Walt and Mearsheimer’s book on the Israel Lobby is being
published today. I finished it last night. I said before that it was historic, but I did not realize quite what it was till I put it down: a great work of American muckraking in the tradition of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (the meatpacking industry), Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (pesticides), and Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed (Detroit). An overkill moral beauty aimed at an outrage, some day this book will be legendary and dated. Young people will ask, What was all the fuss about? Were politicians really blacklisted for criticizing the settlements? You will tell them yes. Then they’ll pull down a yellowed copy of this book from your shelf and find it mechanical and dated.
The reason it will seem dated is, it will have done its job. Ralph Nader once feared for his life; today carmakers advertise the safety of their cars, and Mike Kinsley calls Ralph "Saint Ralph." With this book, two great foreign-policy scholars have thrown their bodies down. What you see here is their life work. They are willing to sacrifice
reputation and future-career-arc for this study, and by book’s end, there is a tremendous sense of calm and achievement, when having made their case they restate their intellectual goal: to restore American
foreign policy in the Middle East to its senses.
"Ending the [Palestinian/Israeli] conflict should be seen as a national security priority for the United States. But this will not happen as long as the lobby makes it impossible for American leaders to use the leverage at their disposal to pressure Israel into ending the occupation and creating a viable Palestinian state…One cannot fathom contemporary Palestinian nationalism without being aware of the events surrounding the 1948 war… al-Nakba, or ‘the Catastrophe.’..Although we deplore the Palestinians’ reliance on terrorism and are well aware of their own contribution to prolonging the conflict, we believe their grievances are genuine and must be addressed…"
sense will finish this book in agreement.
I’ve wondered here whether the book
will be ignored. Now I am sure, it can’t be. It may be
ignored by the press; the authors may be be banned from speaking (though their website reveals a talk at "Politics and Prose" in D.C. tomorrow night (I imagine CSPAN will be there) and then Stephen Colbert next month!), it will surely
be savaged by the Dershowitzes and Foxmans and the Forward too. None of that matters. This book
is too powerful, and the ground has been prepared by Jimmy Carter’s book. So it will be passed around, it will be taught. Serious
people will press it on other serious people. Political aides will hand it to other
political aides. It may have to wear brown-paper covers in Congress, at the State Department and at Hillels, but it will be read hungrily. Young progressive Jews will read it. Arabs will translate it into Arabic. It will go like lightning around Europe. Israelis will snap it up (the book is actually very respectful of Israel; it’s America that has the big problem), and someday it will come out in Hebrew. It will work on people. It will
show what independent people ought to do when they form ideas, and others will chime in. A politician will finally speak out, with Walt and Mearsheimer as his or her role model.
The most important thing
the book will do, it is doing: legitimizing the discussion. Till now
this discourse has been considered a place for the unhinged. I never acquired former
Congressman Paul Findley’s book, They Dare to Speak Out, because it had a whiff
of anger and hysteria about it, and people are afraid of that. Norman
Finkelstein has done truly great scholarship that paved the way for W&M, but the incredible viciousness of
the campaign against him has inevitably made him angry and scared others
away. (Maybe this book will give him breathing room–or a frikkin’ job!) When David Remnick said that Walt
and Mearsheimer are not anti-Semites, their legitimization took a big step forward. I bet Chris Matthews will have them on. The conversation could snowball. (Why, look at this, the Washington Post questioning junkets to Israel!)
I have lots of
quibbles with the book. It is dense and dry. The authors handle personality like sheetrock. I think I saw one playful sentence. The language is often elegant and stirring, but it is stripped of
surface affect, without metaphor. This book teems with facts like a prosecutor’s brief, as Remnick put it. Evidently the authors were hurt by their experience of
being labeled antisemites, and they mean to answer in cold endless fact. I would have liked more flight and synthesis; W&M insist on keeping their feet on the ground. The discussion of dual loyalty is politically-correct and unimaginative to the point of being stupid. I wanted more U.S. sociology and Zionist history, more Jewish intellectual history. The authors dip their toes in but are afraid to talk too much about Jewish culture. A great idea in the book is that at the end of the cold war,
its rationale for the special relationship in providing an airstrip against the Soviet Union; but that now the “war on terror” has restored
that raison d’etre, under the false claim, We are in the same war. I would have liked them to develop that theory.
None of those quibbles matters. Because the analysis and moral argument
are so magnificent.
I realize I have not mentioned one fact from the book. Let me do that. I will pick out one story that tells it all.
Halfway through the 2006 Lebanon War, Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen–having heroically knocked off a Republican in 2004 over the incumbent’s Iraq War vote–wrote a sharp letter to Condoleezza
Rice urging the U.S. to pressure Israel to cease fire. Israel had caused “large loss of civilian life, and produced
over 750,000 refugees.” It had weakened the Lebanese government and
strengthened Hezbollah. “We have squandered an opportunity to isolate
Hezbollah…” Etc.
The bravery of Van Hollen’s letter was that an antiwar congressman was speaking the truth
at a moment it needed to be spoken. If America could have served any purpose in that war,
it should have been to hold Israel back, or say, This is not good. Van Hollen was stomped on. Right after the letter, Schmuel Rosner clucked in Haaretz that Van Hollen was to meet with AIPAC and “he will hear that this was an
unacceptable move.” An unacceptable move for a U.S. Congressman to open his mouth against an Israeli war, having gained his seat by opposing the Iraq War. Then Van Hollen issued an apology.
This wasn’t enough. The Jewish Community Relations Council of Washington said he had to reach out to
the Jewish community to undo the damage. The ADL said the apology wasn’t convincing in light of the anti-Israel character of the letter. After the war, Van Hollen duly went to Israel on a
special AIPAC-affiliated junket, to learn the error of his ways.
And meanwhile, AIPAC’s president crowed in a letter to supporters: "Look what you’ve done!… Only ONE nation in the world came out and flatly declared: Let Israel finish the job. That nation is the United States… and the reason it had such a clear, unambiguous view of the situation is YOU and the rest of American Jewry."
Look what they’d done. The Lebanon war stopped two weeks later, and we all know now what had
taken place: a disaster. Something like 50 Israelis killed and 1000
Lebanese, the
southern Lebanese infrastructure destroyed, including hospitals and
stores and bridges–for what, for nothing. As Van Hollen understood, Hezbollah was empowered.
Nasrallah became a hero. The
IDF hostages weren’t released. And Israel has since experienced a sense
of desperate waste. The Israeli army chief of staff, who called in his
stock sales just before the war began, was dismissed. And southern
Lebanon was
strewn with illegal cluster bombs, so that Lebanese children are
dismembered to this day.
Now here is
a breathtaking fact about this dramatic story of political muscle and dishonesty and tergiversation. Per W&M, It was only covered by Eric
Fingerhut in the Washington Jewish Week. Such a revealing moment in political life, it should have been front page of the LA Times or the Journal, or a big magazine article. But you did not read
it in the New York Times, and so the mugging wasn’t condemned on Op-Ed pages. I.e., an outspoken politician was provided absolutely no political cover for sticking his head up. At the end of their book, W&M identify this intimidated silence as the first problem they are trying to fix, a blot on our democracy.
