Somebody along this thread voiced their disgust that Israel should come up in a discussion on 'the right to attack who we like' and pointed to it as evidence of racism – by which we can understand 'anti-semitism'. I would argue that it is almost inevitable that in any discussion involving US foreign policy and warmongering, Israel will pop up sooner or later. Why is this? Is it because, as claimed, the world is full of narrow-minded anti-semites?

The answer I believe is NO. It is because only the most blind among us will deny that the US and Israel are joined at the hip, to the point where Israel could be variously described as a US colony in the Middle East or as a 50+ state of America. The US grants some $ 5 billion in aid annually to Israel. Very generous, but presumably it puts Israel in the US pocket. Israel will almost automatically support all US foreign policy decisions. For example, in a recent UN vote to lift the ridiculous US embargo on Cuba, 187 UN nations voted to lift the embargo, and only 4 voted to maintain it. Which 4? The USA, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and some other god-forsaken rock in the middle of the Pacific in receipt of US tax dollars. In return, as well as giving Israel sacks of money, the US almost never criticises anything done by the Israeli state.

   When Israel invaded Lebanon last summer, Condolezza Rice refused to call for a ceasefire until the Israelis had had time to achieve their aim of impoverishing Lebanon as much as possible by flattening its infrastructure. So ridiculous did her stalling seem internationally that cartoons appeared here about it. They showed Lebanon being slowly reduced to rubble while Condi stood in the foreground saying 'not yet….not yet…not yet…" until the last building was flattened and then said 'NOW!' The US gets to have a kind of proxy presence in the Middle East (apart from their other outposts such as troops in Saudi Arabia, fleet in Bahrain, troops in Afghanistan and Iraq…even the most casual observer can see they are extremely interested in the region). Israel can be used as a kind of lever against Arab countries. In return Israel can be as aggressively expansionist as it likes (their invasion of Lebanon had as much to do with the Litani river as it did with Hezbollah, and note also the totally illegal occupation of Palestinian West Bank, which is being annexed to become a part of Israel) secure in the knowledge that they have a carte blanche from the world's most powerful country.

To sum up, Israel and the US are like that couple everyone knows who insist there is nothing going on between them but keep on pooping up in odd places together, coming out of the office, clothes rumpled etc., but acting as if nothing is happening. It is difficult to discuss one without the other.

"The state of Israel has a right to exist" (Slag mentioned this, I think, but I have heard it elsewhere before). This is a typical example of where a phrase is repeated so often it is taken to be axiomatic and we no longer stop to think about the true meaning. Any disagreement or dissension from this opinion is treated by a leap of logic, as being anti-Semitic. Does the state of Israel have 'a right to exist'? The question is does any state have a 'right to exist' regardless of the nature of that state?

The White House apparently thinks the answer is NO. For this reason they have forced many changes of regime, for example in Chile and lately in Iraq. They even have a euphemism for this violation of national sovereignty, and a state's assumed and automatic 'right to exist' – "regime change". But such an action is not to be even contemplated in relation to Israel. Thus we see there is a set of double standards at play.

To return to the question 'does any state have an automatic right to exist?' I would generally favour national sovereignty and be against any military invasion to change the regime – a condition that should also apply to Israel (in other words, I don't believe Israel should be invaded to effect 'regime change'). Such actions all too easily fall prey to less-than-altruistic motives, as we can see in Iraq. With all the places in the world groaning under oppressive governments, why, we should ask ourselves, does America take such a special interest in the Iraqi people? We find it all has to do with Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L). Not simply to import oil, as Teribus says, but to make sure that line of import is secure and that no-one lese gets their hands on it. The only form of 'democracy' Iraqis will be allowed to have will be one that fits in with US foreign policy and interests.

But a state is not an end in itself, and should exist only insofar as it secures the peace, liberty, equality and happiness of its people, for after all that is the purpose of any society, of which a state is but a formalised expression. Twenty years ago, the world took the view that the South African state did not meet these criteria and instituted a boycott that resulted in the end of the Apartheid regime. South Africa was a country where a small white majority lorded it over a black and coloured majority, abusing the system of democracy and law to ensure their domination. Something similar happened in Northern Ireland where a protestant majority lorded it over a catholic minority, with the backing of a vacillating outside government (Westminster). Again, this particular state had to be dismantled, and something more egalitarian put in its place.

In the case of Israel, in spite of its protestations to be a democratic, egalitarian pluralistic state, we only need to scratch the surface to see this is not so. There are three layers of society at least in Israel: Western-origin Jews, Arabic Jews and at the bottom, Israeli Arabs (Palestinian Israelis) – a substantial proportion of the population. The last category are barred from Israeli Army service. Many benefits such as preferential house allocation, social welfare etc., are connected to service in the Israeli Army, so you can see how that works. These are just some examples. Neither am I taking into account the fact that Israel is occupying and settling the West Bank (Palestinian territory) reducing the Palestinians to impoverished refugees in their own country. Their farms and houses are bulldozed or seized, their livelihoods destroyed and their economy and education stifled. Palestinians used to form a captive market and cheap pool of labour for Israel, but since the building of the Wall (which cuts deep into Palestinian territory as a form of land grab, and making the West Bank the biggest open-air prison / reservation in the world) Israel no longer permits even this source of employment to Palestinians and now imports cheap labour from India, Singapore etc., The ultimate aim is ethnic cleansing: Palestinians will be obliged - through tight military Israeli control of every aspect of their lives and denial of opportunities for a livelihood – to quit the West Bank, leaving it fully open to Israeli annexation and settlement.

Of course, another question is 'where will they go?' The Palestinians are caught between a rock and a hard place since the other countries around aren't too keen to take them either though this is of little concern to Israel. In many ways their situation is quite analogous to the Jews situation in Germany from about 1933 onwards (though whenever people have tried to point this out, they get shouted down in cries of 'disgusting! Fascist pig!" and all sorts of other red-herring nonsense). Long before any gas chambers there was a gradual squeeze on Jewish life, expulsions, attacks on their livelihood etc., All of this is happening in Palestine today, so there is a comparison to be made. Lately, a Palestinian contacted me to say that his wife (of Swiss birth, though resident some 20 years in West Bank and fully involved in life there) will no longer be permitted to travel to the West Bank by the Israeli authorities. Thus he is faced with a choice: be separated from his wife or leave his home for good. His case is not unique either.

Criticising all of this is not anti-Semitism as many have facetiously claimed, but anger at injustice backed by one of the most powerful countries in the world that preaches democracy and liberty. This kind of state has no more right to exist than an Apartheid South Africa or sectarian Northern Ireland. That is NOT the same as saying Jews are not entitled to a homeland.