[Peace-discuss] AWARE "disrespectful to...
Jenifer Cartwright
jencart7 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 9 19:18:24 CDT 2007
Yes, it does seem like deju vu all over again. I am concerned -- as I was a couple of years ago about the incidents Carl mentioned -- about the infighting and (especially) the negative and personal attacks when there is honest disagreement. Conflict among AWARE members takes time and energy away from our stated purpose, causes factions among a group that isn't large enough to support them, and hurts our reputation as an organization trying to promote peace and racial equality.
Again, I suggest that AWARE define consensus, develop guidelines and timelines for submission of things going public w/ AWARE's name on them, determine whether STRONG objections on the part of X active member(s) has "veto" power, etc.
JMHO,
Jenifer
"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
A series of objections to the flyer I wrote that was made available at
the July 4 parade and distributed at the July 7 Main Event ("America
Salutes Free Enterprise -- But Not Corporate Control and War"
) has been
put forth by Bob Illyes. None of them has had much substance, but at
Sunday night's AWARE meeting he settled on objecting to a plural: the
reference in the flyer to "America's criminal wars and occupations in
the Middle East."
There was only one American occupation, said Bob, and that was in Iraq
(he ignored Afghanistan), so the phrase suggested that the US was
responsible for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. To
imply that the US sponsors Israel's occupation of the Occupied
Territories, or that Israel is a proxy for the US, is "disrespectful to
Israel," said Bob.
There's a remarkable similarity here to a dispute in AWARE two years
ago, when the distribution of an AWARE flyer at an Obama rally in
Champaign was said to be "disrespectful to the Senator." (I wrote about
that in "Obama the Enabler: Illinois Anti-Warriors and the Attractive
Senator" at .) It's
become clear in the time since then that we were far too respectful of
the Senator: see, e.g., Paul Street's review of Obama's book, "The
Mendacity of Hope" (have I got that title wrong?) at
. Today Obama
is claiming to be "anti-war," because most Americans are. But his real
views are welcomed by the Neocons: see Robert Kagan, "Obama the
Interventionist" at
.
The close alliance between the US and Israel is obvious, although there
are two divergent accounts of how it's to be understood. Israel is and
has been by far the largest recipient of US money of any country in the
world, and the countries in second and third places, Turkey and Egypt,
are part of the effective alliance the US pays for as part of its Middle
East policy. Israel's role in this alliance for forty years has been to
be the "local cop on the beat," in the words of the Nixon
administration. (I wrote about that role on the eve of the US invasion
of Iraq: .)
* * *
The first account of the US-Israel relation is that put forth last year
by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the
Kennedy School at Harvard in "The Israel Lobby"
. According to their view,
"the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in
order to advance the interests of another state"; US Middle East policy
is driven primarily by the "Israel Lobby," defined as a "loose coalition
of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign
policy in a pro-Israel direction." The authors state that the "core of
the Lobby" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their
daily lives to bend US foreign policy so that it advances Israel's
interests." They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the
Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli
policies," but "No lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far
from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while
simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are
essentially identical." They argue that the "loose coalition" that
makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the Executive branch,"
as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on
Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They claim that
AIPAC in particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to
its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who
support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."
Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of
anti-Semitism," and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance
on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however,
that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate
criticism of Israel from college campuses" (although the Finkelstein
case at DePaul is a recent victory). The authors conclude by arguing
that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping US policy in the Middle East,
then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free
hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the
fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."
* * *
The second -- and to my mind much better -- account is summarized in
Noam Chomsky's response to Mearsheimer and Walt (see "the Israeli
Lobby?" Znet ):
"It's a serious, careful piece of work. It deserves to be read. They
deserve credit for writing it. But it still it leaves open the question
of how valid the analysis is ... Everyone agrees, on all sides, that
there are a number of factors that enter into determining U.S. foreign
policy. One is strategic and economic interests of the major power
centers within the United States. In the case of the Middle East, that
means the energy corporations, arms producers, high-tech industry,
financial institutions and others. Now, these are not marginal
institutions, particularly in the Bush administration. So one question
is to what extent does policy reflect their interests. Another question
is to what extent is it influenced by domestic lobbies. And there are
other factors ... to try to sort out their influence is not so simple.
In particular, it's not simple when their interests tend to coincide,
and by and large, there's a high degree of conformity ... what's called
the national interest (meaning the special interests of those in whose
hands power is concentrated) tends to conform to the interests of the
lobbies ... it's pretty hard to disentangle them.
"The thesis of the book is that the lobbies have overwhelming
influence, and the so-called 'national interest' is harmed by what they
do. If that were the case, it would be, I would think, a very hopeful
conclusion. It would mean that US policy could easily be reversed. It
would simply be necessary to explain to the major centers of power --
like the energy corporations, high-tech industry and arms producers --
that their interests are being harmed by this small lobby that screams
anti-Semitism and funds congressmen. Surely those institutions can
utterly overwhelm the lobby in political influence, in finance, and so
on, so that ought to reverse the policy.
"Well, it doesn't happen, and there are a number of reasons for it. For
one thing, there's an underlying assumption that the so-called national
interest has been harmed by these policies ... Have the energy
corporations been harmed by US policy in the Middle East over the last
60 years? They're making profits beyond the dream of avarice. The main
concern of the US has been to control what the State Department 60 years
ago called a stupendous source of strategic power, Middle East oil:
theyve controlled it ... The major barrier was called 'radical
nationalism.' It was symbolized by Nasser, but also Kassem in Iraq, and
others. Israel destroyed Nasser in 1967, a tremendous service to US
power, to the energy corporations, to Saudi Arabia, and to the main
centers of power here; and in fact it was after that victory that the
US-Israeli relations really solidified, and Israel became a 'strategic
asset'...
"Israel has performed many other services to the United States. So in
the 1980s, particularly, Congress was imposing barriers to the Reagan
administration's support for and carrying out major terrorist atrocities
in Central America. Israel helped evade congressional restrictions by
carrying out training, and so on, itself. The Congress blocked U.S.
trade with South Africa. Israel helped evade the embargo to both the
racist regimes of Southern Africa, and there have been many other cases.
By now, Israel is virtually an offshore US military base and high-tech
center in the Middle East."
* * *
Of course there's another account -- the thoroughly propagandized view
held by both political parties in the US. Chosen almost at random,
here's the liberal speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy
Pelosi, swearing fealty to Israel in a speech to AIPAC
:
"America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in
prosperity and in hardship ... There are those who contend that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of
the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the
fundamental right of Israel to exist.
"The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of
devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both
political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to
confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has
plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.
"The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the
sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon -
and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues to
take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast that the
United States. [This speech was delivered the summer before Israel took
the risk for peace of invading Lebanon, with the support of its
steadfast friend and Ms. Pelosi...]
"In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding
places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water
in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'
"The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and
forever."
Now and forever, right. If, in order to avoid being "disrespectful to
Israel," AWARE is going to refuse to recognize America's real relation
to Israel and accept instead the fantasy about that relation typical of
American politics, we might as well commit our anti-war work into the
co-opting hands of the Democrats and go do something more interesting.
--CGE
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070709/010bd0cf/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list