[Peace-discuss] More about The Lobby

Thu Mar 12 13:16:05 CDT 2009

Remarks on remarks on red.

________________________________

From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>; Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:00:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] More about The Lobby

Remarks follow

I'll wait for an explanation as to why and how Charles Schumer undermines U.S. interests. In fact, he supports them.

> Schumer sees Israel's interests as U.S. interests. That does not prove they are U.S. interests. Read Freeman's indictment of such as Schumer.

>>Schumer's interests, like those of nearly all congresspersons, are those of U.S. corporations and state capitalism/militarism, to which Israel has for the most part geared its own (state, corporate, military) interests. On occasion, those interests might compete with individual American corporations/sectors, but that's no different than any other country. Israel never challenges American hegemony. Israel never undertakes any major operation, including Gaza, without American support.

Ideological unity regarding support for Israel is a centerpiece of American policy in the ME, agreed to by both parties.

> To a large extent because of the the Lobby's propaganda and political muscle. Are you not turning things upside down?

>>We can deal with chickens and eggs, but that muscle didn't mean much until 1967, when Israel displayed its own in defeating Egypt; it didn't mean much when Carter decided to bring Israel and Egypt to the table and end the occupation of Sinai (in order to bring Egypt into the fold); the Lobby's display of muscle has been for show vis a vis Saudi Arabia--as if they would ever attack Israel with the weapons we sell them; and at this point the Lobby seems of lessening influence in relation to Iran. But the ideology and "loyalty" persists regardless of political pragmatism, because it provides a moral narrative that makes "sense" of an otherwise confusing region (after all, they're all Muslims), and has indeed provided the background for what Chomsky calls "the new military humanism" (Panama, Kosovo, Iraq). Jewish institutions have provided a great service to power in this country, and have been rewarded--look at the Holocaust Museum. When Jews get killed
 in Mumbai, it's a godsend to the GWOT--it wouldn't be quite the same without that symbolism. But at bottom its their ability to make examples out of Arabs that makes them indispensable, for now.

Any genuine support for a viable Palestinian state, which would dispel the myth of "endangered Israel," will have to be accompanied by a "change of course"; that is, a pragmatic re-assessment of alliances, such as was done with Libya.

> I would argue that Libya changed its tunes, not particularly the U.S.

>>Yes, it's obviously a reverse situation, but Libya was no longer useful as the devil, just like Israel will at some point no longer be useful as a saint.

 If this is done vis a vis Hizbollah/Syria, then we will magically see an accommodation with the Palestinians regardless of the Israel Lobby, which will indeed support it, and moreover will claim that that was what they supported all along, and that they were the ones who thought of it.

> The problem is that the Lobby hinders any alignment which goes against what Israel says. Yes, if Israel changed course, things would indeed improve, but that is just the problem. 

>>Yes, but there's not the least indication that such an alignment would include any more than a few elected officials with no power to change things. And Israel will  only change course if the U.S. does, and we'll likely be back where we started.

The CEO's of the corporations Chomsky mentions might also find opportunities to invest in Indonesia, the Philippines, Abu Dabei(?),  ….  Perhaps they are are not unaware of this; they could be making a mistake by investing in Israel, but are willing to take short term gains when they are offered.

The interests of these corporations are not congruent with the broader interests of the USA, and this is what the many critics of the Lobby are referring to. I would guess that many corporations are not that happy with the  situation, and will be less so if divestment and boycott becomes significant. Others, including our Congress, abetted by the Lobby with its money and media influence (read NYT, WP, WSJ) refuse to admit this. 

>>So if they're not happy, and they decide to turn away from Israel in terms of the "special relationship", they will, Lobby or not. When the corporations are ready for a change of course, they will change course, in pursuit of short term gains, but in the long-term the strategy will still be control of ME oil. In the final analysis, neither the interests of corporations or Israel is congruent with those of the American people, so what else is new? The authority of the Israeli leadership class is based on pleasing the U.S. and reaping the rewards; they'll outsource jobs from their own country, just like our corps do, if need be, they probably already do; they'll dance to whatever tune is necessary, because they've subordinated their country to American (elite) interests. If they all the sudden wake up and become a decent country, our policies vis a vis the ME will not change. We might as well skip the middle man and go straight to the source of these
 policies, which is the USG.

DG

--mkb

On Mar 12, 2009, at 8:59 AM, David Green wrote:

I'll wait for an explanation as to why and how Charles Schumer undermines U.S. interests. In fact, he supports them. Ideological unity regarding support for Israel is a centerpiece of American policy in the ME, agreed to by both parties. Any genuine support for a viable Palestinian state, which would dispel the myth of "endangered Israel," will have to be accompanied by a "change of course"; that is, a pragmatic re-assessment of alliances, such as was done with Libya. If this is done vis a vis Hizbollah/Syria, then we will magically see an accommodation with the Palestinians regardless of the Israel Lobby, which will indeed support it, and moreover will claim that that was what they supported all along, and that they were the ones who thought of it.

DG

----- Original Message ----
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Cc: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>; peace-discuss Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:00:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] More about The Lobby

Because reasonable people know it wouldn't get anywhere. US policy is determined
by the interaction of power centers within the American elite, not by the agents
of a Mideast state, working against those interests (= "the US national interest").

John W. wrote:

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:

Israel has its own vicious agenda, as Chomsky is among the first to point

out. But it would not be able to enact it without the US.

Other people write well on this matter, but Chomsky has been doing it

particularly well, for a long time.  It's hard to equal "Fateful Triangle:

The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians" (1983), updated ten years

ago, and that's only one among many.

Chomsky points out that the debates over the Lobby "are paralyzing. They have

no implications for activism, except one. If the claims are correct, then

I’ve been wasting my time for years in talking, writing, organizing,

activism. I should instead put on a tie and jacket and go to the corporate

headquarters of Intel, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, and a host of other major

corporations investing in Israel, and should explain to them, politely, that

they are harming their interests by doing so, and should use their political

and economic power to put the lobby out of business, as they can do in five

minutes. No one adopts that tactic. But why?"

Why indeed?

Brussel Morton K. wrote:

You dodge the point that Ray McGovern, and others, are making in a kind of obsession to  attack the U.S.—and now seemingly Obama policies— (which in other contexts deserves your condemnation), overlook the influence of the Lobby who the more astute (like McGovern) recognize as pernicious and effective, and excuse Israeli policies by suggesting that they are simply puppets of the U.S.  It's bait and switch, once more.

Your concluding paragraph leaves the impression that Israel does not have its

  own vicious agenda relative to the Palestinians, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, or Hamas, which seems to me arrant nonsense.

Stop worshipping Chomsky; even he has his blinders.. --mkb

On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

If it weren't such an indication of pathological denial and refusal to note the simple facts, it would be funny -- the insistence of American liberals that the US crimes in SW Asia are the fault of the Bad Jews and their Lobby

who have somehow manipulated and misled the Good Obama.

What will it take for them to recognize that the murderous policies that the

US follows from the Mediterranean to the Indus are American (not Israeli)

policies, pursued in the interest of American elites?  Obama had been

feverishly auditioning to work for them for years: see "The Audacity of Hope"

(an honestly self-referential title).  He's the jumped-up button-man of the

American ascendancy, a Mob lawyer whose client is the greatest Mob of all --

the American ruling class.

Israel sold its soul to the American Devil years ago -- ca. 1967 -- for the mess of pottage (about $4B/yr) that the US provides. The result has been the

corruption of Israeli government and society -- perhaps predictable, because

of the roots of that society in what has been accurately termed a

"settler-colonialist" ruling class.

--CGE

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________
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/20090312/7a495a10/attachment.html