Richard Silverstein has an excellent post about a documentary on the Israel lobby that appeared on Dutch television, with several Americans interviewed, including Tony Judt, who said that Rome tolerated Judea's hijinks till Judea began making too much trouble for the empire, and the same thing is now happening with Israel and the U.S. Also Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, says that it is "bullshit" that the U.S. and Israel have conjoint interests, as Richard Perle would argue. Two countries never have the same interest. This is progress, that Wilkerson continues to speak out like this. (2 years back he said that Walt and Mearsheimer were "the blinding flash of the obvious.")
In the Yivo event I blogged about the other day, Nick Lemann said that Walt and Mearsheimer were heirs to a long–and suppressed–tradition of criticism of Israel in the State Department, as distinct from the leftwing critique of Israel. Suppressing an important strain of thought in American life is obviously very damaging. I’m glad it’s busting loose at last. This relates to my complaint of last fall: Do the goyim get to register an opinion re Walt and Mearsheimer? At that time the only people reviewing them were Jews. What Lemann failed to register is that the State Department tradition and the leftwing critics are actually merged now. Realist Steve Walt is a good blue state liberal, I’d bet anything he votes Democrat. I’m an old lefty who now enjoys the company of realists, paleos and Arab-Americans. Judt has surely made common cause with realists. Anatol Lieven has become a realist, Fukuyama has deserted neoconservatism to become a realist. Mearsheimer seems hardboiled, but the book he co-wrote is highly sensitive to Palestinian suffering. And so on. There’s a great merging of the refusees, all those who opposed the war in Iraq and wanted the U.S. to deal with the Israeli occupation and are still marginalized for doing so. It is true that there was cultural suspicion between the sides. Jewish lefties grew up believing those State Department guys were indifferent to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. There’s a lot of power in joining forces. We’re coming in! Soon this kind of documentary will be on American TV.
Related posts:
{ 18 comments }
.
Silverstein raises a rarely-treated point, about Israel's excessive reliance on a single large-country supporter:
"The U.S. at some future time might find that Israel has become too great a burden on national interests. At that time, the U.S. might abandon Israel to its fate. Even the Israel lobby with all their political muscle would be powerless to prevent it. Because Israel has no other major allies, this outcome, no matter how unlikely now, is something greatly to be feared."
Who hasn't heard the story of a business which got most of its revenues from a single large customer, and then collapsed after losing a key contract? Diversification is safety. But the Lobby's obsession with keeping a firm grip on the U.S. only increases the risk of an eventual split, driven by homegrown resentment of Israel's relentless exploitation of American generosity.
Which leads directly into Silverstein's final point:
"All this raises a larger question: why is it that the Dutch can see such a program and Americans can’t?"
Well, we all know the answer, don't we? The Lobby can't afford frank discussion on the subject. But that only heightens the 'beach-ball effect' — when some crisis finally propels the issue into the mainstream (which is on the verge of happening right now), the sense of scandal will be magnified because of the long-standing cover-up. It wasn't the ongoing crime, it was the cover-up that killed the golden goose.
Checkmate, as it were. It's a lovely dilemma; a lovely Catch-22. Your move, Mr. Hoenlein. But the only way to win is not to play!
Mearsheimer looked bad to me in that "documentary".
I found the points of Levy (I forgot his first name), to be the most relevant.
Namely, that the sideshow of the messenger is less important than the real show of articulating a skillful and humane description of what is in Israel's and US's interests, rationally.
Phillip, I have a question. Do believe that a change in perspective WRT Israel might also be related to regional factors? In other words, is there a change in the ballance of power in the region that makes American support for israel more costly than before? I'm referring to Iran's growing nuclear capability, the rapid rise in the price of oil and the July '06 war in Lebanon.
Do you think these factors give the realists room for maneuver? Also, do you think if (hypothetically) oil were to fall to 40$ or a highly successful attack on Iran were to occur, that the situation would change in favor of the Neoconservatives?
For full disclosure, I should mention I'm and American of Egyptian decent.
Thanx
"Because Israel has no other major allies, this outcome, no matter how unlikely now, is something greatly to be feared."
Israel has made overtures to China with U.S. technology in the past. I just don't think that any other major power has the same internal dynamics or self-destructive streak that the U.S. has.
Jack Ross seems way more paranoid than Phil. I am suspicious of his theory. It seems disingenuous to me. Sort of like Chomshky's clinging to the idea that US motivation is all strategic and therefore economic.