One last point. For
years I thought of writing a "J’accuse" to my brothers in the American press to say that they were not covering a giant fact of our political landscape they all knew about, the Israel lobby. But I
couldn’t get the assignment, and to be honest, maybe I was a little afraid to keep pushing for it. Walt and Mearsheimer have now done that. I think some of the rage against them in the press has to do with the fact that they
have scooped the mainstream press on one of the biggest stories of our time. I say "J’accuse" because that was the title of Emile
Zola’s famous article exploding the anti-Semitic Dreyfus lie. The
Dreyfus case of the 1890s had tremendous political resonance. It resulted in the birth of political
Zionism, because the evidence of antisemitism so disillusioned Herzl in western societies; and it caused the reform of the French
ruling class, which was corrupted by connections to the Catholic church. With this book, Zola’s J’accuse comes full circle.
A German edition (and I guess other European ones) was also published today. There seems to be a coordinated, conspirational publication policy about this book – it's a Harry Potter like event.
And btw, where did I read the authors got a $ 700 000 advance?
"I think some of the rage against them in the press has to do with the fact that they have scooped the mainstream press on one of the biggest stories of our time."
The rage will not be because they were scooped, but because they are being shown to be just another part of the Lobby. I don't think we're going to see the Friedmans, Remnicks, Peretzs, Cohens, Pollacks, Goldbergs, Millers, Safires, Krauthammers, Brooks, Kristols, ad infinitum, come out and say, "Yeah, M&W are right: We used our positions of power to hobble the public discussion of Israel."
This is the same reason that the media is unable to discuss the "misuse of intelligence" in the build-up to the war. To discuss the lies behind the war, you have to be willing to discuss the truth.
Judging from the original article I think the latent rage probably comes from the fact that there is now a 'Who is Who in the Israel Lobby' on the market. And every individual and organization listed there considers it a denunciation. It's probably a useful manual for every journalist who is not so familiar with Jewish/Israeli-American politics.
Terry Gross interviewed Walt on Fresh Air today (broadcast by many NPR stations). She followed this with an interview with Foxman.
Since Walt had already rebutted the points Foxman made, Foxman came across very ineffectively. His principal concern, which seems genuine, is that letting these long-in the-closet views out into the mainstream legitimizes them. Foxman's perspective, which is reflective of much of his generation, makes little sense today and only makes the problem worse.
There's an audio link to the Fresh Air interview at the top of the page linked below:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14154082
Very enthusiastic endorsement, Phil. But I wonder, how different is it, really, from George Ball's book, "The Passionate Attachment, America's Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present?" Published in 1992 by a former Undersecretary of State, the effect that book has had on policy these past 15 years was essentially nil, even though it was written in circumspect, respectful tones with an insider's perspective.
Philip,
Hi, this is Eric Fingerhut from the Washington Jewish Week. I appreciate you citing my reporting, but I must correct a few things in your post. First of all, Chris Van Hollen was elected in 2002 and that election had nothing to do with the Iraq War. In fact, his Republican opponent, incumbent Connie Morella, voted against the war. The primary reason Van Hollen won, in addition to him being a good candidate, was that Morella was a Republican (a very liberal one, but still a Republican) in a heavily Democratic district that had become even more Democratic after redistricting.
Second, Van Hollen's lettter was actually first reported by Robert Novak in a column that appeared in the Washington Post. It is true and surprising that other than my coverage, hardly anyone else wrote about the ensuing controversy, but I found out about the letter from reading Novak's column.
Third, Mearsheimer and Walt characterize Van Hollen's follow-up letter as an "apology." If you read the letter (and apparently Walt and Mearsheimer didn't), I don't think that's an accurate characterization of it at all. Van Hollen apologized for the way people interpreted the letter and for some ambiguity that may have created some confusion on a particular point, but not for anything in it. In fact, here's part of what I wrote at the time:
“I am sorry if my strong criticism of the Bush Administration’s failures has been interpreted as a criticism of Israel’s conduct in the current crisis,” he wrote. “That was certainly not my intention.”
Van Hollen’s clarification did not disavow any of his earlier statements, but primarily addressed what he called “misinterpretations” of two specific points: his suggestion that the U.S. should have asked Israel to limit its attacks to “clear, identifiable Hezbollah military assets,” and his call for an “immediate cease-fire.”
On the first point, Van Hollen noted the many times his initial letter called Israel’s attacks justified or blamed Hezbollah for civilian deaths in Lebanon.
He said that he intentionally did not use the term “disproportionate force because I believe the extent and level of force used is justified.”
Instead, he said he was suggesting that if the U.S. had asked Israel to “temporarily slow down” its offensive and used “effective diplomacy” early in the crisis when the Lebanese people and many in the Arab world were faulting Hezbollah, that group could have been politically isolated and international pressure could have been focused on Iran and Syria.
“I may be wrong about that. We will never know,” he wrote, but he points out that Arab public opinion has turned and the terrorist group is seen “as the protector of Lebanon.”
On the latter issue, Van Hollen admitted that “some ambiguity in my letter has created understandable confusion.”
He said he supported a cease-fire only accompanied by “the rapid deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon” that would allow Israeli troops to stay in place until the international force arrived — a framework similar to what was agreed to by the United Nations Security Council and both sides late last week.
He concludes the four-page statement, longer than his original three-page letter to Rice, by stating that “You may dispute certain policy conclusions that I reach, but I hope you won’t question my motivation. While we may disagree on certain points, we share the common goal of ensuring that the United States and Israel will prevail in the war on terror and in guaranteeing the long-term survival and vitality of the State of Israel.”
That strikes me as a clarification, not an apology.
Finally, I suppose I would ask you: if "The Lobby" is allegedly so intent on shutting down any criticism or debate on Israel, then why would a Jewish newspaper be the only place to report this story? Wouldn't the Jewish press be the first place to enforce the party line? Doesn't this undermine Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis?
Eric Fingerhut wrote: "But there were no marks found on his body."
Mr. Fingerhut might also have quoted this part of his original report:
"But other constituents, while stating that they appreciated Van Hollen's attempt at clarification, still faulted the new letter for falling short in some areas. … He needs to continue to reach out to the Jewish community … to reassure the Jewish community he's going to be there for Israel."
That was a good story about Van Hollen and I can certainly believe it. Does the Lobby's control over Congress on this issue amount to 'the tail wagging the dog'? Maybe, but I expected more when the term was introduced.
.
If Bill Perlman really quits posting I will be disappointed. because he expressed a viewpoint we should know about. It may seem eccentric but it would absolutely be in the mainstream of comments to Haraatz.
Bill, if you see this, I'd like to urge you to calm down. To think that anyone who critisizes Israel wants to see it destroyed is utterly deluded. And if that is only a rhetorical tactic, you are being offensive and it is no wonder that you are ignored.
Eric Fingerhut: "Wouldn't the Jewish press be the first place to enforce the party line?"
First, you should notice that you have conflated the Israel lobby with the Jewish lobby, which we're often told is "antisemitic."
But I think everyone knows what you mean, and the answer is no. There are plenty of reasons why the Jewish press would report the victories of its constituency. One, it's something to be proud of. Two, it provides a lesson in what's possible and which tactics have been effective. Most importantly, it's one more variation on the "meta-narrative" that your subscribers are there to hear: a community under attack from "antisemitism".
But I predict that in the future you will find yourself thinking twice about how to report examples of the lobby's power, so to an extent you're right.
David you often respond to posts with exactly what I'm thinking. You must be brilliant. I think I'm developing a man crush or something.
See you tomorrow Perlman. I'm betting that's about as long as you can last.
Eric Fingerhut wrote: "Van Hollen apologized for the way people [code alert - read: the Lobby] interpreted the letter..."
That about says it all.
