I’m lousy at monitoring comments, as many readers know. My excuse is I’m unpaid, and I have to make a living at the computer anyway, all day long, so it’s hard enough just to write new content for this blog let alone also keep up on comments. It’s not a good excuse, and I feel ashamed when I read the comments because many of them are smarter than the content, but readers know they can get my attention by emailing me. Also, I’m thinking of going to a format where you don’t have to click on the comments, they are right there when you finish the post.
Richard Witty has raised a number of questions I haven’t answered. Here they are in rat-a-tat fashion. Given the formatting, I’ve included my answer in the same font and paragraph as Richard’s question. So: He asks the question, I try and answer.
- What is America’s
interest? Does it even have an interest? Of course countries have interests, Richard. This seems slightly farcical of you. What is our interest? One is: To vigorously oppose apartheid in Palestine, so that we can help the Arab world reform. - What actually motivates JEWISH political contribution and
philanthropy (broad enough to actually use the term “Jewish”
rather than some more specific descriptor)? Good question. The problem here is that while there is some diversity in the Jewish community, the rightwingers have hijacked the leadership, and the body of Jewry has licensed this because 58 percent of them support an undivided Jerusalem, and in my travels I sense a large indifference to Arab humanity in my parents’ generation. I am all for growing diversity in the Jewish community politically; but part of that involves taking on certain orthodoxies, headon. Though I sense you are landing on some sloppiness on my part, from time to time. Touche. - Did the “Israel Lobby” actually cause the US to
invade Iraq? I don’t know. It was an important factor. George Bush and Dick Cheney caused the US to invade Iraq, as did Chuck Schumer and Tom Lantos and Hillary to a lesser degree. George Bush is going to lie about this forever and Dick Cheney will be a tomb. I feel some casuistry in your question. Of course the Israel lobby played an important role, in the form of Israel-centric neocons and Israel-centric thinktanks. Some of this agenda was unconscious, inasmuch as liberal journalists said Saddam should fall for sending suicide bombers into Palestine/Israel. They were piping Zionist argument without fully reckoning with it. For years I have been blamed for Al Gore’s defeat in 2000, by my other and other ortho-Dems, because I supported Ralph Nader. They ascribe political agency to me. Fair enough. In this case we have Israel lobbyists and neocons actively pushing this war; and the media and good liberal Jews like you are refusing to interrogate them, or examine their degree of agency. - Does the “Israel Lobby” actually distort US
foreign policy? Is it of any relevance even to use the term “distort
American foreign policy”, given the factional nature of US governance
(of which the Bush administration was the most pronounced example of a
client administration in recent history, and extending FAR beyond the “Israel
Lobby”)? Yes it distorts US foreign policy. When you see the string of Presidents who did nothing about settlements in the 80s and 90s and 00s when they clearly didn’t like the idea of settlements, evil and illegal settlements I might add, we are talking about Policy Nullification. - What do you PROPOSE practically for Israel to do
relative to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle? Ah, you got me. I don’t do much positive proposing. Stun the world. End the occupation tomorrow. Withdraw the illegal settlers tomorrow. - What do you propose practically that the US do
relative to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle? Oppose the occupation and the illegal settlements. Make an earnest effort with the world to impose a two state solution now, before it’s too late. - What do you propose that the Arab world do relative to the
Israeli/Palestinian struggle? Reassert the terms of the 2002 or whenever Saudi initiative. Say: We want an end to this struggle on unequal 78/22 percent terms and we will work with our Palestinian brothers to make that happen. - What do you propose that Iran do
relative to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle? Support the Arab states’ initiative. Announce, we will give up our nuclear ambitions if Israel embarks with us on a policy of denuking this region. - If Barak Obama
is truly a center-left politician rather than left-far left politician
will you support him anyway, ignore the election, or support another
candidate? Don’t be silly. - To what extent has the “hand that feeds you” (American
Conservative) affected your investigations? Not at all. Look at my position on stem cell research and immigration. I’m a good liberal Dem. - Why are you adopting litmus-testing of conventional journalistic
