[Peace-discuss] WHAT accounts for the US' mindless support for
Israel???
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at illinois.edu
Thu Jan 22 21:00:52 CST 2009
I think much of this response is burying one's head in the sand. Among
other things, it tries to say that the Israel-Zionist lobby has no
effect on U.S. policies (Consider Olmert telephoning Bush), no effect
on U.S. elections (Consider Cynthia McKinney's defeat, or those from
this very state of Illinois). It in effect says "forget about the
lobbies, they are simply in sync with U.S. government policies".
That there exists overlap between U.S. and Israeli interests does not
mean that they are the same. Clearly, the Israeli attack on the USS
Liberty, or the desire of Israel leaders to bomb Iran illustrates
this, and one could well argue that the antagonisms aroused by Israeli
actions might well come back to harm U.S. interests. Thus, anger
aroused in Arab populations can be expected to increase terrorism. It
also may well be that antagonisms created by Israeli policies could
even lead to future attacks on that state, conceivably even to its
demise. Would that be in the U.S. interest?
Chomsky argues speciously (below). In effect, his argument shields and
tends to exonerate Israel in saying it is simply a client of the USA,
the two having identical interests.
"The thesis ... 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 U.S. 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 and so on,
just explain to them that their interests are being harmed by this
small lobby that screams anti-semitism and funds congressmen, and so
on. Surely those institutions can utterly overwhelm the lobby in
political influence, in finance, and so on, so that ought to reverse
the policy."
For one thing, one does not have to say that "the lobbies have
overwhelming influence", one can simply show that they undue
influence. For another, "the energy corporations, high tech industry,
the arms producers and so on" would not all perceive a harm to their
interests, since those interests and those institutions are not all
the same, and they would be indifferent to some of the purported
interests, hence not likely to be convinced.
I have no disagreement with Carl's comments as to why the Middle east
is so important to US, and why Israel has become useful client, but
that does not explain to me why there has been no opposition in
Congress at all to Israeli policies, why other points of view have not
made it into the mass media. One has to believe in an unlikely
unanimity of views to explain this. Something more is at play.
Finally the remark about " a sort of higher anti-semitism" is grossly
unfair, mimicking the arguments as those in the Deshowitz/Zionist/ camp.
--mkb
On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Barbara kessel wrote:
> Right on, Carl. This was an excellent tune-up in answer to the
> question, and thank you, Jenifer for asking it. Barbara
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> wrote:
> I think it's important to realize that the USG's support for Israel
> isn't mindless at all. It's perfectly in keeping with the long-
> standing US policy in the Middle East, which -- because of its
> energy resources -- is the most important region of the world for US
> foreign policy.
>
> "Since WWI, when the world began to move onto an oil-based economy,
> the Middle East has become central in world affairs, for the very
> obvious reason that it has, by far the largest and the most
> accessible petroleum resources -- primarily in Saudi Arabia,
> secondarily in Iraq, and thirdly in the Gulf Emirates, and
> elsewhere. As the State Department described it during the Second
> World War, when the US was taking over, 'It's a stupendous source of
> strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history.'
> In the 1950s President Eisenhower called it 'strategically the most
> important part of the world.'"
>
> It's become even more important to the US as economic rivals arose
> in the world -- Europe and northeast Asia. The US doesn't need
> Mideast energy for its own purposes, but control of it gives the USG
> a strangle-hold over these competing economies.
>
> The greatest threat to US control has been what the State Department
> calls "domestic radicalism" -- the unconscionable demand of the
> people of the region to control their own resources.
>
> In the post-WWII period of decolonization, this threat was borne by
> (secular) Arab nationalism, led by Nasser of Egypt. The defeat of
> this threat by Israel in 1967 solidified the adoption by the US of
> Israel as its chief client (and by far the largest recipient of US
> foreign aid, particularly military). It became the bulwark against
> threats to "our" oil -- the "local cop on the beat," in the words of
> the Nixon-Kissinger administration.