As far as the brilliant argument "[w]ouldn't the Jewish press be the first place to enforce the party line?" goes, Mr. Fingerhut thinks we are either stupid or very stupid. Reporting and discussion of such issues is indeed kosher in the Jewish press Mr. Fingerhut because it is written for Jews and read almost exclusively by Jews (duh! that's why it's called the Jewish press). There is a problem only when gentiles get involved in this particular discussion, and having Mr. Fingerhut here pretend he doesn't understand this just shows how (in)sincere he really is.
And guess Mr. Fingerhut where you will find some of the most explicit old canards about Jewish power and some of the most bothersome anti-Semitic propaganda? Let Michael Kinsley guide you:
**********
You never know where you're going to find anti-Semitic propaganda.
By Michael Kinsley
"... Nevertheless, Moran is not the only one publicly exaggerating the power and influence of the Zionist lobby these days. It is my sad duty to report that this form of anti-Semitism seems to have infected one of the most prominent and respected—one might even say influential—organizations in Washington. This organization claims that "America's pro-Israel lobby"—and we all know what "pro-Israel" is a euphemism for—has tentacles at every level of government and society. On its Web site, this organization paints a lurid picture of Zionists spreading their party line and even indoctrinating children. And yes, this organization claims that the influence of the Zionist lobby is essential to explaining the pro-Israel tilt of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It asserts that the top item on the Zionist "agenda" is curbing the power of Saddam Hussein. The Web site also contains a shocking collection of Moran-type remarks from leading American politicians.
Did you know, for example, that former President Clinton once described the Zionist lobby as "stunningly effective" and "better than anyone else lobbying this town"? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone even further (as is his wont), labeling the Zionists "the most effective general interest group … across the entire planet." (Gingrich added ominously that if the Zionist lobby "did not exist, we would have to invent" it.) House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is quoted saying that if it weren't for the Zionist lobby "fighting on a daily basis," the close relationship between America and Israel "would not be." Sen. John McCain has said that this lobby "has long played an instrumental and absolutely vital role" in protecting the interests of Israel with the U.S. government. There is a string of quotes from leading Israeli politicians making the same point.
According to this Web site, the Zionist lobby is, like most political conspiracies, a set of concentric circles within circles. The two innermost circles are known as the "President's Cabinet" and the "Chairman's Council." Members allegedly "take part in special events with members of Congress in elegant Washington locations," "participate in private conference calls," and attend an annual "national summit." In the past members of these groups have met "in a private setting" with President Clinton, with Vice President Gore, and with the president of Turkey, among others. If this Web site is to be believed, these Zionist-lobby insiders have even enjoyed "a luncheon with renowned author and commentator George Will."
And who is behind this Web site? Who is spreading the anti-Semitic canard that Jews and Zionists influence American policy in the Middle East, including Iraq? It is a group calling itself the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and claiming to be "pro-Israel." They all claim that, of course. But in this case, AIPAC actually is considered to be the institutional expression of the amorphous Zionist lobby. All the foregoing quotes and assertions about the huge Zionist influence with the U.S. government and the lengths to which Zionists go to protect and expand it actually refer to AIPAC itself.
This doesn't make it all true, of course. AIPAC, like any organization, has an institutional interest in exaggerating its own importance. This is especially true of any organization that must raise money to support itself. The "President's Club" and "Chairman's Council" are both fund-raising gimmicks, intended to give donors the feeling that they are in the thick of government policy-making. It's more about being able to say, "As I was saying to Colin Powell" than about trying to say anything in particular to Colin Powell. Another element in AIPAC's braggadocio is rivalry with other Jewish organizations. The American Jewish Committee also has a page of quotes on its Web site about how influential it is. ("We know that yours is the most important and powerful Jewish organization in the United States," says President Jacques Chirac. Maybe it sounds more like a compliment in French.) This evident rivalry undermines any notion of a unified Jewish conspiracy.
Just as African-Americans can use the "n" word when joshing among themselves and it sounds a lot different than when used by a white person, talk about the political influence of organized Jewry sounds different when it comes from Jewish organizations themselves. Nevertheless, you shouldn't brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government policy is affected by your influence."
http://slate.com/id/2080027
**********
I apologise for posting the whole article but I just couldn't resist the temptation after reading Mr Fingerhut's bs.
Correction: "I apologise for posting [almost] the whole article…".
"Nevertheless, you shouldn't brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government policy is affected by your influence."
And then, to top it off, you shouldn't urge a public shunning of someone for saying such a thing, and then congratulate yourself for your power and influence in pulling it off.
"How dare you insinuate that I have any kind of Power. Well, I'll show you!"
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so corrosive to free thought in what's left of our democracy.
Understanding Code:
"Just as African-Americans can use the "n" word when joshing among themselves and it sounds a lot different than when used by a white person, talk about the political influence of organized Jewry sounds different when it comes from Jewish organizations themselves. Nevertheless, you shouldn't brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone [code alert - read: a gentile (or a "self-hating Jew") addressing gentiles] suggests that government policy is affected by your influence."
The Israel Lobby in U.S. Strategy
By George Friedman
U.S. President George W. Bush made an appearance in Iraq's restive Anbar province on Sept. 3 — in part to tout the success of the military surge there ahead of the presentation in Washington of the Petraeus report. For the next month or two, the battle over Iraq will be waged in Washington — and one country will come up over and over again, from any number of directions: Israel. Israel will be invoked as an ally in the war on terrorism — the reason the United States is in the war in the first place. Some will say that Israel maneuvered the United States into Iraq to serve its own purposes. Some will say it orchestrated 9/11 for its own ends. Others will say that, had the United States supported Israel more resolutely, there would not have been a 9/11.
There is probably no relationship on which people have more diverging views than on that between the United States and Israel. Therefore, since it is going to be invoked in the coming weeks — and Bush is taking a fairly irrelevant pause at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Australia — this is an opportune time to consider the geopolitics of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
Let's begin with some obvious political points. There is a relatively small Jewish community in the United States, though its political influence is magnified by its strategic location in critical states such as New York and the fact that it is more actively involved in politics than some other ethnic groups.
The Jewish community, as tends to be the case with groups, is deeply divided on many issues. It tends to be united on one issue — Israel — but not with the same intensity as in the past, nor with even a semblance of agreement on the specifics. The American Jewish community is as divided as the Israeli Jewish community, with a large segment of people who don't much care thrown in. At the same time, this community donates large sums of money to American and Israeli organizations, including groups that lobby on behalf of Israeli issues in Washington. These lobbying entities lean toward the right wing of Israel's political spectrum, in large part because the Israeli right has tended to govern in the past generation and these groups tend to follow the dominant Israeli strand. It also is because American Jews who contribute to Israel lobby organizations lean right in both Israeli and American politics.
The Israel lobby, which has a great deal of money and experience, is extremely influential in Washington. For decades now, it has done a good job of ensuring that Israeli interests are attended to in Washington, and certainly on some issues it has skewed U.S. policy on the Middle East. There are Jews who practice being shocked at this assertion, but they must not be taken seriously. They know better, which is why they donate money. Others pretend to be shocked at the idea of a lobbyist influencing U.S. policy on the Middle East, but they also need not be taken seriously, because they are trying to influence Washington as well, though they are not as successful. Obviously there is an influential Israel lobby in Washington.
