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

[C. G. Estabrook]

That's not been the USG view.  A truly free and independent Palestine would
undoubtedly be part of the regional resistance to US control.

In support of David's view, here's Chomsky on Mearsheimer & Walt:

"M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby 
includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis 
loses much of its content.

"They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is 
assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as 
undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, 
Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in 
this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate 
Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious 
blow to Israel.

"There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its 
invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist 
PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a 
client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the 
invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the 
atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas 
Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US 
'national interest,' Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then 
entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome 
to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to 
independent nationalism).

"The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant 
observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities 
when that stand was conducive to the 'national interest,' and terminated them 
when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> A single comment.. One does not have to discount the effect of the Zionist
> lobby on American government policy by saying that it would fall in line with
> American policy if that policy advocated forcefully a just two state
> solution, with 1967 borders, etc.. Before such a U.S.  policy occurred, as it
> has been doing, AIPAC and friends would lobby strongly against such a policy
> in government circles and in the media.
> 
> A just and helpful policy towards the Palestinians would not necessarily harm
> U.S. interests ; it could arguably enhance them.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> On Jan 22, 2009, at 1:03 PM, David Green wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>> *From:* Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net 
>> <mailto:mkbrussel at comcast.net>> *To:* jencart13 at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com> *Cc:* peace-discuss
>> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto: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
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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