pieces and of prep-school commencement addresses? You must elaborate. Asking journalists to be smart and intellectually honest about Jewish money in politics, as opposed to Jewish votes, is not litmus testing, it is an effort to maintain high standards for our discourse. As to commencement exercises, I find it highly revealing that I can spend more than 2 hours at one and never hear the word Iraq. I’m not imposing a litmus test; I’m observing the ways of the Establishment. Their children frolic far from the dark shadows of this war. - How do you think of your Jewishness in
fact? (Is it residual, presently active in idea, presently active in
association, or hated?) Very active in my mind, as ideas mostly and some social institutions too. I think I love the Jewishness that I grew up with, cultural/intellectual. I am not religious, except in mostly New Agey ways that I have absorbed from my wife and that touch on mystical Jewish tradition. The hatred I feel is for definitions of Jewishness that are nationalist and racist and that occlude other people’s humanity. When I went to Hebron in the Occupied Territories, I said, If this is Jewish, I will turn in my Jewish card right now. I do think religions come and go. And that pagans trump the big traditional religions in terms of their concern for the earth, which we have trashed. - Is it important to you that others (some close to you) regard their
Jewishness as currently important to them in
practice and in association? Should that affect how you use language? It’s important to me that everyone in my country, and as many other countries as I can influence, have religious freedom. I don’t mean to insult anyone’s religious practice. It obviously should affect how I use language. - Why don’t you use the word “I” when you are
discussing something that you understand or believe? I learned a long time ago that too many “I thinks” diminish the power of an argument. It’s OK to use them some, but it can seem tentative, or unnecessary. The reader knows this is an argument an individual is advancing. Not sure if that answers the question. - Why don’t you summarize the thesis of neo-conservative
writers respectfully and then analyze your disagreement with the theses, so
that those of us who have not bothered to read them (most of your
audience) at least understands what it is that you are ridiculing? I did a little of this with Feith’s book initially. I think these men are very dangerous extremists, I respect them in saying that, the power of their ideas. Look what they wrought, the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. Arab bloodshed on a vast scale. Indifference to Palestinian suffering. It is important to me to expose their bad thinking. Much of what they say–for instance what Feith writes in his book–is a blind to his actual thinking, I believe. The road to peace in Jerusalem runs thru Baghdad was a genuine principle of their philosophy. If you are saying that I’m failing to convince others of the justice of my point of view because of my polemics, well, I’ve not been a good journalist then. But I think my side is winning here, and I will use verbal brickbats, mockery, anything, to rid the field of these ideas. This blog comes out of the Iraq war, and the sense of crisis I felt on behalf of my country. Americans don’t behave like this.
"Reassert the terms of the 2002 or whenever Saudi initiative."
It's actually the ARAB initiative, endorsed by the entire Arab League. And it goes back to the Rabat Plan in 1981 — and was most recently repeated in 2002.
BRAVO Phil.
You won that.
Although I don't believe in ascribing morals and ethics to any particular religious or ethnic indentity as you have alluded to about Jewish tradition, I am awarding you personally 100% on your just plain universal humanity.
"What is America’s interest? Does it even have an interest? Of course countries have interests, Richard. This seems slightly farcical of you. What is our interest? One is: To vigorously oppose apartheid in Palestine, so that we can help the Arab world reform."
I think you dealt with this question far too trivially given the importance that the phrase has in works that you site as admiring (Walt/Mearsheimer).
It is an IMPORTANT question to clarify.
My sense of the reasoning that Walt/Mearsheimer inferred that supporting Israel in the manner that the US does, conflicts with the US interests for peace in the region as a means to secure the continued flow of oil.
The neo-cons adopted similar rationale, but with different proposed means.
My sense of "interest" for New England is VERY different than the sense of "interest" for Texas. For example, in my region it is more local to trade with Quebec than it is to trade with Texas. It is more MY COMMUNITY, even as New England and Texas are both in the United States.
In New England, we need fuel to heat (or better yet, insulation to not need fuel), while in Texas they need fuel to cool.
