[Peace-discuss] U.S. interests & Israel Lobby (continued)
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Mon Mar 22 09:37:55 CDT 2010
"The thesis of the book is that the Israel Lobby has 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 - 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.
"Well, it doesn't happen, and there are a number of reasons for it. For one
thing, there's an underlying assumption that the so-called national interest has
been harmed by these policies ... Have the energy corporations been harmed by
U.S. policy in the Middle East over the last 60 years? I mean, they're making
profits beyond the dream of avarice, as the main government investigation of
them reported (even more today – that was a couple years ago). The main concern
of the U.S. has been to control what the State Department 60 years ago called 'a
stupendous source of strategic power,' Middle East oil. Yeah, they’ve controlled
it – in fact, the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to intensify that control..."
--Chomsky, on the major Realist study of the Israel Lobby, when it was published
four years ago: <http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060331.htm>
David Green wrote:
> The following paragraph is from the Christison article:
>
>
> "The principal problem with these arguments from the left is that they
> assume a continuity in U.S. strategy and policymaking over the decades
> that has never in fact existed. The notion that there is any defined
> strategy that links Eisenhower's policy to Johnson's to Reagan's to
> Clinton's gives far more credit than is deserved to the extremely ad
> hoc, hit-or-miss nature of all U.S. foreign policy. Obviously, some
> level of imperial interest has dictated policy in every administration
> since World War II and, obviously, the need to guarantee access to vital
> natural resources around the world, such as oil in the Middle East and
> elsewhere, has played a critical role in determining policy. But beyond
> these evident, and not particularly significant, truths, it can
> accurately be said, at least with regard to the Middle East, that it has
> been a rare administration that has itself ever had a coherent, clearly
> defined, and consistent foreign policy and that, except for a broadly
> defined anti-communism during the Cold War, no administration's strategy
> has ever carried over in detail to succeeding administrations."
>
>
> I don't know whether to be more astonished at the statement itself, or
> that it was written by former CIA agents. Certainlly nothing proves them
> more wrong than the current administration in relation to the last. More
> telling, the transition from the Cold War to the GWOT was seamless.
>
> DG
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Sun, March 21, 2010 9:47:32 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] U.S. interests & Israel Lobby (continued)
>
> I suggest that the name "realists" doesn't convey much meaning to most
> people. I suggest that the Christison article in Counterpunch, to which
> you link, lays it on the line, namely providing convincing arguments to
> show that the "Lobby" has had overwhelming influence on American ME
> policy. One need not say that the Zionist apologists embedded in and
> close to our administrations have dual loyalties; one needs only to say
> that they have close affinities to the success of Israeli interests,
> which are not always congruent with perceived American interests. Of
> course, the Zionist or neocon apologists would like to say that the
> national interests of Israel and the USA are congruent, but that does
> make them so, as the Christisons and Mearsheimer and Walt, argue.
> Furthermore, it is far from clear that those like the Christisons, or
> even M&W, who argue the unduly great influence of the Lobby, are
> supportive of imperial American policies, as you too easily
> assume. exaggerated
>
> No, I don't think the power of the Lobby has been much exaggerated, but
> yes I do believe that the view of Israeli oppression of, and brutality
> upon, the Palestinians in Gaza most recently by Israeli armed might has
> created a weakness for the Lobby, which Israel and their Lobby are
> striving mightily to counter. Yet, Congress and the Obama administration
> still are in thrall…
>
> I have the impression that the bitterness you feel towards the U.S.
> administrations, past and present, leads to wayward rationalizations
> that the American head necessarily is wagging the Israeli tail.
>
> --mkb
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2010, at 11:58 AM, David Green wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> In an earlier article
>> <http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15781>,
>> I made the case for a leftist critique of realists
>> <http://www.counterpunch.org/christison06162006.html> who exaggerate
>> the power of the Israel Lobby. I claimed that this fallacy, combined
>> with accusations of “dual loyalty
>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-fleshler/jewish-neocons-are-dead-w_b_67730.html>,”
>> ideologically and crassly employs “national interests” as a euphemism
>> for U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and Southwest Asia . The
>> conclusion of such realists is that our support for Israel undermines
>> U.S. interests. That is, realists support American hegemony in these
>> regions, just not the way our leaders are going about it. I argued
>> that for those who support Palestinian human rights and
>> self-determination and support leftist principles, the realists’
>> denial of a fundamental identity between U.S. and Israeli state
>> interests means that those so-called interests will never be directly
>> and fundamentally challenged, and the Palestinian cause will be
>> betrayed. I believe that so far that has indeed been the case.
>>
>> My article also claimed that mistaken beliefs about the Israel Lobby
>> and dual loyalty seem to bear some affinity to one-state and BDS
>> approaches to strategy and tactics. I would obviously not assert a
>> global correlation regarding these practical issues, but I would say
>> that one-state/BDS has proven to be inconsequential for very good
>> reasons: it doesn’t challenge American policy, and it doesn’t have the
>> support of the international community—including the Palestinians.
>> Basically, it is tactics—and disparate tactics at best—in search of a
>> strategy.
>>
>> My criticism was directed at Jewish-American blogger Philip Weiss and
>> his website, where such notions constitute an oppressive and dogmatic
>> conventional wisdom. Weiss’s response to me
>> <http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/reductivism-sucks.html> was typical in
>> its condescension; he first titled it “reductionism sucks” (still
>> reflected on the url), before changing it. He alternates between
>> triviality and ignorance, with a kind of facile college freshman
>> Weberian analysis of human motivations, and with no attempt to relate
>> these observations to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. He reveals
>> his shallowness by accusing Noam Chomsky and me of being
>> “materialists.” By the way, I never mentioned Chomsky in my article.
