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

[Morton K. Brussel]

Yes, but I stick to my contention that the argument that Israel only  
does what the U.S. wants it to do tends to take the onus off Israel…
In this, Chomsky is not consistent with Chomsky's criticisms of  
Israeli policies and behavior. Who is responsible? --mkb



On Jan 22, 2009, at 10:15 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 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
>