[Peace-discuss] WHAT accounts for the US' mindless support for Israel???

Thu Jan 22 22:15:29 CST 2009

No one who has read any of Chomsky on the Middle East can possibly think that
Chomsky "shields and tends to exonerate Israel."  Start with his recent book
with Gilbert Achcar, "Perilous Power"; go on to his recently re-issued "Fateful 
Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians," among many others.

He does think that the government of Israel commits its crimes only with the 
permission and support of the US, and so we as Americans should be directing our 
protests to the US government and corporations, the framers of the "national 
interest."  That seems right to me.

Unfortunately, for many who see themselves as on the left in the US, if you can
exonerate the US and make it look like the problem is the Jews, you don't have
to come into direct confrontation with real power (especially in Democratic
administrations).

And it's important to remember that the most influential pro-Israel lobby in the
US is not AIPAC: it's American liberal intellectuals.  See, e.g., the New York 
Times.  --CGE

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com>> Subject: Re:
>> [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Message From Senator Durbin -- P S To: peace-discuss 
>> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>>, "Brussel
>> Morton K."
>> 
>> <mkbrussel at comcast.net <mailto: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