>> Nor will I mention him again in this one. Weiss had to rush in writing
>> this particular post because he was on his way to ski. I’m surprised
>> he didn’t run straight into a tree.
>>
>> But the Israel Lobby/dual loyalty approach has become the party line,
>> the doctrine, the conventional wisdom, and one never knows where it
>> will strike next. This morning (3/15), it was the blog of the usually
>> reliable Glenn Greenwald
>> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/15/israel/index.html>.
>> Such claims really shouldn’t consume his valuable time:
>>
>> “Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel , with
>> key American military and political leaders explaining that the
>> opposite is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S.
>> interests and jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive,
>> unambiguous response of virtually every American Israel-centric
>> neocon? To side with Israel over the U.S. ”
>>
>> Does Greenwald really think that those who spend their lives grasping
>> for power within the American system are more loyal to Israel ?
>> Moreover, has Greenwald become a realist? Does he side with military
>> realists against neocons, the ones who just want a more effective way
>> to dominate the region? Weiss isn’t smart enough to know better.
>> Greenwald is.
>>
>> As is usually the case, Norman Finkelstein
>> <http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=205> has been
>> on target:
>>
>> “The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish
>> neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals
>> generally have a primary allegiance to Israel , in
>> fact, /any/ allegiance to Israel . Mainstream Jewish intellectuals
>> became "pro"- Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the
>> U.S. 's strategic asset in the Middle East , i.e., when it was safe
>> and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in
>> my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the
>> neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their
>> only ism is opportunism.
>>
>> “As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most
>> resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. ‘Each day, to save
>> his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives
>> to the extermination altar,’ a leader of the Resistance ruefully
>> recalled. ‘There were policemen who offered their own aged parents,
>> with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow.’ Jewish
>> neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is
>> the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it
>> happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel 's
>> "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt
>> that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered
>> to do, with gusto?”
>>
>> The ZNet website has also lapsed, with an article by the often
>> informative but nevertheless realist political scientist Jerome Slater
>> <http://www.zcommunications.org/the-failure-of-american-and-israeli-peace-organizations-by-jerome-slater>.
>> “American and Israeli Peace Organizations” are defined as JStreet,
>> Americans for Peace Now, Israel Peace Now, and B’Tselem. First,
>> B’Tselem doesn’t belong in this category. Second, these are not
>> “peace” organizations, except in the sense that everyone wants
>> peace—on their own terms. Neither are they serious advocates of
>> Palestinian human rights and self-determination. Slater, like Weiss,
>> is disappointed in the post-Gaza and post-Goldstone behavior of people
>> like Jeremy Ben-Ami. Why should he be? As I stated in my previous
>> article, these are political climbers and triangulators. They are
>> concerned about American and Israeli “interests.” So is Slater. So why
>> should /I/ be surprised? But I am disappointed with ZNet. Their
>> readers deserve better than realist assumptions.
>>
>> Slater writes: “Even those who deny the existence of an Israel lobby
>> that dominates U.S. policies towards Israel are not likely to deny
>> that the Jewish community is the most important sector of American
>> public opinion on all issues pertaining to Israel . Consequently,
>> domestic politics ensures that there will be no change in American
>> government policies in the absence of strong Jewish support for
>> sustained pressures on Israel . And if they are to have any chance of
>> success, those pressures must include making U.S. diplomatic,
>> economic, and military assistance of Israel conditional on major
>> changes in its policies.”
>>
>> “Conditional?” Why not just withdraw it, and see what happens? But
>> that might endanger our interests.
>>
>> This is what passes for tough realist talk, but reveals only
>> conceit—the Jews will make it happen. Whatever the influence of the
>> Jewish community regarding Israel and U.S. foreign policy (again,
>> exaggerated as a primary cause), let’s not wait for that to change.
>> The Palestinians can’t afford it. We will have to address and
>> challenge the /assertion/ of U.S. and Israeli state, military, and
>> corporate interests, regardless of the tactical differences between
>> our generals and theirs.
>>
>> I well understand the power of the Israel Lobby
>> <http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10928.shtml> and its
>> apparatchiks in Chicago and Urbana-Champaign to influence the media,
>> public opinion, academic institutions
>> <http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2039>, and politicians. I’ve
>> challenged it for 13 years, at synagogues, at Jewish Federations
>> <http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15627>,
>> on campus <http://www.counterpunch.org/green03192005.html>, and in the
>> community. I’ve especially challenged it in my local newspaper
>> and campus newspaper
>> <http://archive.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/22672>, with dozens of
>> published letters and articles, as well as previously in the /Chicago
>> Tribune/ and /Philadelphia Inquirer/. Over the last dozen years, I
>> have seen a sea change in the manner in which the Lobby operates in a
>> community like Urbana-Champaign, including in relation to Jews
>> themselves. In the post-Gaza and post-Goldstone era, the Lobby and the
>> Jewish community are quiescent, because they no longer are unified in
>> their shamelessness, and non-Jews (or dissident Jews) are greatly more
>> informed and less easily intimidated.
>>
>> If principled supporters of Palestinian rights will proceed with their
>> political business in relation to the public, the media, and the
>> electoral process, I suspect that they will find that the
>> already-exaggerated influence of the Lobby is in decline. But for
>> unprincipled supporters (i.e., realists), the Lobby and dual loyalty
>> serve as a convenient excuse to throw up their hands and do nothing
>> (except write endlessly about the Lobby and dual loyalty). But as
>> realists who identify themselves with state interests, what should one
>> expect? The Palestinians and their advocates deserve much better,
>> especially from those who claim to be on the left. Let’s dispense with
>> this misguided and counter-productive analysis, and the creeping and
>> obnoxious Stalinism that’s gone along with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list