There are, however, two important questions. The first is whether this is in any way unique. Is a strong Israel lobby an unprecedented intrusion into foreign policy? The key question, though, is whether Israeli interests diverge from U.S. interests to the extent that the Israel lobby is taking U.S. foreign policy in directions it wouldn't go otherwise, in directions that counter the U.S. national interest.
Begin with the first question. Prior to both World wars there was extensive debate on whether the United States should intervene in the war. In both cases, the British government lobbied extensively for U.S. intervention on behalf of the United Kingdom. The British made two arguments. The first was that the United States shared a heritage with England — code for the idea that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants should stand with white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The second was that there was a fundamental political affinity between British and U.S. democracy and that it was in the U.S. interest to protect British democracy from German authoritarianism.
Many Americans, including President Franklin Roosevelt, believed both arguments. The British lobby was quite powerful. There was a German lobby as well, but it lacked the numbers, the money and the traditions to draw on.
From a geopolitical point of view, both arguments were weak. The United States and the United Kingdom not only were separate countries, they had fought some bitter wars over the question. As for political institutions, geopolitics, as a method, is fairly insensitive to the moral claims of regimes. It works on the basis of interest. On that basis, an intervention on behalf of the United Kingdom in both wars made sense because it provided a relatively low-cost way of preventing Germany from dominating Europe and challenging American sea power. In the end, it wasn't the lobbying interest, massive though it was, but geopolitical necessity that drove U.S. intervention.
The second question, then, is: Has the Israel lobby caused the United States to act in ways that contravene U.S. interests? For example, by getting the United States to support Israel, did it turn the Arab world against the Americans? Did it support Israeli repression of Palestinians, and thereby generate an Islamist radicalism that led to 9/11? Did it manipulate U.S. policy on Iraq so that the United States invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel? These allegations have all been made. If true, they are very serious charges.
It is important to remember that U.S.-Israeli ties were not extraordinarily close prior to 1967. President Harry Truman recognized Israel, but the United States had not provided major military aid and support. Israel, always in need of an outside supply of weapons, first depended on the Soviet Union, which shipped weapons to Israel via Czechoslovakia. When the Soviets realized that Israeli socialists were anti-Soviet as well, they dropped Israel. Israel's next patron was France. France was fighting to hold on to Algeria and maintain its influence in Lebanon and Syria, both former French protectorates. The French saw Israel as a natural ally. It was France that really created the Israeli air force and provided the first technology for Israeli nuclear weapons.
The United States was actively hostile to Israel during this period. In 1956, following Gamal Abdul Nasser's seizure of power in Egypt, Cairo nationalized the Suez Canal. Without the canal, the British Empire was finished, and ultimately the French were as well. The United Kingdom and France worked secretly with Israel, and Israel invaded the Sinai. Then, in order to protect the Suez Canal from an Israeli-Egyptian war, a Franco-British force parachuted in to seize the canal. President Dwight Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw — as well as the Israelis. U.S.-Israeli relations remained chilly for quite a while.
The break point with France came in 1967. The Israelis, under pressure from Egypt, decided to invade Egypt, Jordan and Syria — ignoring French President Charles de Gaulle's demand that they not do so. As a result, France broke its alignment with Israel. This was the critical moment in U.S.-Israeli relations. Israel needed a source of weaponry as its national security needs vastly outstripped its industrial base. It was at this point that the Israel lobby in the United States became critical. Israel wanted a relationship with the United States and the Israel lobby brought tremendous pressure to bear, picturing Israel as a heroic, embattled democracy, surrounded by bloodthirsty neighbors, badly needing U.S. help. President Lyndon B. Johnson, bogged down in Vietnam and wanting to shore up his base, saw a popular cause in Israel and tilted toward it.
But there were critical strategic issues as well. Syria and Iraq had both shifted into the pro-Soviet camp, as had Egypt. Some have argued that, had the United States not supported Israel, this would not have happened. This, however, runs in the face of history. It was the United States that forced the Israelis out of the Sinai in 1956, but the Egyptians moved into the Soviet camp anyway. The argument that it was uncritical support for Israel that caused anti-Americanism in the Arab world doesn't hold water. The Egyptians became anti-American in spite of an essentially anti-Israeli position in 1956. By 1957 Egypt was a Soviet ally.
The Americans ultimately tilted toward Israel because of this, not the other way around. Egypt was not only providing the Soviets with naval and air bases, but also was running covert operations in the Arabian Peninsula to bring down the conservative sheikhdoms there, including Saudi Arabia's. The Soviets were seen as using Egypt as a base of operations against the United States. Syria was seen as another dangerous radical power, along with Iraq. The defense of the Arabian Peninsula from radical, pro-Soviet Arab movements, as well as the defense of Jordan, became a central interest of the United States.
Israel was seen as contributing by threatening the security of both Egypt and Syria. The Saudi fear of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was palpable. Riyadh saw the Soviet-inspired liberation movements as threatening Saudi Arabia's survival. Israel was engaged in a covert war against the PLO and related groups, and that was exactly what the Saudis wanted from the late 1960s until the early 1980s. Israel's covert capability against the PLO, coupled with its overt military power against Egypt and Syria, was very much in the American interest and that of its Arab allies. It was a low-cost solution to some very difficult strategic problems at a time when the United States was either in Vietnam or recovering from the war.
The occupation of the Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights in 1967 was not in the U.S. interest. The United States wanted Israel to carry out its mission against Soviet-backed paramilitaries and tie down Egypt and Syria, but the occupation was not seen as part of that mission. The Israelis initially expected to convert their occupation of the territories into a peace treaty, but that only happened, much later, with Egypt. At the Khartoum summit in 1967, the Arabs delivered the famous three noes: No negotiation. No recognition. No peace. Israel became an occupying power. It has never found its balance.
The claim has been made that if the United States forced the Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza, then it would receive credit and peace would follow. There are three problems with that theory. First, the Israelis did not occupy these areas prior to 1967 and there was no peace. Second, groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have said that a withdrawal would not end the state of war with Israel. And therefore, third, the withdrawal would create friction with Israel without any clear payoff from the Arabs.
It must be remembered that Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel and seem not to care one whit about the Palestinians. The Saudis have never risked a thing for the Palestinians, nor have the Iranians. The Syrians have, but they are far more interested in investing in Beirut hotels than in invading Israel. No Arab state is interested in the Palestinians, except for those that are actively hostile. There is Arab and Islamic public opinion and nonstate organizations, but none would be satisfied with Israeli withdrawal. They want Israel destroyed. Even if the United States withdrew all support for Israel, however, Israel would not be destroyed. The radical Arabs do not want withdrawal; they want destruction. And the moderate Arabs don't care about the Palestinians beyond rhetoric.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. If the United States broke ties with Israel, would the U.S. geopolitical position be improved? In other words, if it broke with Israel, would Iran or al Qaeda come to view the United States in a different way? Critics of the Israel lobby argue that, except for U.S. support for Israel, the United States would have better relations in the Muslim world, and would not be targeted by al Qaeda or threatened by Iran. In other words, except for the Israel lobby's influence, the United States would be much more secure.
Al Qaeda does not see Israel by itself as its central problem. Its goal is the resurrection of the caliphate — and it sees U.S. support for Muslim regimes as the central problem. If the United States abandoned Israel, al Qaeda would still confront U.S. support for countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. For al Qaeda, Israel is an important issue, but for the United States to soothe al Qaeda, it would have to abandon not only Israel, but its non-Islamist allies in the Middle East.
