money power; they are the great corporate and financial interests. The world economy is now extraordinarily financialized, if one may coin a phrase. Michael Hudson has analyzed this trend quite lucidly. This amounts to an immense globalized drive to concentrate wealth in the hands of the great financial interests--rentier control over all resources. This is the reality of "privatization," which in fact amounts to wealth transfer in collusion with the local governing power elites. Globalization means precisely the transfer of wealth to very concentrated international financial interests.

So far as one can tell by their actions, rather than by their words, the American people and their "democracy" concern these internationalist interests not one whit, except as elements of propaganda--indeed, a strong case can be made that the reduction of a significant portion of the US populace to quasi-third world status by way of "privatizations" designed to concentrate wealth and create permanent debt status in its citizenry is exactly what they want. As regards the Mideast, disequilibrium--the rise of fundamentalist reactions, inter-Islamic squabbles, and civil strife in these areas--actually suits their purposes perfectly, and the suffering of the people affected by their operations seems to be a matter of complete indifference--one can refer back to Madelaine Albright's infamous remark regarding the deaths of half a million Iraqi children owing to US sanctions, and there is not a trace of change of attitude up to the present. The idea in fact seems to be the deliberate reduction of the Muslim countries to a state of impotence and destitution, comparable to that of Afghanistan, which will allow the presence of military bases strategically arranged to ensure, over the long run, control over petroleum and gas supplies, and in the face of competition from Asia, and to have their partner, Israel, exercise control over the area of Eretz Israel. Divide et impera. Much of this, minus the taboo Zionist element, is all fairly clearly laid-out in Brzezinski's books.