[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Message From Senator Durbin -- P S

Thu Jan 22 13:03:56 CST 2009

A few speculative comments which should not be casually supported or rejected on the basis of any alleged expert status imputed to me on this or any other issue:

The fundamental mistake is assuming that U.S. foreign policy is meant (by those who run it) to support the interests of the general population ("vital national interests"), and that it has somehow been diverted by the interests of an ethnic/religious (represented by neocons) minority, rather than by the class interests of those who run it, whether neoconservative or realist. It is also a mistake is to claim that it is in fact based on popular support rather than narrow class interests (see link below).

Israel fights demonstration wars, which has a double meaning at least; they put the region on notice, and they test weapons. These haven't been contrary to U.S. interests yet, although this may be getting more complicated in relation to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. Chomsky also referred to increasing investment in high tech industry in his recent talk (Q&A). This isn't to say that the U.S. wouldn't like them to take out Hizbollah and Hamas for geopolitical reasons; and of course Israel would like to have been able to do this, but for their own reasons of "deterrence".

Support for Israel has been integrated into U.S. foreign policy ideology on a moral/explanatory level, as has the role of the Holocaust in justifying both that support and other interventions (Serbia, etc.). Our alliance with Israel is integral to the notion that a "clash of civilizations" (Judeo-Christian vs. Islam) has replaced the Cold War as a moral engine of history. Chomsky also referred to this (in the Q&A, not transcribed). While this has a rhetorical and marketing function, it's also widely believed, and at this point it would be difficult and risky to say "never mind," in terms of credibility. Nevertheless, a "change of course" is always a possibility if interests demand it. Thomas Friedman would be a good person to finesse that, with his ability to shamelessly alter history at will, not that he is alone in this.

As I've said before, whatever pressure AIPAC exerts with all their resources, and whatever their overblown reputation for throwing people out of office, I don't believe that they have that power in any broad sense. If Obama were to pursue a two-state solution in line with the international consensus, AIPAC would risk marginalizing itself if it were cast as obstructionist in relation to the efforts of the extremely popular Obama. There's no evidence to suggest that Obama's support for Israel is not consistent with his general views on foreign policy in the region; thus, I'm not holding my breath waiting for his genuine support for Palestinian rights. But he may do so, for pragmatic reasons, better than none, I guess.

There is probably no Jewish congressperson in the country who is not in a safe district, either running unopposed or getting at least 70% of the vote on a regular basis. I assume that in none of those districts do Jews form a majority, except perhaps a plurality in Brooklyn or Manhattan. Many have been in office for 10, 20, 30 years, including all among the Southern California contingent of Berman, Sherman, Waxman, Harman & Schiff. There is no reason to believe that their support for an honest two-state solution would be opposed by anyone (AIPAC or otherwise) who could not be framed as a fanatic and obstructionist if necessary; or that this solution would not be supported among their constituents, including a majority of Jews, who now more than ever would prefer that this issue just go away (see Finkelstein on the end of Zionism in America). There's no reason to believe they would not continue to be re-elected, whatever the fuss--in fact, by even
 greater margins. Again, there's no evidence to suggest that their support for Israel is not consistent with their support for central U.S. foreign policy, whether strategic, ideological, or culturally-driven. There's no evidence of "dual loyalty"--it's all the same loyalty. That's also true for our local stalwarts--I would never for a minute accuse Gottheil et al. of dual loyalty--they just see Israel as the 51st state. 

This is not to mention hundreds of other Congresspersons and Senators who have absolutely nothing to lose electorally speaking by supporting the international consensus that is also supported by most Americans (when properly understood).

I believe that Senator Durbin is being sincere when he says:

"Israel remains the most important U.S. ally in the Middle East and the only multi-party democratic state in the region. I am proud to have been a strong supporter of Israel throughout my service in Congress. The strong and stable friendship between our two countries, built on a solid foundation of shared values, mutual assistance, and trust, is in the fundamental interest of the United States as well as Israel."