As for Iran, the Iranian rhetoric, as we have said, has never been matched by action. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian military purchased weapons and parts from the Israelis. It was more delighted than anyone when Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran's problem with the United States is its presence in Iraq, its naval presence in the Persian Gulf and its support for the Kurds. If Israel disappeared from the face of the Earth, Iran's problems would remain the same.
It has been said that the Israelis inspired the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt that Israel was pleased when, after 9/11, the United States saw itself as an anti-Islamist power. Let us remind our more creative readers, however, that benefiting from something does not mean you caused it. However, it has never been clear that the Israelis were all that enthusiastic about invading Iraq. Neoconservative Jews like Paul Wolfowitz were enthusiastic, as were non-Jews like Dick Cheney. But the Israeli view of a U.S. invasion of Iraq was at most mixed, and to some extent dubious. The Israelis liked the Iran-Iraq balance of power and were close allies of Turkey, which certainly opposed the invasion. The claim that Israel supported the invasion comes from those who mistake neoconservatives, many of whom are Jews who support Israel, with Israeli foreign policy, which was much more nuanced than the neoconservatives. The Israelis were not at all clear about what the Americans were doing in Iraq, but they were in no position to complain.
Israeli-U.S. relations have gone through three phases. From 1948 to 1967, the United States supported Israel's right to exist but was not its patron. In the 1967-1991 period, the Israelis were a key American asset in the Cold War. From 1991 to the present, the relationship has remained close but it is not pivotal to either country. Washington cannot help Israel with Hezbollah or Hamas. The Israelis cannot help the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the relationship were severed, it would have remarkably little impact on either country — though keeping the relationship is more valuable than severing it.
To sum up: There is a powerful Jewish, pro-Israel lobby in Washington, though it was not very successful in the first 20 years or so of Israel's history. When U.S. policy toward Israel swung in 1967 it had far more to do with geopolitical interests than with lobbying. The United States needed help with Egypt and Syria and Israel could provide it. Lobbying appeared to be the key, but it wasn't; geopolitical necessity was. Egypt was anti-American even when the United States was anti-Israeli. Al Qaeda would be anti-American even if the United States were anti-Israel. Rhetoric aside, Iran has never taken direct action against Israel and has much more important things on its plate.
Portraying the Israel lobby as super-powerful behooves two groups: Critics of U.S. Middle Eastern policy and the Israel lobby itself. Critics get to say the U.S. relationship with Israel is the result of manipulation and corruption. Thus, they get to avoid discussing the actual history of Israel, the United States and the Middle East. The lobby benefits from having robust power because one of its jobs is to raise funds — and the image of a killer lobby opens a lot more pocketbooks than does the idea that both Israel and the United States are simply pursuing their geopolitical interests and that things would go on pretty much the same even without slick lobbying.
The great irony is that the critics of U.S. policy and the Israel lobby both want to believe in the same myth — that great powers can be manipulated to harm themselves by crafty politicians. The British didn't get the United States into the world wars, and the Israelis aren't maneuvering the Americans into being pro-Israel. Beyond its ability to exert itself on small things, the Israel lobby is powerful in influencing Washington to do what it is going to do anyway. What happens next in Iraq is not up to the Israel lobby — though it and the Saudi Embassy have a different story.
Did somebody say the N Word?
Now we're talking!
The state of play: Only Jews are allowed to have an opinion on Israel. And only Jews that support Israel unconditionally are allowed any legitimacy on the subject.
And this devilish arrangment in support of a criminal enterprise. And anybody that chooses to decline the offer is claimed to be anti-Jewish sui generis.
Has there ever been a propaganda device like this in history? This is a work of genius. Meanwhile, another week, more Palestinians killed, more starving to death, more land appropriated.
As for the anti-semitism hoary chestnut, the clearest exposition comes from (Jewish) philosopher Michael Neumann:
'The more anti-Semitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism is a moral obligation'.
How did it come to this? A colleague who jettisoned his Israeli citizenship to save his soul has pondered, what has happened to previous binding glues of Jewish community culture that the odious Israel has to serve as a surrogate?
It would be rather difficult to ignore the book. There has been a massive translation effort to publish the book, apparently simultaneously, in the USA, Britain (Penguin), Germany (Campus), France (La Decouverte), Italy (Mondadori), Japan (Kodansha)and Holland (Atlas).
Fingerhut is correct that Van Hollen's letter is not accurately characterized as an apology. It is worse than that. It is an abject, cringing, sniveling, apologetic retraction to the tune of: Although I may have suggested that Israel use diplomacy and target militants rather than trashing Lebanon and murdering so many innocent civilians in the process, I would never in a million years ever actually criticize Israel! Horrors! The thought of placing Israeli-Lobby-generated campaign funds in jeopardy stikes terror into the heart of all our fullblooded American pols.
Regarding the Friedman same old, same old: Israeli greed for Palestinian land (ie perpetual occupation) is disguised as cowardly paranoia: (ie We can't accept the Arab League Peace Plan because there will never be peace). Friedman says Egypt and Jordan don't care about the Palestinians: is that wishful thinking? Did he not hear King Abdullah's recent address to our joint session of Congress? It's subject was not Darfur or HIV. Also, has he not read Olmert's recent remarks about how wonderful the Iraq invasion has been for Israel? Finally, Osama Bin Laden gave 3 reasons for 9/11: the Palestinian persecution, the Iraq sanctions, and US troops in the Muslim holy land. Two of these reasons no longer exist.
I think Friedman's analysis is actually quite accurate. He is not apologizing for the lobby or denying it exists. He is making the point that it only appears to be so powerful because its agenda dovetails with US interests. When those interests diverge it will lose it appearance of power. That could be what we are witnessing now. Those interests are not nearly as strong now as they were 20 years ago, but they (Israel) are still the best of a pathetic choice of allies in a highly strategic region. They are the one country the US can count on to remain loyal to the US (save me the Liberty stories – irrelevant ancient history at this point) because they need us more than we need them.
As for the other Arab states not caring about the Palestinians. There is some truth to this. While individual Arabs and Muslims, as well as many of us Western Christian and yes, Jews, care about the plight of the Palestinians, the Arab states only care about themselves and their interest in the Palestinians is to what degree do they help or hinder the particular Arab state. If the Israelis had firebombed the Palestinian camp in Lebanon this last month the way the Lebanese Army had (and with good reason) it would have set the Muslim world on fire. Similarly, Palestinians were singled out for retribution in Iraq because of their favored status under Saddam. Egypt's Mubarak would love to crush Hamas and keep them from igniting his own Muslim Brotherhood radicals. People have feelings. States have interests. To the degree their leaders pay attention to the plight of the Palestinians it has everything to do with politics, their own internal, and international, as in placing blame as far away from their own policies as possible.
I did not read Friedman arguing against a peace agreement with the Palestinian and Arabs. In fact, in earlier pieces I've read by him he would appear to be a supporter of a resolution. His sophisticated and objective analysis of the situation is the sort of thinking that was sorely lacking in our country's leaders and what helped lead us to this quagmire in Iraq.
So Dr. Lambertson, you can hope all you want for the elimination of Osama's third reason, but don't dismiss serious analysis because it doesn't fit your position.
Nightengale,
Dr. George Friedman is a fervent practitioner of mental auto-stimulation and self-abuse. I have a file of his postings going back over years and to read today what he wrote about Iraq before, during and after the invasion is to roll on the ground with laughter. A poseur.