There was a book published in the late 70's "The Nine Nations of North America", whose title rings true to me.
I suggested that the questions each deserved much fuller discussion.
I'm surprised that you trivialized them by your pat summary.
Feel free to expand on them as much as you desire, Richard. You can hardly expect Phil to devote more time to your concerns.
Having seen many of your comments, I'd personally be interested to know whether you agree that it is in America's interests to oppose apartheid in Palestine. And if so, why do you think we haven't done it (by holding back aid, refusing to use our UN veto, etc.)?
"What actually motivates JEWISH political contribution and philanthropy (broad enough to actually use the term “Jewish” rather than some more specific descriptor)? Good question. The problem here is that while there is some diversity in the Jewish community, the rightwingers have hijacked the leadership, and the body of Jewry has licensed this because 58 percent of them support an undivided Jerusalem, and in my travels I sense a large indifference to Arab humanity in my parents' generation. I am all for growing diversity in the Jewish community politically; but part of that involves taking on certain orthodoxies, headon. Though I sense you are landing on some sloppiness on my part, from time to time. Touche."
I think you DON'T KNOW in fact, how or why the dollar votes that Jewish philanthropists (big and small) are expended, and it would take research to find out.
My mother for example donates significantly to Jewish service efforts, and barely to political. (Hadassah hospital, Hebrew University, scholarship programs.) I'm SURE her donations are typical.
If you are speaking of a few, or more accurately, the exception, then that would make an excellent point, in fact consistent with your thesis, but without the generalization.
The generalization is what offends. It offends me. It offends other Jews.
Even if it is true that there is indifference to Arab humanity among your parents generation why do you think that is?
My sense is that it takes intentional effort to break prejudices, actually rational fears in the circumstances. But, what breaks prejudices is NOT political browbeating.
Two things have done it for me. That is hearing candidly of a few individuals experiences in non-polemic terms, and study.
Even on race, many in my family expressed what I considered to be idiotic generalizations, but ALWAYS black individuals that they actually made some contact with were accepted, admired even, and not just Barak Obama.
Maybe its you and I that have not done our homework.
For example, when the discussion on the Columbia exhibit was in swing, it seemed obvious to me that the nakba was presented as a polemic, not as information.
And, the presenters (and you) FAILED to consider the work of educating as a sober responsibility to accomplish respectfully, instead blaming the ignorant for hearing what they wanted to hear (when we all do).
Andy,
I personally find "America's interests" to often conflict with what I understand as human interests, so that is not a good reference for me.
I think it is in the human interest to support peace, to enhance the lives of BOTH the Israeli community AND the Palestinian.
I think the current US administration was grossly remiss in accepting the settlement blocs as functionally annexed by Israel, and in not more assertively twisting Israel's arms to oppose Palestinian house and grove demolitions, and to oppose the authorizations to build further in East Jerusalem (even during the negotiation for peace).
I think Bush and Cheney comprise the most corrupt and negligent administration in my lifetime.
What is important to the Jewish electorate, to the Jewish donors?
SOCIAL ISSUES: Poverty, education, health care, social safety net, environment.
When is AIPAC considered important? When Israel is perceived as under attack.
When is AIPAC very secondary? When Israel is perceived as at peace. (not now)
"You can hardly expect Phil to devote more time to your concerns."
All of the question revolve around Phil's asserted concerns.
If he doesn't consider a more thorough inquiry as worth his time, then he deserves criticism.
"Did the “Israel Lobby” actually cause the US to invade Iraq? "
The point is, were there OTHER critical reasons and pressures. If the Israel Lobby was one of many, why not analyze and describe the many, and in some sense of proportion.
If other concerns were the weight of argument, and Bush's weight of acceptance of the argument, then they should be articulated clearly and assertively.
If we're going to learn from this mistake, then lets actually learn, rather than repeat self-talk.
The "No More War for Israel" language exagerates the importance of the neo-conservative involvement to the level of persecution in word.
BOTH neo and old con's advocated for the invasion in Congress, and continue to.
McCain supported the war originally and continues to. Even Barr just started opposing the war.