It's nothing new that our foreign policy is based on the interests of a minority. It's only in the case of Israel that this minority is mistakenly reduced (by some on both the left and the right) to a specific interest group that is thought to be disloyal in the literal (treasonable) sense. Certainly, the Lobby provides a good living for a lot of people (lobbyists, think tankers) who will fight any profound change in their usual routine. But their interests are subservient to the broader foreign policy establishment, which interestingly comes up with its own ways of convincing themselves and others that they serve the public interest or at least reflect the will of the majority; see, for example

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87402/walter-russell-mead/the-new-israel-and-the-old.html?mode=print

Mead concludes: 
"One thing, at least, seems clear. In the future, as in the past, U.S. policy toward the Middle East will, for better or worse, continue to be shaped primarily by the will of the American majority, not the machinations of any minority, however wealthy or engaged in the political process some of its members may be." (Wrong, it is the machinations of a minority, just not the minority Mead is absolving; i.e, the Lobby.)

The difference is that while Mead is promoting illusions about a policy that he supports, those who ascribe too much power to the Lobby are wrongly explaining a policy that they rightfully oppose. But I would posit that a critique of Mead and his comrades at the Council on Foreign Relations gets closer at the real machinations of the foreign policy establishment, notwithstanding the visibility of the Lobby.

I suppose you'd have to go to the Temple to get a good answer. You might encounter there such folks as Paul Weichsel or Fred Gotheil, ardent defenders of Israeli polices, however perverse they might be. Ask David Green, an expert on such things. 

________________________________

From: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Cc: peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:58:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Message From Senator Durbin -- P S

One could cite the financial and media power of the Zionist lobby, the favoritism  of major news outlets like the NYT to Israeli interests, the fact that those in Congress believe it to be in the interest of the U.S. to have a secure base in the ME, the relative silence, so far, of the U.S. Jewish community against Israeli policies, what are seen as common global interests of the U.S and Israel (as when we were overthrowing Central American governments, supporting rogue insurrections in Africa, or supporting Latin American dictators) and the general disinterest and ignorance of the American populace as a whole, which gives Congress an implicit license for what they do. Or all of the above, and more. 

On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

Naive question on my part, but WHAT accounts for the US' mindless support for Israel??? Jews are about 3% of the US population, and almost all of the ones I know agree w/ me about the situation in the ME.
 --Jenifer

--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Message From Senator Durbin
To: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 2:46 PM

Criminy. Even once-Senator Obama's resonse wasn't that appalling. Isn't there a form letter for appeasing the other side, i e us??
 --Jenifer

--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Message From Senator Durbin
To: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 12:40 PM

I guess my letter got put into the wrong bin… --mkb

Begin forwarded message:

From: Correspondence_Reply at durbin.senate.gov
Date: January 21, 2009 10:23:55 AM CST
To: mkb3 at mac.com
Subject: Message From Senator Durbin

January 21, 2009

Mr. M. K. Brussel
2003 S George Huff Dr
Urbana, IL 61801

Dear Mr. Brussel:

Thank you for contacting me about U.S. support for Israel. I appreciate hearing from you and share your concern for Israel's security and the safety of its citizens.

Israel has endured many years of suffering as ordinary citizens, many of them children, have lost their lives to hatred and terrorist violence. No cause or grievance can justify the deliberate killing of innocent civilians.

Israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks by Hamas and other terrorist threats. I was an original cosponsor of S. Res. 10, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 8, 2009. This resolution recognizes the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirms the United States' support for Israel in its battle with Hamas. It also recognizes the importance of United States support for and involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Israel remains the most important U.S. ally in the Middle East and the only multi-party democratic state in the region. I am proud to have been a strong supporter of Israel throughout my service in Congress. The strong and stable friendship between our two countries, built on a solid foundation of shared values, mutual assistance, and trust, is in the fundamental interest of the United States as well as Israel.

Since World War II, the United States has given Israel more assistance than any other country, and Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance from 1976 through 2004. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion a year to Israel.On August 13, 2007, representatives of the American and Israeli governments signed a 10-year, $30 billion aid package. The agreement calls for annual increases in military assistance to Israel, reaching $3.1 billion a year by Fiscal Year 2018.

The Israeli people deserve safety and security. Palestinians should have a safe and sovereign homeland and a voice in deciding their own destiny. But these goals for Palestinians cannot be achieved at the expense of Israel's sovereignty or the safety of its citizens. The establishment of a Palestinian state must come through peaceful negotiations, not violence.

I am pleased that President Obama has repeatedly stated that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be a top priority for his administration and I continue to hope that the Israeli and Palestinian governments can reach a mutual agreement that will bring peace and stability to the region. In the long run there is no alternative.

I am monitoring this situation closely and will continue to stand firm in my support for Israel. Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

RJD/ds

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090122/e883364e/attachment.html