It is difficult to believe that even a guy who considers George Friedman, of all people, a "sophisticated and objective" analyst would have the chutzpah to ask anyone to not "dismiss serious analysis because it doesn't fit your position", when Friedman manages to put in one paragraph so many wrong assertions and falsehoods that one has to wonder if these people have completely lost touch with reality. Note also the use of the word "serious". As Glenn Greenwald has noted in several of his posts lately, this is the new intellectual strategy of the neocons and those who like their policy recommendations. Even though all those propagandists have been wrong in every prediction and every assessment they made regarding Iraq for the past 5 years – which is a truly remarkable achievement – it is those who disagree with them who are not "serious". "Serious" people and analysts and pundits are those who parrot the usual nonsense and now support the surge and war with Iran, those who sold the Iraq war as a cakewalk, who told us Iraq was an imminent threat with WMD, who told us US soldiers would be greeted as liberators, who insisted the insurgency was just a few Baathists and foreign fighters and well on "its last throes", and who want us to believe they actually really, really believe that the surge will give this fiasco of historic proportions a happy ending. Yeah, let's grab the popcorn. Give war a chance.
You gotta love those "serious" commentators who read "serious" analysts like George Friedman and approve of such "serious" analysis even when the serious falsehoods and misrepresentations he manages to put in one single paragraph are so seriously ridiculous that this a "serious" analysis becomes a pretty serious comedy:
"The great irony is that the critics of U.S. policy and the Israel lobby both want to believe in the same myth — that great powers can be manipulated to harm themselves by crafty politicians."
This a myth? Last time I checked it was a historical fact that this can indeed happen. It's not like there is no historical precedent! I think the latest one was called something like the "Iraq Fiasco" or something. Where does Mr. Friedman get his history books?
"The British didn't get the United States into the world wars"
Yes, they actually did. The US entered WWI contrary to the overwhelmingly unfavorable public sentiment for such an intervention at the behest of the British and with the considerable help of influential Zionists like Brandeis and major Jewish organizations in the US – which also resulted in a strange letter known as the "Balfour Declaration".
"… and the Israelis aren't maneuvering the Americans into being pro-Israel."
Of course not. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. And why would they. It’s not like Israel needs US military aid and/or money.
"Beyond its ability to exert itself on small things, the Israel lobby is powerful in influencing Washington to do what it is going to do anyway."
Which begs the question why its existence, funds, resources, activists and 2,000 meetings of its lobbyists with Congressmen (per year!) are really needed!
"What happens next in Iraq is not up to the Israel lobby"
Oh yes it is, at least for those of us who consider the neo-cons part of that same Lobby. And it certainly looks that way regarding Iran since absolutely nobody else is pushing for war with Iran, but we'll have to wait and see for that one.
Here is some "serious" history from George "serious" Friedman:
"Hezbollah is a Shiite movement that was created by Iran out of its own needs for a Tehran-controlled, anti-Israel force."
No comment other than to say that unserious scholars consider Hezbollah to be a grassroots Lebanese Shiite resistance movement that was created to fight Israel's occupation of Lebanon.
Boy am I relieved. I had been really worried about the state of the world. Now that I've come to find out from all you "serious" scholars that Hitler was right all along that it was all the fault of the JEWS, I can relax. We just need to quarantine all these abominable Jewish people in some container so they can't do their evilness and then everything is going to be alright. Thank you again for uncovering their evil conspiracy plot. You are all such brave and brilliant people.
I'm sorry to interrupt this exchange but there is a follow-up article in the NYT about that decision to disband the Iraqi army. Remember that a few days ago there was an article in the NYT where astonished readers learned that in an interview for Robert Draper's new book on him,
president BUSH SAID THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHO TOOK THE DECISION TO DISBAND THE IRAQI ARMY:
"Mr. Bush acknowledged one major failing of the early occupation of Iraq when he said of disbanding the Saddam Hussein-era military, "The policy was to keep the army intact; didn't happen."
But when Mr. Draper pointed out that Mr. Bush's former Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, had gone ahead and forced the army's dissolution and then asked Mr. Bush how he reacted to that, Mr. Bush said, "Yeah, I can't remember, I'm sure I said, 'This is the policy, what happened?'" But, he added, "Again, Hadley's got notes on all of this stuff," referring to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/washington/02book.html?_r=2&th=&adxnnl=0&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1188753349-xBIinRH+YW7UGovNdNeGlA&pagewanted=all
Incredible or what?
Now Bremer decided to contact the NYT and tell his side of the story:
"A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to “dissolve Saddam’s military and intelligence structures,” a plan that the envoy, L. Paul Bremer, said referred to dismantling the Iraqi Army."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/washington/04bremer.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=6f96ac48ddee399a&ex=1189137600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1188991369-o5I6MCUMJbOFNnohDfz3fg
As the NYT article notes though:
"The reference from Mr. Bremer’s note to Mr. Bush is limited to one sentence at the end of a lengthy paragraph in a three-page letter. The letter devoted much more space to recounting what Mr. Bremer described as “an almost universal expression of thanks” from the Iraqi people “to the U.S. and to you in particular for freeing Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny.” It went on to recall how Mr. Bremer had been kissed by an old Iraqi man who was under the impression that Mr. Bremer was Mr. Bush."
I would bet that Bush never even read the title of this letter, let alone "one sentence at the end of a lengthy paragraph in a three-page letter". We all know he is a decider, he doesn’t have time to actually read anything when he has to take all those important decisions.
Now here is what really puzzles me. You read what Bush said, right? Now read it AGAIN. Now explain to me what this unnamed White House official says about this whole affair and how it makes ANY SENSE FOR GOD'S SAKE:
"A White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House is not commenting on Mr. Draper’s book, said Mr. Bush indeed understood the order and was acknowledging in the interview with Mr. Draper that the original plan had proved unworkable. [WHAT???]
“The plan was to keep the Iraqi Army intact, and that’s accurate,” the official said. “But by the time Jerry Bremer announced the order, it was fairly clear that the Iraqi Army could not be reconstituted, and the president understood that. He was acknowledging that that was something that did not go as planned.”"[WHAT???]
This could only be the kind of incoherent bs that someone like Cheney could blabber while keeping a straight face. The fact that Michael "Iran disinfo specialist" Gordon contributed to this report (as we learn at the very end of the follow-up article) maybe explains this. I bet he was the one who talked to that anonymous White House official.
For Bremer to be that upset though, something must be wrong here. He leaked those letters to the NYT immediately. He won't accept becoming the scapegoat for this. And the attempt by someone at the White House to do damage control with that incredible nonsense for an explanation is very weird.
Was Bush deliberately kept in the dark about this? Who really took this decision ignoring official policy? What's going on here? Anyone?
Friedman's analysis is dead on. Whether you don't trust him because he is a Jew is one thing, but the guy has been extremely perceptive about world events.
"Very unserious Analysts" indeed.
The origins of Hezbollah date back to June 1982, when Syria decided to permit the Shi'ite Islamist revolutionary government in Iran to dispatch around 1,000 Pasdaran (members of the Revolutionary Guards) to the Beqaa Valley of eastern Lebanon, an area occupied by Syrian forces. Syria had previously refused to permit the clerical regime in Tehran to directly involve itself in Lebanese affairs, but the Israeli invasion of Lebanon earlier that month and the cordial reception accorded to the Israelis by Shi'ites in the South convinced Syrian leaders that Iranian involvement could serve to block Israeli influence in the country. An added factor was Iran's supply of oil to the Syrians at greatly reduced prices.
