<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>The following paragraph is from the Christison article:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=-1 face=Verdana>"The principal problem with these arguments from the left is that they assume a continuity in U.S. strategy and policymaking over the decades that has never in fact existed. The notion that there is any defined strategy that links Eisenhower's policy to Johnson's to Reagan's to Clinton's gives far more credit than is deserved to the extremely ad hoc, hit-or-miss nature of all U.S. foreign policy. Obviously, some level of imperial interest has dictated policy in every administration since World War II and, obviously, the need to guarantee access to vital natural resources around the world, such as oil in the Middle East and elsewhere, has played a critical role in determining policy. But beyond these evident, and not particularly significant, truths, it can accurately be said, at least with regard to the Middle East, that it has been a rare administration that has itself ever had a coherent, clearly defined, and consistent
foreign policy and that, except for a broadly defined anti-communism during the Cold War, no administration's strategy has ever carried over in detail to succeeding administrations."</FONT></P><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>I don't know whether to be more astonished at the statement itself, or that it was written by former CIA agents. Certainlly nothing proves them more wrong than the current administration in relation to the last. More telling, the transition from the Cold War to the GWOT was seamless.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>DG</FONT></DIV>
<P><BR></P>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel@comcast.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> David Green <davegreen84@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Peace Discuss <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sun, March 21, 2010 9:47:32 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] U.S. interests & Israel Lobby (continued)<BR></FONT><BR>
<META content=off http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control><BASE>I suggest that the name "realists" doesn't convey much meaning to most people. I suggest that the Christison article in Counterpunch, to which you link, lays it on the line, namely providing convincing arguments to show that the "Lobby" has had overwhelming influence on American ME policy. One need not say that the Zionist apologists embedded in and close to our administrations have dual loyalties; one needs only to say that they have close affinities to the success of Israeli interests, which are not always congruent with perceived American interests. Of course, the Zionist or neocon apologists would like to say that the national interests of Israel and the USA are congruent, but that does make them so, as the Christisons and Mearsheimer and Walt, argue. Furthermore, it is far from clear that those like the Christisons, or even M&W, who argue the unduly great influence of the Lobby, are
supportive of imperial American policies, as you too easily assume. exaggerated
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>No, I don't think the power of the Lobby has been much exaggerated, but yes I do believe that the view of Israeli oppression of, and brutality upon, the Palestinians in Gaza most recently by Israeli armed might has created a weakness for the Lobby, which Israel and their Lobby are striving mightily to counter. Yet, Congress and the Obama administration still are in thrall… </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I have the impression that the bitterness you feel towards the U.S. administrations, past and present, leads to wayward rationalizations that the American head necessarily is wagging the Israeli tail.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>--mkb</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Mar 21, 2010, at 11:58 AM, David Green wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px" class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal align=left><B><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)"></SPAN></B></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">In an<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15781" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>earlier article</FONT></A>, I made the case for a leftist critique of<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.counterpunch.org/christison06162006.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>realists</FONT></A><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>who exaggerate the power of the Israel Lobby. I claimed that this fallacy, combined with accusations of “<A href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-fleshler/jewish-neocons-are-dead-w_b_67730.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>dual loyalty</FONT></A>,” ideologically and crassly employs “national interests” as a euphemism for U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and Southwest
Asia . The conclusion of such realists is that our support for Israel undermines U.S. interests. That is, realists support American hegemony in these regions, just not the way our leaders are going about it. I argued that for those who support Palestinian human rights and self-determination and support leftist principles, the realists’ denial of a fundamental identity between U.S. and Israeli state interests means that those so-called interests will never be directly and fundamentally challenged, and the Palestinian cause will be betrayed. I believe that so far that has indeed been the case.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">My article also claimed that mistaken beliefs about the Israel Lobby and dual loyalty seem to bear some affinity to one-state and BDS approaches to strategy and tactics. I would obviously not assert a global correlation regarding these practical issues, but I would say that one-state/BDS has proven to be inconsequential for very good reasons: it doesn’t challenge American policy, and it doesn’t have the support of the international community—including the Palestinians. Basically, it is tactics—and disparate tactics at best—in search of a strategy.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">My criticism was directed at Jewish-American blogger Philip Weiss and his website, where such notions constitute an oppressive and dogmatic conventional wisdom.<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/reductivism-sucks.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>Weiss’s response to me</FONT></A><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>was typical in its condescension; he first titled it “reductionism sucks” (still reflected on the url), before changing it. He alternates between triviality and ignorance, with a kind of facile college freshman Weberian analysis of human motivations, and with no attempt to relate these observations to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. He reveals his shallowness by accusing Noam Chomsky and me of being “materialists.” By the way, I never mentioned Chomsky in