"In this case we have Israel lobbyists and neocons actively pushing this war; and the media and good liberal Jews like you are refusing to interrogate them, or examine their degree of agency."
At day one, I opposed the war vigorously. I opposed every reasoning that I encountered.
I think you should interrogate them Phil. I think you should interrogate them specifically, their specific arguments, and not carelessly refer to Jews in general.
So, you can actually oppose the arguments, rather than bury liberals for not doing YOUR adopted work sufficiently.
"Liberals are complicit". That is the tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum argument. Its a bullshit approach. EVERY committed political activist in EVERY field, gets frustrated to the bone as to why others aren't as motivated or as pure as they.
The effective ones find attitudes that enable them to know and pursue their goal, rather than their irritation.
Richard Witty wrote: "At day one, I opposed the war vigorously."
Like you are opposing the current attempts to drum up a conflict with Iran? Or are you using the word "opposed" in the Wittyesque sense?
It should be pointed out that Richard has NEVER posted a link to even a scrap of evidence of his so-called "opposition" to the war.
The relevant period would be the summer and fall of 2002, Richard. We're still waiting.
"because 58 percent of them support an undivided Jerusalem"
Its a question asked and answered out of the context that you and others attempt to place it.
There are really finite choices to the question.
1. Do you prefer an undivided Jerusalem controlled by Israel and excluding all minorities? (Likely different answer, maybe 40%)
2. Do you prefer an undivided Jerusalem controlled by Israel and including all peaceful minorities? (thats your 58%)
3. Do you prefer a divided Jerusalem divided on the basis of plurality, with peaceful right of travel and potentially even residence, key word "peaceful". (Of Jews maybe 60%, of Palestinians maybe 60%)
4. Those that advocate for a single state or bi-national state also argue for an undivided Jerusalem, but on different premises. (Of Jews, maybe 10%, of Palestinians maybe 40%)
How would 60% state they want an undivided Jerusalem, and 60% prospectively state that they want a divided Jerusalem? (A fictional but plausible result)
I've done polling. I could achieve both results.
In view of the historical & iconic nature of Jerusalem, the larger world's view, Jerusalem must be shared in the most equitable way, a way commensurate with giving equal dignity to the two regional ethnic-religious groups most enmeshed, Israelis and Palestinians. Sharing actual control 50-50, but under a UN-mandated special soverignty entity owing allegiance to neither group/state. Anything else is a prescription for eternal war.
I guess it's just too much to ask Israel and the Palestinians to give up hope of having their state capital there. But it might be very wise, an ecumenical Jerusalem special entity divorced from
both Israel and (future) Palestine states.
The one-state solution seems a catalyst for endless civil war.
The American interest is to survive with its internal freedoms intact for its citizens, and with an economy able to insure same, given inevitable global economic competition. Not an easy order. But one that acknowledges the policy is to walk softly, peddle carrots acknowledging the real needs of other states, but carry a stick big enough for very occasional selective use to back up diplomacy (if absolutely needed).
Eisenhower Distinguished American, Israeli Interests
Eisenhower Versus Today's Presidents
by Joachim Martillo
Yesterday, Jean Edward Smith published a NY Times op-ed entitled OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; We Should Still Like Ike and made the following observation in the context of advising Barack Obama:
Smith specified Eisenhower's achievements in more detail within the body of the column but left out the most noteworthy by today's standards.
Eisenhower opposed the State of Israel when it waged aggressive war against Egypt in 1956.
That was superb Phil. I've learned so much reading your blog. Thanks.
Q What do you propose practically that the US do relative to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle?
A Oppose the occupation and the illegal settlements.
But really oppose, rather than pretend to oppose, saying one thing, doing the opposite. Oppose with sanctions such as turning off the annual aid spigot, oppose with threats of military withdrawal from surrounding states, oppose with physical force if necessary. Oppose by making illegal the monetary support by American Jews of illegal settlements, giving the Adelsons of this world a choice; prison or deportation to Israel.
