I incline to agree with israel Shahack's declaration here, quoted from his Open Secrets, p. 153.
"The idea of a ‘regional alliance system' implies the exclusion of the US from it and Israel's supremacy within it, backed by the latter's nuclear monopoly. Its avowed goal ‘to secure peace in the region' ressembled all too closely similar claims of the imperial powers of the past, made for the consumtion of the gullible. This is why Peres' plan can be viewed as an extreme version of Israeli imperialism. The nature of the relations between Israel and other states of the ‘regional alliance system' is described in another article by Aluf Ben (Haaretz, 11 February 1994.) Ben quotes the first director of the Israeli Institute for Development of Weaponry [RAFAEL] Munya Mardoch, that ‘the moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states.' A transparent implication of that view is that by insisting on its nuclear monopoly, Israel aims at reducing all other Middle eastern states to the status of its vassals, probably hoping for approval of such a state of affairs by the US.
Apart from the question of whether all existing Arab regimes would want to join ‘an alliance' so transparently stewarded by Israel, one can also ask about the survivability of any Arab regime joining that ‘alliance.' I feel unable to answer this question: whether the US would be pleased by a unification of the Middle East under Israel's command - it could then influence this unified region only via its influence on Israel. Let me recall that through such unification, entailing an Israeli hegemony, Israel's financial dependence on the US and thereby the US's chances to influence Israel would be diminished. It seems also doubtful whether the US (or indeed Europe) would be pleased with the abolition of ‘economic competition' between states under ‘an alliance system' powerful enough to accomplish it. This is why Peres' plan can only be interpreted as assuming that Israeli influence upon the US, exerted through the medium of organized American Jews, is sufficient to outweigh US imperial interests. As I mentioned above, I do recognize the power of organized American Jews as quite formidable. But contrary to some Hebrew press commentators, I don't believe that it is sufficient to justify that tacit assumption of Peres. The organized American Jewish community may, as Oren hopes, succeed in protecting the independance of Israeli nuclear policies but I doubt if they are capable of accomplishing much more..." |
|
|