The Iranian delegation, consisting of both military and religious instructors, recruited a number of young, militant Lebanese clerics affiliated with the Lebanese branch of Al-Da'wa, a radical Iraqi Shi'ite fundamentalist group, and Islamic Amal, a breakaway faction of the Amal movement, which had become more secularized under the leadership of Nabih Berri. Most of the radical clerics who formed the nucleus of Hezbollah's leadership had been educated in the Shi'ite seminaries of southern Iraq, particularly Najaf, where Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and other ideologues in Iran spent many years in exile. As a result of these ties, they embraced Khomeini's concept of the just jurisconsult (al-wali al-faqih), the ideological basis for clerical rule, enshrined in Iran's 1979 constitution. In a 1985 manifesto, the leadership of Hezbollah pledged loyalty to Khomeini and to the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon.1
Iranian funds and training led to the rapid growth of Hezbollah's military wing, which devoted itself primarily to the expulsion of the American and European multi-national force (MNF) in Beirut and the defeat of occupying Israeli forces – objectives which corresponded with both Iranian and Syrian interests. After a series of deadly Hezbollah operations against MNF forces, most notably the October 1983 twin suicide bombings which killed around 300 American and French servicemen, MNF forces withdrew in 1984. Israel, facing pressure from Hezbollah and other groups in Lebanon, withdrew from central Lebanon in 1985
I'm struck by the utter lack of commentary on this blog about Iran. It's as if they don't exist and there is no great game occuring for access to oil.
You don't think the "Lobby" is getting played as well by people who want to make it appear that they have carte blanch and can force the US to bomb Iran? What did Cheney say years ago in regards to Iran? I paraphrase: "Perhaps we will just let the Israelis take out the nuke plants and just deal with the criticism."
The Lobby and the Israelis don't want to really bomb Iran, they want a change in administration, one that will be friendlier to the West and curtail its proxy wars against Israel. Europe and the US don't want the same thing? What do China and Russia want?
Chances of us actually bombing Iran are extremely slim, despite all the hysteria of late.
This is typical of the sort of besmirching of individuals whom one disagrees with. "very unserious analyst" claims that Friedman doesn't know what he is talking about because he ties Iran to the origins of Hezbollah. The only reason you're unaware of Iran's role is because you are so invested in wanting to scapegoat everything on to Israel and the Jews that you fail to look at what's really going on.
The origins of Hezbollah date back to June 1982, when Syria decided to permit the Shi'ite Islamist revolutionary government in Iran to dispatch around 1,000 Pasdaran (members of the Revolutionary Guards) to the Beqaa Valley of eastern Lebanon, an area occupied by Syrian forces. Syria had previously refused to permit the clerical regime in Tehran to directly involve itself in Lebanese affairs, but the Israeli invasion of Lebanon earlier that month and the cordial reception accorded to the Israelis by Shi'ites in the South convinced Syrian leaders that Iranian involvement could serve to block Israeli influence in the country. An added factor was Iran's supply of oil to the Syrians at greatly reduced prices.
The Iranian delegation, consisting of both military and religious instructors, recruited a number of young, militant Lebanese clerics affiliated with the Lebanese branch of Al-Da'wa, a radical Iraqi Shi'ite fundamentalist group, and Islamic Amal, a breakaway faction of the Amal movement, which had become more secularized under the leadership of Nabih Berri. Most of the radical clerics who formed the nucleus of Hezbollah's leadership had been educated in the Shi'ite seminaries of southern Iraq, particularly Najaf, where Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and other ideologues in Iran spent many years in exile. As a result of these ties, they embraced Khomeini's concept of the just jurisconsult (al-wali al-faqih), the ideological basis for clerical rule, enshrined in Iran's 1979 constitution. In a 1985 manifesto, the leadership of Hezbollah pledged loyalty to Khomeini and to the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon.1
Iranian funds and training led to the rapid growth of Hezbollah's military wing, which devoted itself primarily to the expulsion of the American and European multi-national force (MNF) in Beirut and the defeat of occupying Israeli forces – objectives which corresponded with both Iranian and Syrian interests. After a series of deadly Hezbollah operations against MNF forces, most notably the October 1983 twin suicide bombings which killed around 300 American and French servicemen, MNF forces withdrew in 1984. Israel, facing pressure from Hezbollah and other groups in Lebanon, withdrew from central Lebanon in 1985
Also, let's not forget Michael Gordon co-authored with Judith Miller neocon-generated NY Times articles which pushed us into invading Iraq on false premises (on behalf of Israel,of course). Funny this is never mentioned when he is featured ad nauseum in the MSM.
Alan – What does this Bremer business have to do with the Jewish Conspiracy?
Thank you Nurse. You get an "A" for finding the Zionazi connection.
The above "history" of Hezbollah that Nightengale posted is actually a quick copy-paste job from an article written by Gary C. Gambill and Ziad K. Abdelnour on the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin website!
http://www.meib.org/articles/0202_l1.htm
Interesting that a "serious" commentator like Nightengale forgot to inform us about the original article and to put what he posted here in quotes!
Apparently, in order to appear "serious", plagiarism is now the way to go.
Even more interesting is the fact that the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin is Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (MEIB) is "a free monthly publication jointly produced by the hardline Zionist Middle East Forum and the pro-Israel United States Committee for a Free Lebanon."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Intelligence_Bulletin
And what about the United States Committee for a free Lebanon?
"…To help advance its goals, the organization enlisted the support of a number of core neoconservative figures. The USCFL's "Golden Circle," a group of "core activists and supporters" who provided "invaluable support toward the Lebanese cause at large and in shaping U.S foreign policy toward Lebanon," included many who occupied posts in the George W. Bush administration, including Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paula Dobriansky, Michael Rubin, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Other prominent neoconservatives in the Golden Circle were Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, David Steinmann, Rachel Ehrenfeld, and Eleana Benador."
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1565
And who founded it? A guy named Ziad Abdelnour who helped write the above "history" of Hezbollah.
"… Abdelnour produced, along with Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum (MEF), a 2000 report calling for the United States to force Syria from Lebanon and to disarm it of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The document, "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role?" argued that "Syrian rule in Lebanon stands in direct opposition to American ideals" and criticized the United States for engaging rather than confronting the regime. Among the document's signers were several soon-to-be Bush administration figures, including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Rubin, David Wurmser, and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. Other signers included Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ledeen, and Gaffney."
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/957
Who were the publishers?
Ziad Abdelnour and Daniel Pipes!
This so "serious" I am about to cry with laughter.
Apparently Florence just copy-pasted the same article Nightengale posted, again not citing its "serious" source or putting it in quotes.
Guys.
Guys!
Can you please get your act together???
LOL!
This is hilarious. Another comedy night.
Keep it up guys.
What strikes me most on reading all the Mearsheimer-Walt and Finkelstein material is the almost superhuman amount of effort, work and treasure involved in the Lobby's keeping this lead balloon full of bullshit airborn for so many years: really fooling "all of the people, all of the time".
Now the cat is out of the bag, and soon everybody will be nodding and winking and nudging each other every time a Foxman or a Dershowitz opens his mouth, but at the same time all the media support and the campaign financing will still be in place. That will mean that nobody in congress will dare move a muscle. Everybody will be talking about this, at work, at dinner, but no presidential candidate will dare mention it and all of this will then turn into a huge joke. The general public will hold the political class in open, sniggering, contempt.
Of course this will find some political expression somehow… what, I don't know, but it will have to be outside the major parties.
Samuel wrote: "Alan – What does this Bremer business have to do with the Jewish Conspiracy?"