>
> It's recently become fashionable to ignore the long-term
> geopolitical reasons that make the US Israel's patron, and to
> suggest that it's all matter of lobbying, of bribing congress with
> campaign contributions, or of malign and occult influence by the
> Israeli government over successive US administrations. At its worst
> (as in the case of the recently-departed head of the CIA, George
> Tenet) -- and not just on the Right -- this view becomes a sort of
> higher anti-semitism, the notion that crimes that the US has
> committed in SW Asia are the Jews' fault.
>
> As Noam Chomsky argues, "The thesis ... 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 U.S. 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 and so on, just explain to them that
> their interests are being harmed by this small lobby that screams
> anti-semitism and funds congressmen, and so on. Surely those
> institutions can utterly overwhelm the lobby in political influence,
> in finance, and so on, so that ought to reverse the policy."
>
> But it doesn't happen, and the reason is that USG support for Israel
> isn't mindless at all; it's an important part of fundamental US
> geopolitical strategy, notably its control of the Mideast energy. --
> CGE
>
>
>
> Karen Medina wrote:
> Jenifer Cartwright asked > WHAT accounts for the US' mindless
> support for Israel???
>
> The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is America's
> Pro-Israel
> Lobby. 100,000-members. Money beyond belief.
>
> Of the two recent resolutions "recognizing Israel's right to defend
> itself
> against attacks from Gaza": * Senate Resolution 10 passed by unanimous
> consent in the Senate. * House Resolution 34 passed the House by a
> vote of
> 390 to 5. Rep. Nancy Pelosi was the sponsor and there were 116 co-
> sponsors.
> Those 5 voting AGAINST the resolution were: Dennis Kucinich, Gwen
> Moore, Nick
> Rahall, Maxine Waters, and Ronald Paul.
>
> You really must look at the numerous statements of "American Leaders
> Speak Out in Support of Israel's Right to Self-Defense" updated
> January 15, 2009. http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/Congre
> ssIsraelGazaSelfDefense.pdf
>
> Is it the U.S.'s fear of Iran that gives this group (AIPAC) so much
> power?
>
> Hey, have you seen the video of Obama at AIPAC's policy
> conference???? Scary
> but worth watching. http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/2841_12684.asp
> He mentions
> the nebulous "shared interests, shared values."
>
> AIPAC claims as their major achievements: * Passing more than a
> dozen bills
> and resolutions condemning and imposing tough sanctions on Iran
> during the
> past 15 years. * Securing critical security assistance to Israel
> each year to
> ensure that Israel remains capable of facing increased threats. *
> Passing
> legislation requiring the administration to evaluate all future
> military sales to Arab states in the context of the need to maintain
> Israel's
> qualitative military edge over potential adversaries. * Reinforcing
> the key
> principles America should stand by as it works to help Israel
> achieve peace
> in letters to the president signed by 268 House members and 78
> senators. *
> Passing multiple resolutions affirming congressional support for
> Israel's
> right to self-defense in the face of terrorism by the terrorist
> groups Hamas
> and Hizballah. * Strongly urging the administration to take its
> decision to
> designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a
> terrorist
> group and weapons proliferator through an amendment supported by 76
> senators
> and key legislation passed in the House of Representatives. *
> Strengthening
> U.S.-Israel energy cooperation by passing legislation that
> establishes a
> grant program that funds joint projects between U.S. and Israeli
> entities in
> the field of alternative energy. * Strengthening U.S.-Israel homeland
> security cooperation by passing landmark legislation creating an
> office
> within the Department of Homeland Security to support joint research
> and
> development projects between the United States and key allies such
> as Israel.
> * Prohibiting U.S. aid and contacts with a Hamas-led PA until its
> leaders recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and
> ratify previous
> Israeli- Palestinian peace agreements. * Ratifying an agreement that
> led to
> the Israeli medical service Magen David Adom's admission to the
> International
> Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (IRC). * Passing the Syrian
> Accountability Act, which allows the president to sanction Syria for
> its
> continued involvement in Lebanon and support of terrorism.
>
> ---- Original message ----
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:50:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jenifer Cartwright
> <jencart13 at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Message From
> Senator Durbin -- P S To: peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>,
> "Brussel Morton K."
> <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090122/7f747d78/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list