Re US interests
'I think you dealt with this question far too trivially given the importance that the phrase has in works that you site as admiring (Walt/Mearsheimer). It is an IMPORTANT question to clarify.'
I agree. It's not enough to say simply 'To vigorously oppose apartheid in Palestine, so that we can help the Arab world reform' because the interests served appear to be those of the Arab world. What needs to be made clear is the extent to which America's reputation in the world, and it's future prosperity or even viability, depends upon sorting the ME mess out in a win-win rather than zero-sum way. You just can't play favourites no matter how overwhelming the imbalance of influence and power between the parties, no matter how close you may feel to one side over the other. US interests demand a more even-handed, long term strategy. Happily, this coincides with doing the right thing.
'My sense of "interest" for New England is VERY different than the sense of "interest" for Texas. For example, in my region it is more local to trade with Quebec than it is to trade with Texas. It is more MY COMMUNITY, even as New England and Texas are both in the United States.'
Classic Wittian evasion; grasp the core of an argument and atomise it until rendered harmless. You could go on down to the level of individual interests I suppose, but what will you have proved, apart from your apparently limitless ability to avoid confontation with the awful truth?
'I suggested that the questions each deserved much fuller discussion.'
You would. See above. You could teach us all a thing or two about trivialising. In fact, you tend to have that effect on all you wrangle with, me included. If it's all part of the approach, I have to dip my lid, grudgingly.
'I think you DON'T KNOW in fact, how or why the dollar votes that Jewish philanthropists (big and small) are expended, and it would take research to find out.'
Would you really support comprehensive research into Jewish political giving? Who would you allow to conduct it? M & W? J-Street? Phil? All too 'polemical'? How could such research be done in a way that would satisfy both of us?
'The generalization is what offends. It offends me. It offends other Jews.'
You will soon need to move past a sense of grievance into something more useful, and less dangerous. Other people are offended too, powerfully, implacably so, and part of what moves them is the palpable lack of responsibility in the Jewish community for what has been done largely by their partisans in their interests and those of Israel.
'For example, when the discussion on the Columbia exhibit was in swing, it seemed obvious to me that the nakba was presented as a polemic, not as information.'
And it might seem to other people that the uses the Holocaust has been put to also tend toward the polemical and propagandistic rather than the educative. It might also seem to those people that it's about time the public heard about the Nakba after years of drowning in treacly Holocaustiana, and that one little exhibition was nothing to stand beside it at all.
And another thing! If the Holocaust industry was interested in non-polemical, educative balance, people would already know a bit about the Nakba wouldn't they, it being the other side of the story? They wouldn't need a small and strenously ignored exhibition to bring them the news, would they?
'What is important to the Jewish electorate, to the Jewish donors?
SOCIAL ISSUES: Poverty, education, health care, social safety net, environment.'
One word missing. I'll give you a hand, it starts, appropriately enough, with an 'I'.
'I think the current US administration was grossly remiss in accepting the settlement blocs as functionally annexed by Israel, and in not more assertively twisting Israel's arms to oppose Palestinian house and grove demolitions, and to oppose the authorizations to build further in East Jerusalem (even during the negotiation for peace). I think Bush and Cheney comprise the most corrupt and negligent administration in my lifetime.'
It's nice to be able to agree with you Richard, rare as it is. My head has a far higher 'nod quotient' reading Phil's replies; most of your questions made me shake my head. Almost all of them it seems to me flow from a psychological clash between a deeply held tribal solidarity, and the onrush of reality you encounter here, which you must know at some level is spurred by the ongoing disaster many of your community's leaders have sponsored.
That unacknowledged conflict leads to some extravagant mental gymnastics.
Practical and responsible USA security strategy should be designed for the USA, not Israel. Obama's first run was to AIPAC, where he called Israel's security sacrosanct. This position compromises the USA which cannot operate under it as a just sovereign from a hegemonic POV. If Israel's security is sacrosanct, the security of others in the region is not. Their security is defined by the whim of Israel, or defined as in Iraq, by the whim of USA president.