Jack Ross seems way more paranoid than Phil. I am suspicious of his theory. It seems disingenuous to me. Sort of like Chomshky's clinging to the idea that US motivation is all strategic and therefore economic.
No other allies but America? Nonsense, Turkey has been one of Israel's closest allies for decades. Israeli leadership has high praise for Egypt's Mubarak, and Jordan has done an exemplary job in keeping its Palestinian population out of the conflict. Outside the region, China and India are among Israel's biggest customers for its thriving arms industry, much the consternation of the U.S.
.
who on earth is Mr. Hoenlein, i said. is it a typo for heinlein? what would he have to do with it?
so i googled it and the most amazing narrative came up on top. it appears there is healthy and outspoken dissent *within* the american zionist community.
well maybe not exactly *within* i guess. but within the religious jewish community at any rate. it seems that the latter is not after all completely subsumed by the former. (aside from the traditional ortodoxy that surivives among some hassidim.) better and better. i am not alone.
it seems luke ford of lukeford.net is a convert to judaism who is a major journalist of the porn industry. which would label him as an outcast to us effete easterners, but not in hollywood, which is a much jucier mileau.
and hollywood after all is the logical place to look for a Jewish nonzionist resistance movement. and within the porn industry certainly most of all.
i wonder if anyone here knows anything about this?
.
[herewith i transplant an orphan comment buried at the ass end of one of yesterdays threads.]
.
listen ~martillo~. since you are intrested in the origins of things, how about this idea. that the judonian conspiracy goes all the way back to the priests of the temple in jerusalam, who in concert with their milia the zealots were gangster thugs who hid their apostasy behind a mask of godliness, absolutely similar to the zionists of today.
Lysander, what do you think Egypt would do If Israel/USA attack Iran? And, if they don't, and Iran gains more deference in the area, even if nobody knows if it has/gets nukes?
RE: "Rome tolerated Judea's hijinks till Judea began making too much trouble for the empire."
It seems when you dig into the long historical details, there's always something like this, something beyond the usual narrative that Jews eventually get kicked or oppressed until they leave–due simply to standard anti-semitism, i.e., religious bigotry/ethnic bigotry, gentile power elites using scapecoatism to instigate pogroms, peasant outlash against the Jewish tax collectors, etc to avoid their debts to Jewish money-lenders, etc.
The books covering in detail the proportion of Jews in the various industries and businesses, and in the media in Weimar Germany are arresting–don't even need to mention the proportion of feared Jews in the Red factions and USSR of that time…
@ Charles,
I left Egypt at a very young age, but from recent visits and talking to relatives, the government is likely to survive a U.S. attack on Iran. The danger for the government is if Iran is perceived to have "won." That would put them in the hot seat.
If Iran becomes a virtual or "ambiguous" nuclear power you will see an Egypt more likely to accept closer ties with. You might also see Egypt pursuing its own nuclear program under the guise of countering Iran's. (when in reality they would like to counter Israel's but can't ever say so) Nobody in Egypt fears an Iranian attack. As for the public, there would be great admiration for anyone who looked the great and little Satans in the eye and didn't blink.
Iran could also serve as a new Soviet Union that Egypt's government could use as leverage against the U.S.
Saudi is different. They are closer and have a Shiite population whose loyalty they question. You will see a confused policy of both cuddling to the U.S. and also trying to avoid conflict with Iran. If America withdraws in defeat from Iraq, they will kissup more to the Iranians.
That's just my guess. I'm no expert.
.
well ~Keating~ i dont seem to follow your logic. if jews were overly successful in weimar democracy and bolshevik state, does that in itself give any justification to resenting them? weimar was cool from what little i know and anyhow jews were overly successful in a lot of contexts.
Phil isn't totally wrong about everything but his assessment of "young" Jews shows that's he's a wishful-thinking fantasist. Jews in the US, and in France where I now live, have become considerably less liberal in this generation. The now discredited sociological study (which Phil seems to be clinging to) that suggested a greater distance from Israel among the young was flawed by its too broad definition of Jews. Jews like Phil, who celebrate Christmas rather than Passover, might feel alienated from Israel, but they're not raising Jewish children, or impacting the community beyond this generation. There's a real story in Birthright Israel (and J-Date) that Phil is trying hard to ignore. His interest in fringe groups that have no following in the Jewish community (Birthright unplugged, Neteuri Karta, etc) is rather too transparent.
.