I don't know Bill. It might be a Likudnik Zionist conspiracy though. How about this for such a connection?
******
"…"There are several layers that need to be peeled back on this revealing admission from Bush.
First, who made the decision if not Bush? From Charles Ferguson's prize-winning documentary, No End in Sight, we learn that CPA National Security Advisor Walter Slocombe had much to do with the decision.
On May 9, 2003, Walter Slocombe, L. Paul Bremer, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith had a meeting discussing Iraq. A question came up: "What about the Iraqi military?" And according to Slocombe, no one said anything — which was a response in itself. The decision to disband was made by Slocombe and Bremer. My source does not know if the decision went up to Rumsfeld or not — but it did not go further to anyone else in the administration, including to the National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, to the Vice President, or to the President."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002325.php
******
Note however that Bremer is furious for the attempt to make him a scapegoat. He is leaking letters to the NYT for god's sake! And Steve Clemons cannot be right regarding Walter Slocombe here because I don't think that an advisor to the CPA would reverse administration policy on such an important matter like disbanding the Iraqi army all by himself.
Which leaves us with the two high ranking administration offficials present at that meeting, Wolfowitz and Feith, who we also know were investigated in the past by the FBI for passing classified information to Israel!
How am I doing Bill?
Florence? Nightengale?
Florence Nightengale? Perhaps they are the same person?
A jew no doubt. Lets get her!!
Alan – We are all impressed with your ability to blame anything and everything on the Jews. You're doing great. Keep up the great work. After the last Jew is pushed out of public office you may have worked through all of the issues you have with your wittle jewish mommy.
Nice try Allen but I don't think that the average American Jew who happens to be a liberal has anything to do with the neo-cons or the Likudniks and their plans, machinations, networking and crimes.
This is like saying that nobody should say anything about the Mafia in order to not appear anti-Italian!
It won't work with me so screw you and your Omertà.
From David Bromwich's post at Huffington:
"How mad is Elliott Abrams? If one passage cited by Mearsheimer-Walt is quoted accurately, it would seem to be the duty of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to subject Abrams to as exacting a challenge as the Senate Judiciary Committee brought to Alberto Gonzales. The man at the Middle East desk of the National Security Council wrote in 1997 in his book Faith or Fear: "there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart–except in Israel–from the rest of the population." "
(end quote)
Abrams was pardoned by Bush Sr. for his Iran-Contra crimes.
I am all for "otherness," and think that the devout believer of any faith will always find himself a "stranger in a strange land," but I doubt the National Security Council is a place that a devout believer would seek out as a monastic refuge for his insular spirituality.
But I could be wrong. Maybe the chairs at the NSC are really conducive to prayer.
Regarding Frank Gaffney (mentioned above), he was prominently featured yesterday on CNN at City Hall in Manhattan protesting the (secular of course) public school which has the audacity to teach Arabic to 60 6th graders and which thus has been falsely labeled a madrassa and terrorist breeding-ground. The Arabic-speaking principal was replaced by a non-Arabic speaking Jew. Gaffney stated that we must not allow this model "to replicate like a cancer across America." Does he feel that way about Hebrew schools?
Regarding the connection between Zionism and the Bush vs Bremer issue, this fits with the current neocon talking point to the effect that it was Bush who bungled their otherwise beautiful Iraq invasion. Thus there's lots of media attention to issues like this.
If we go to war with Iran and it turns out to be the mother of disasters (imagine an aircraft carrier sunk for starters), something that triggers a severe economic downturn, one that has a sizable quotient of "financial engineering", with poor people thrown out of their homes, than a sizable part of the American population will lay that disaster square at the feet of the American Jewish community. It has happened before.
There have been three countries in "Christendom" where the Jews have lived "golden ages": Spain, Germany and the United States. Massive waves of antisemitism nearly destroyed the first two. The Spanish have a saying, "When you see your neighbor's beard on fire, put your beard to soak". What is imperative is that we "do nuances", the sheep must be separated from the goats, the wheat from the chaff and babies must not be thrown out with the bath water. The situation that Mearsheimer and Walt present must be clarified and corrected, but without frightening old "Mrs. Goldberg" that owns the corner 'delly' for even a moment. The future of the United States as country any civilized person would care to ever live in hangs in the balance.
Rubinstein defends 'apartheid' speech – JTA
Ha'aretz columnist Danny Rubinstein had the unrepentant last word after being dropped by a British Zionist organization that objected to his calling Israel an "apartheid" state.
Published: 09/04/2007
PRAGUE (JTA) — Ha'aretz columnist Danny Rubinstein had the unrepentant last word after being dropped by a British Zionist organization that objected to his calling Israel an "apartheid" state at a U.N. Palestinian rights conference in Brussels.
"I am not apologizing for what I said," Rubinstein told a crowd of about 100 Monday evening at the New North London Synagogue, according to several people in attendance. "People do use the word apartheid in my circles. My newspaper increasingly uses that word. This is nothing new."
"I only started using the word apartheid recently after Jimmy Carter's book, though I didn't like the book," Rubinstein said, referring to "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." He also noted that "even Ariel Sharon used the word 'occupation,' which was a word never used before."
Rubinstein, the Arab affairs editor for Ha'aretz and a member of the newspaper's editorial board, had been scheduled to speak Monday at the annual meeting of the British Zionist Federation, which has about 10,000 members.
After JTA reported on Rubinstein's Aug. 30 comments at the U.N. conference, however, the speech was canceled by mutual agreement, according to the Zionist group.
Sources familiar with the situation said that Rubinstein offered to cancel when he learned that the federation membership was angry over his remarks, but was hurt deeply by the overall controversy, including a slew of negative editorials around the world.
Several attendees at the London synagogue event said Rubinstein appeared tired, stressed and genuinely shocked by the outcry his comments had caused.
"I never want to go through this again," Rubinstein was overheard saying to one audience member.
Link:
Phil,
I have read about half of the book and is quite good. I think that they even broach the subject of "dual loyality" is more than could reasonably be expected. Of all the books that have come out that deal with these issues over the last few years this is the best for the simple fact that it is so well sourced and is more than willing to use moderate language to reach the obviously politically incorrect conclusion. The book was out a full week early at my local Barnes and Noble..and now the Abe Foxman rebuttal has hit the shelves as well..I'll be digging into that next.
Ah, I see you are on to my little jewish devils. Even Mrs. Goldberg at the corner jewish delly works for me. You see I made a pact with the jews (every last one of 'em) that if they did my bidding for me I would give them their own country where they could create a place for others jews to go to when the local populace decided to use them as a scapegoat. Stupid jews didn't realize the real estate I was selling them had some, shall we say, neighborhood problems. Just to stay alive they've had to do an overzealous imitation of Walking Tall. That's gone over well in their oily little ghetto. Their idiot relatives living in the West naturally sought to help them in their quest to stay alive. Damn little devils were so good at playing the game that your weak kneed leaders sought it best to just do whatever their little PAC recommended. That is, as long as aligned with what the imperial forces were interested in. Now that you are on to them I suppose you're going to send them home to me. Well, enjoy your bloodbath – I'm sure we will see each other again.
-Lou
Lou —
Hey, thanks for your commentary. I've been seeing you around and wondered what was on your mind.
Finally the truth is coming out. The Jews are scared. You can tell. We will finish what Hitler never completed.
C-SPAN viewer Call for GAO head David Walker which mentioned Walt and Mearsheimer book