my article. Nor will I mention him again in this one. Weiss had to rush in writing this particular post because he was on his way to ski. I’m surprised he didn’t run straight into a tree.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">But the Israel Lobby/dual loyalty approach has become the party line, the doctrine, the conventional wisdom, and one never knows where it will strike next. This morning (3/15), it was the blog of the usually reliable<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/15/israel/index.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>Glenn Greenwald</FONT></A>. Such claims really shouldn’t consume his valuable time:</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>“Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel , with key American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side with Israel over the U.S. ”</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>Does Greenwald really think that those who spend their lives grasping for power within the American system are more loyal to Israel ? Moreover, has Greenwald become a realist? Does he side with military realists against neocons, the ones who just want a more effective way to dominate the region? Weiss isn’t smart enough to know better. Greenwald is.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>As is usually the case,<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=205" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>Norman Finkelstein</FONT></A><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>has been on target:</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>“</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel , in fact,<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>any</I><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>allegiance to Israel . Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"- Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S. 's strategic asset in the Middle East , i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">“As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. ‘Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar,’ a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. ‘There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow.’ Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel 's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto?”</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">The ZNet website has also lapsed, with an article by the often informative but nevertheless realist political scientist<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.zcommunications.org/the-failure-of-american-and-israeli-peace-organizations-by-jerome-slater" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>Jerome Slater</FONT></A>. “American and Israeli Peace Organizations” are defined as JStreet, Americans for Peace Now, Israel Peace Now, and B’Tselem. First, B’Tselem doesn’t belong in this category. Second, these are not “peace” organizations, except in the sense that everyone wants peace—on their own terms. Neither are they serious advocates of Palestinian human rights and self-determination. Slater, like Weiss, is disappointed in the post-Gaza and post-Goldstone behavior of people like Jeremy Ben-Ami. Why should he be?
As I stated in my previous article, these are political climbers and triangulators. They are concerned about American and Israeli “interests.” So is Slater. So why should<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>I</I><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>be surprised? But I am disappointed with ZNet. Their readers deserve better than realist assumptions.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)">Slater writes: “</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>Even those who deny the existence of an Israel lobby that dominates U.S. policies towards Israel are not likely to deny that the Jewish community is the most important sector of American public opinion on all issues pertaining to Israel . Consequently, domestic politics ensures that there will be no change in American government policies in the absence of strong Jewish support for sustained pressures on Israel . And if they are to have any chance of success, those pressures must include making U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military assistance of Israel conditional on major changes in its policies.”</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>“Conditional?” Why not just withdraw it, and see what happens? But that might endanger our interests.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>This is what passes for tough realist talk, but reveals only conceit—the Jews will make it happen. Whatever the influence of the Jewish community regarding Israel and U.S. foreign policy (again, exaggerated as a primary cause), let’s not wait for that to change. The Palestinians can’t afford it. We will have to address and challenge the<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>assertion</I><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>of U.S. and Israeli state, military, and corporate interests, regardless of the tactical differences between our generals and theirs.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>I well understand the power of the<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10928.shtml" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>Israel Lobby</FONT></A><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>and its apparatchiks in Chicago and Urbana-Champaign to influence the media, public opinion,<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2039" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>academic institutions</FONT></A>, and politicians. I’ve challenged it for 13 years, at synagogues, at<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15627" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>Jewish Federations</FONT></A>, on<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://www.counterpunch.org/green03192005.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>campus</FONT></A>, and in the community. I’ve especially challenged it in my local newspaper and<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://archive.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/22672" rel=nofollow target=_blank><FONT color=#800080>campus newspaper</FONT></A>, with dozens of published letters and articles, as well as previously in the<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Chicago Tribune</I><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>and<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Philadelphia Inquirer</I>. Over the last dozen years, I have seen a sea change in the manner in which the Lobby operates in a community like Urbana-Champaign, including in relation to Jews themselves. In the post-Gaza and post-Goldstone era, the Lobby and the Jewish community are quiescent, because they no longer are unified in their
shamelessness, and non-Jews (or dissident Jews) are greatly more informed and less easily intimidated.</SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; MARGIN: 6pt 0in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(66,80,84)" lang=EN>If principled supporters of Palestinian rights will proceed with their political business in relation to the public, the media, and the electoral process, I suspect that they will find that the already-exaggerated influence of the Lobby is in decline. But for unprincipled supporters (i.e., realists), the Lobby and dual loyalty serve as a convenient excuse to throw up their hands and do nothing (except write endlessly about the Lobby and dual loyalty). But as realists who identify themselves with state interests, what should one expect? The Palestinians and their advocates deserve much better, especially from those who claim to be on the left. Let’s dispense with this misguided and counter-productive analysis, and the creeping and obnoxious Stalinism that’s gone along with it.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR>--<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>This message has been scanned for viruses and<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>dangerous content by<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A href="http://www.mailscanner.info/" rel=nofollow target=_blank><B>MailScanner</B></A>, and is<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>believed to be clean.<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<META content=on http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control></DIV></DIV></div><br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>