~Alain Solal~ is so perverse that i must question his motives. *any* antizionist group is by definition a fringe group. is he waiting for the million jew march?
there appears to be a growing amount of jewish antizionist youth activism which is flying under the medea radar because it subordinates itself to the palestine solidarity movement. and why shouldn't it. the idea of jews reaching out to jews is hopeless, as we may deduce from the near zero amount of jewish adult antizionist activism in the us.
.
~Alain Solal~ sucks zionist dicks.
Lysander, don't you think that the point of these attacks might have subjugating Egypt as part or all of the goal, i.e., "Egypt the Prize" per Laurent Muraweic's briefing to the Defense Policy Board in 2002? Some have said this paper was as influentail as "A Clean Break", and anyone whose been watching knows what a playbook that briefing and paper became to the neocons…
http://www.slate.com/?id=2069119
The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon
The LaRouchie defector who's advising the defense establishment on Saudi Arabia.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2002, at 7:49 PM ET
Diplomatic china rattled in Washington and cracked in Riyadh yesterday when the Washington Post published a story about a briefing given to a Pentagon advisory group last month. The briefing declared Saudi Arabia an enemy of the United States and advocated that the United States invade the country, seize its oil fields, and confiscate its financial assets unless the Saudis stop supporting the anti-Western terror network.
The Page One story, by Thomas E. Ricks ("Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies: Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board," Aug. 6), described a 24-slide presentation given by Rand Corp. analyst Laurent Murawiec on July 10, 2002, to the Defense Policy Board, a committee of foreign policy wonks and former government officials that advises the Pentagon on defense issues. Murawiec's PowerPoint scenario, which is reproduced for the first time below, makes him sound like an aspiring Dr. Strangelove.
Just who the hell is Laurent Murawiec? The Post story and its follow-up, also by Ricks, do not explain. The Pentagon and the administration insist that the presentation does not reflect their views in any way. The Rand Corp. acknowledges its association with Murawiec, but likewise disavows any connection with the briefing. (Neither Murawiec nor Rand received money for the briefing, Rand says.) According to Newsday, Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard N. Perle, a former Pentagon official and full-time invade-Iraq hawk, invited Murawiec to brief the group, so Perle can't exactly distance himself from the presentation. But he can do the next best thing—duck reporters' questions. Murawiec also declined reporters' inquiries, including one from Slate.
The first half of Murawiec's presentation reads calmly enough, echoing Fareed Zakaria's Oct. 15, 2001, Newsweek essay about why the Arab world hates the United States. Its tribal, despotic regimes bottle up domestic dissent but indulge the exportation of political anger; intellectually, its people are trapped in the Middle Ages; its institutions lack the tools to deal with 21st-century problems; yadda yadda yadda.
But then Murawiec lights out for the extreme foreign policy territory, recommending that we threaten Medina and Mecca, home to Islam's most holy places, if they don't see it our way. Ultimately, he champions a takeover of Saudi Arabia. The last slide in the deck, titled "Grand strategy for the Middle East," abandons the outrageous for the incomprehensible. It reads:
Iraq is the tactical pivot
Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot
Egypt the prize
Egypt the prize?
Because none of the Defense Policy Board attendees are talking candidly about the session, it's hard to divine what "Egypt the prize" means or if Murawiec's briefing put it into any context. It sounds a tad loopy, even by Dr. Strangelove standards. The Post report does mention a "talking point" attached to the 24-page PowerPoint deck that describes Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East. That's extreme talk even by the standards of the anti-Saudi editorialists at the Weekly Standard and the rest of the invade-Iraq fellowship.
[more at the link]
@ Cooper
I had heard the "Egypt the prize" phrase before though I didn't know who stated it. I have no idea what they meant. Egypt is an impoverished nation of 70 million and counting. And besides, with Mubarak in power, they already have Egypt.
Unless…their goal is to break up the Arab nations surrounding Israel into smaller fiefdoms and warring tribes a la Iraq today. The neoconservative view may be that Egypt is still the greatest long term threat to Israel and its prime natural enemy. And while Egypt is much weaker than Israel today, what about 50 years from now? These guys aren't taking any chances. And with Israel's disappointing
performance in 2006, I don't blame them.
Do a Google search on Oded Yinon and you can find out all about it. I used to think that was just Arab paranoia. But I would bet that's exactly how Richard Pearl and Associates would think. Its pretty much what's happened in Iraq and seems to be what Israel tried to do in Lebanon in 1982.
Its seems to explain what "prize" means.
Comments on this entry are closed.