It would've been nice to hear Obama tell AIPAC that Israel's security must respect human rights and fall with in the bounds of international law and that Israel state its case before the UN. Although there is anti-semitism at the UN, the real issue has more to do with Israel’s actions regarding the rights of Palestinians in general and because Israel is armed with atomic weapons in breach of the laws governing the nonproliferation of atomic weapons. Israel’s WMD contradict the National Security Strategy of President Bush.
If security in the Middle East were the sacrosanct policy of the United States government there would be peace in the Middle East. Who wins by the current state of perpetual war and chaos? Not the USA, which stands at the door of total bankruptcy, hated by world consensus.
Israel's eistence is one thing; the imprisonment of an entire people is altogether something else. That cannot be called “security” and it cannot not defended.
A responsible American government would exchange dogmatism for pragmatism.
If the Jewish lobby continues to threaten American interests then it will eventually be crushed; conditions for this increase–if the US dollar becomes so weak that the US begins to crumble then there will arise American politicians who will blame the collapse of US power on Jews—these politicians will at first be unpopular but as the depression thickens they will win power. Jews perhaps ought to recognize that they do not really have any place to run other than the US (well there is of course Israel but undermining the US is part and parcel to undermining the future of Israel), which because they serve two masters, it will be argued that they are undermining us at the expense of Israel—which ultimately means that they are undermining the nation (Israel) they love as well.
Israel operates as it does because it has no constraints placed on it by the US—ironically this is because American leadership “appeases” Israel. This is the real appeasement, not Obama's willingness to talk to the alleged “enemy”–such statements by Bush and McCain merely show that these men are provincial dogmatists. Thus when Israel takes it upon itself to invade Lebanon over the kidnapping of two soldiers and a few rockets it is totally out of proportion to “the threat”. Still the invasion was allowable because there is no American foreign policy constraint in place saying—if you take any unilateral military action you will be punished. A combination of the EU and the US does have the power to tell Israel either you behave as though you belong to this world or else you will pay financially. The price of Israel’s failed invasion and their inability to “conquer” Lebanon ought to send alarm bells in regards to Israel’s hawkish standpoint.
American interests are largely the same as that of the world—stability in the region means a constant price on oil, which enhances sound principles for global stability and prospering trade and a constant price on oil means that which regulates its price are normal economic forces (war is not a normal economic force)—for example that the value of the dollar is strong (in parity with the Euro) and inflation in the US is low.
The USA role is not to be Israel’s little shoe shiner boy, but rather to be the master of diplomacy so that if peace is to be created then all parties in the Middle East must be brought together and a deal hammered out. Thus when Bush decided to attack Iraq he punishes the world as well as Americans and when Israel attacks Lebanon they too punish the world because it destabilizes the region and it increases the animosity towards the US because the world knows that Israel takes the action it takes with the blessings of America written all over it—so much for bringing democracy to the middle east. It also fuels Arabs with grounds to jack up the price of oil.
It's not impossible to create a Palestinian State. The other option is that Israel becomes a true democracy as opposed to a “Jewish State” for Jews. Then the walling in of Palestinians would be undemocratic. Such a situation would mean that Palestinians vote as citizens of Israel and as such entitled to all of the rights entitled to Israelis. This would mean that policing the people with tanks and machine guns would also be illegal and the assassinations would be illegal and that people cannot simple be held indefinitely or tortured but would have to be arrested using “evidence” and in general Israel would have to abide by such principles as “habeas corpus” and “due process”. So Democracy in Israel wouldn’t be Democracy for Jews and Prison for Palestinians but rather Democracy for both.
Instead we have an apartheid regime that hides behind American cowardice—with the exception of Jimmy Carter who is refusing to appease Israel—here appeasement means that Israel is not held accountable for its apartheid policies.
Had the US not appeased Israel then the “unilateral” invasion of Lebanon would have been met with immediate sanctions against Israel or appeasement is allowing Israel to have nukes while Iran is to be hunted down like a stray dog—or if we recalled Saddam Hussein’s “unilateral” invasion of Kuwait was met with immediate retaliation by the US while the total destruction of Lebanon by Israel was met with a 30 billion dollar paycheck complements of Uncle Sam.
