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

[C. G. Estabrook]

No one is suggesting that the Israeli government is a mindless automaton. They 
have willfully and freely chosen their policy -- one that is not in the interest 
even of the Israeli people.  They've sold their socialist birthright for mess of 
US-client pottage...


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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
>>
>