Quite a few illusions in that last comment, Charles.
1. The US does not hold Israel accountable. A loony assertion. Others that dissent describe Israel as a puppet of the US.
Which is it? Puppet or puppeteer?
2. Obama was accurate in describing Israel's security as sancrosanct. It is even consistent with the premise that you proposed of security for the middle east. EACH state's security is sancrosanct, especially from terror.
3. America will hold Jews responsible for financial instability. Unlikely in fact. Racist in intent. Consistent with the racist "Jews control finance". Its a lie.
4. I'm glad that you acknowledged that the war in Iraq was for oil. FINALLY.
5. Israel unilaterally attacked Lebanon. I'm assuming that you were speaking of last year. I guess you don't remember that Hezbollah undertook its raid within Israel, and was accompanied by shelling of Israeli border towns. And, that during the course of the war, Hezbollah shelled cities as large and cosmopolitan as Haifa. And, that Hezbollah was in the Lebanese government, and declared itself as THE military defender of southern Lebanon.
Not exactly "unilateral".
6. America's interests. By Phil's criteria, America's interests are NOT solely its economic ones, but social and character as well (which you referred to).
Emphasizing economic interests as "America's" is to exagerate American based corporations to some patriotic status (often multi-national in operations and very much so in ownership).
Referencing oil as the economic interest at stake is particularly dicey, as its been the negligence of pursuing America's interests to conserve (to be less depandant on commodities external to the public land, and to reduce fixed costs), that made the economic even possibly supercede the relationship.
I contest that RELATIONS are what are most important, and the US is in a close and cooperative relationship with the US.
The USA also has an equal interest in all the international laws that have derived from the Nuremburg Trials, as well as those
domestic civil rights laws written large, e.g., as we did with Apartheid S. Africa. These moral laws are equal to ours and the world's pragmatic laws regarding oil. The war in Iraq was for both oil and Israel, with Israel being the main motive. We dealt with Saddam easily regarding oil. Big Oil was not on the war bandwagon; the neocon cabal was.
Pupper or puppeteer? The American politicians looked at what happened to Bush Sr when he tried to stop the occupation, including his own son, as they looked at what happened to the democrat campaigner who had called for "even handed" treatment. Result: All aboard the AIPAC train, right down to this day. I'd call that tail wagging the donkey.
Not that EACH state's security is sancrosanct, especially from terror, but that humanity should be sancrosanct–protected from all forms of terror, including state-sponsered variety. What else is the ultimate lesson of the SHOAH?
If it's BS that Americans may hold Jews to account for American dollar decline (in conjunction with one-sided foreign policy), why be so concerned about a perpetual (apartheid) Jewish state as a Jewish safe haven?
Richard, look at the big picture when discussing Israel's most recent attack on Lebanon. Are you joking?
'If the Jewish lobby continues to threaten American interests then it will eventually be crushed; conditions for this increase–if the US dollar becomes so weak that the US begins to crumble then there will arise American politicians who will blame the collapse of US power on Jews—these politicians will at first be unpopular but as the depression thickens they will win power'
I agree. There is warm complacent bubble of unconcern about this on the surface and I know Phil's optimism precludes any serious entertainment of the thought of a general backlash against Jews, but the desperation of the guilty – look at Doug Feith's frantic backpedalling away from what he championed a few years ago – illustrates a fear that is a long way from irrational.
The fear of Richard's 'posse'. (By the way Richard, a posse was formed was it not by concerned locals to roust up miscreants and criminals? Trouble is, they often ended up causing collateral damage to innocents too. A bit like Iraq, wouldn't you say, or Gaza and the West Bank? How many of the overwhelming 10 to 1 ratio of Palestinian dead, especially the children, were guilty of anything at all? How many of the million plus dead Iraqis were 'evil ones' deserving of their fates? When the blowback arrives we can't get too upset if it doesn't prove terribly forensic in it's targeting.)
The Lobby has persuaded, schmoozed, bought or intimidated it's way into a position that appears impregnable, but if the social dislocation that comes with economic distress is severe enough, all bets are off. Those emerging politicians Charles mentions will encounter strong media and official opposition to begin with, but high decibel talking head hectoring will lose it's power to compel conformity, relative to how bad things get.
If you read James Kunstler or John Robb regularly as I do, perhaps you are more prone to this sort of pessimism, but even George Soros (in the NY Rev) has recently made some uncharacteristically blunt assessments about the short to medium term, with no rosy horizons looming in the long.
I wrote a comment on Antony Loewenstein's blog on 7 May 2005 on a thread on AIPAC pushing for war with Iran. This was only a few days after Larry Franklin surrendered to the FBI. I was marvelling at the Lobby's gall, it's nerve. Spying for Israel on Israel's benefactor and guarantor. And I too pondered the possibility of political antisemitism arising as a result…
'Isn't there a danger that someone, 'some strange beast', at some stage, perhaps when the economic shit really hits the fan and/or a whole platoon of grunts gets clipped by insurgents on primetime… isn't it possible that a charismatic, all American, latter day Barry Goldwater type will emerge from backwoods America to reveal the 'gorilla in the room' in no uncertain terms, destroying the artfully arranged and strictly maintained 'story' of US/Israeli relations…'
(not realising at that point Goldwater was himself Jewish)
'A bit of Pat Buchanan, some David Duke, a dash of Joe McCarthy. An articulate demagogue who won't cut his cloth to Zionist patterns as all US politicians presently do and who, by the simple but forgotten virtue of cussedness, refuses to toe the well-trodden line, starting a debate that, despite the heroically undemocratic efforts of the AIPACS and ADLs and JINSAs to silence it, spirals out into the public sphere as a spark, which in air parched dry by decades of untruth, explodes into an inferno of 'fifth column' and 'dual loyalty' ugliness, the scales falling from a hundred million eyes as their owners decide to reassert 'Christian' and 'American' virtues at the heart of their great nation, and so on til your ears hurt. This scenario becomes more likely if any Mossad involvement in 911, for which there are disturbing signs, can be proved.'
Well, the signs are for foreknowledge rather than involvement, but I think that distinction would be lost under the circumstances likely to obtain if Father Coughlin returns.
'Such a person is of course likely to be cut off at the knees while still in short shorts… there will be film of him jacking off in a motel room or taking a backhander for a friendly vote. Even without that, he would be suffocated by a lack of oxygen, no news being good news in that information-poor society.
But the mob is a dangerous thing and it can be unpredictable when the going gets tough. A severe recession and no amount of media control will prevent people asking the relevant questions, at last. And getting some answers too, though not always the correct ones.
Which is where our 'beast' begins to slouch toward Washington – the problem being that babies will be thrown out with bathwater in a typical American orgy of fright, so that some of it's worthiest citizens, people at the forefront of principled opposition, might be tarred by their ethno-religious association with the spies and fifth columnists…
I don't think he will appear, and I hope to God he doesn't, but there is a strong desire in me and many others for that blindfold that keeps America separate from the rest of us more than any other issue, to be lifted, ripped away, so that they can begin to make decisions (which affect all our futures) on facts rather than fantasies.'
The Gorilla in the Room. Ironically that was the name of another blog some might recall that started with a bang, apparently run by an anonymous Washington insider around the time the war began, and then continued to whimper on for a while after the insider had been encouraged to desist after his activities were discovered by his employer (or so the story went). It was anodyne and harmless thereafter.
There weren't a lot of places to vent about Lobby related issues back then (and some had other fixations I didn't share), Antony being one of the only venues with such a focus. Now of course we have Phil and quite a few other places, a mushrooming of talk and argument which is one of the best ways to avoid the scenarios described above. But it must 'edge into the mainstream' as Phil believes M & W's ideas have done, to be an effective prophylactic.
Richard Witty: judging by the amount of comments you left on this post alone, I'd say you either need a day-job or a more healthy hobby than attempting to dominate this blog.
Give it a rest dude and stop harassing Mr. Weiss so much.