Muhammad Idrees Ahmad writes:
Here is another former ally breaking with Chomsky over the lobby. M. Shahid Alam, a frequent target of the lobby (and Campus watch), has been described by Chomsky as one of the best development economists (and like James Petras, his books have carried blurbs from Chomsky). Excerpts:
Here is another former ally breaking with Chomsky over the lobby. M. Shahid Alam, a frequent target of the lobby (and Campus watch), has been described by Chomsky as one of the best development economists (and like James Petras, his books have carried blurbs from Chomsky). Excerpts:
It is scarcely to be doubted that Jews hold – and deservedly so – a disproportionate share of the leadership positions in corporations, the labor movement, and those professions that shape public discourse. Starting in the 1980s, the ascendancy of Jewish neoconservatives – together with their think tanks – gave American Jews an equally influential voice in conservative circles. Certainly, the weight of Jewish neoconservative opinion during the early years of President Bush – both inside and outside his administration – has been second to that of none. The substantial Jewish presence in the leadership circles of the other pressure groups undermines Chomsky’s contention that the pro-Israeli group is “far broader” than the American Jewish community….
The activism of the American Jews – as individuals and groups – has operated at several levels. Certainly, the leaders of the Zionist movement have directed a large part of their energies to lobbying at the highest levels of official decision-making. At the same time, they have created, and they orchestrate, a layered network of Zionist organizations who have worked very hard to create support for their aims in the broader American civil society…
Why does it matter whether it is oil or the Jewish lobby that determines US policy towards Israel and the Middle East? The answer to this question has important consequences. It will determine who is in charge, and, therefore, who should be targeted by people who oppose Israel’s war mongering and its destruction of Palestinian society. If US policy is driven by America’s strategic interests – and Israel is a strategic US asset – opposing this policy will not be easy. If Israel keeps the oil flowing, keeps it cheap, and keeps down the Arabs and Islamists – all this for a few billion dollars a year – that is a bargain. In this case, opponents of this policy face an uphill task. Sure, they can document the immoral consequences of this policy – as Noam Chomsky and others do. Such moral arguments, however, will not cut much ice.
What are the chances that Americans can be persuaded to sacrifice their “stupendous prize” because it kills a few tens of thousands of Arabs? On the other hand, if the Jewish lobby drives US policy towards the Middle East, there is some room for optimism. Most importantly, the opponents of this policy have to dethrone the reigning paradigm, which claims that Israel is a strategic asset. In addition, it is necessary to focus attention on each element of the real costs – economic, political and moral – that Israel imposes on the United States. Winning these intellectual arguments will be half the battle won; this will persuade growing numbers of Americans to oppose a policy because it hurts them. Simultaneously, those who seek justice for the Palestinians must organize to oppose the power of the Israel lobby and take actions that force Israel to bear the moral, economic and political consequences of its destructive policies in the Middle East.
The activism of the American Jews – as individuals and groups – has operated at several levels. Certainly, the leaders of the Zionist movement have directed a large part of their energies to lobbying at the highest levels of official decision-making. At the same time, they have created, and they orchestrate, a layered network of Zionist organizations who have worked very hard to create support for their aims in the broader American civil society…
Why does it matter whether it is oil or the Jewish lobby that determines US policy towards Israel and the Middle East? The answer to this question has important consequences. It will determine who is in charge, and, therefore, who should be targeted by people who oppose Israel’s war mongering and its destruction of Palestinian society. If US policy is driven by America’s strategic interests – and Israel is a strategic US asset – opposing this policy will not be easy. If Israel keeps the oil flowing, keeps it cheap, and keeps down the Arabs and Islamists – all this for a few billion dollars a year – that is a bargain. In this case, opponents of this policy face an uphill task. Sure, they can document the immoral consequences of this policy – as Noam Chomsky and others do. Such moral arguments, however, will not cut much ice.
What are the chances that Americans can be persuaded to sacrifice their “stupendous prize” because it kills a few tens of thousands of Arabs? On the other hand, if the Jewish lobby drives US policy towards the Middle East, there is some room for optimism. Most importantly, the opponents of this policy have to dethrone the reigning paradigm, which claims that Israel is a strategic asset. In addition, it is necessary to focus attention on each element of the real costs – economic, political and moral – that Israel imposes on the United States. Winning these intellectual arguments will be half the battle won; this will persuade growing numbers of Americans to oppose a policy because it hurts them. Simultaneously, those who seek justice for the Palestinians must organize to oppose the power of the Israel lobby and take actions that force Israel to bear the moral, economic and political consequences of its destructive policies in the Middle East.
Related posts:
- Chomsky says Israel lobby has no power next to Lockheed and Microsoft
- Chomsky Slaps Israel Lobby Theory as ‘Marginal Irrelevancy’
- Nader Talks About Israel Lobby Implicitly, Chomsky Doesn’t
- A J Street ‘ambassador’ says group must leave lobby and ally with ‘foreign policy establishment’
- Press Differs on Whether Emanuel Will Serve Israel
{ 8 comments }
The reason that oil is paramount in US strategic thinking, is that the US is DEPENDANT on oil for nearly all aspects of its economy.
Even with necessity as the mother of invention, there is no possibility of a hydrogen centered, or solar-centered energy infrastructure for 75 years.
Its VERY said, and VERY true.
Good point.
I don't blame Chomsky for showing some vestigial ethnic loyalty, but it's worth pointing out where he goes wrong.
In terms of domestic political analysis, chomsky never even sets out, so he can't 'go wrong'. This is the advantage of being an anarchist, you don't have to have a coherent theory of domestic politics.
I mean, when you look at it, chomsky never analyses the famous 'power of the corporations' or 'the military-industrial complex' in terms of who actually owns it, does he? and nor does hardly anyone else.
I don't understand this debate. In view of large numbers of non-Jews and Christian Zionists involved in the pro-Israel lobby–not just in the US but also in Britain, in Canada, in Australia, and perhaps other places that I don't know as much about–what's wrong with "Chomsky’s contention that the pro-Israeli group is 'far broader' than the American Jewish community." The Canadian pro-Israel lobby, for example, practically runs Montreal and, with the support of countless businesses, corporations, and PM Harper's darling, the oil industry, has significant influence on Canadian national politics.
What am I missing here?
Here are my thoughts and I hope someone reads them.
I wouldn't be so hard on Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein on this.
Sure, they may downplay the Lobby a bit, but the rest of may be overplaying it.
The Crux of Chomsky's arguments is that the U.S. is an aggressive power bent on world domination. He would point to very destabilizing actions in South America (Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc) In South east Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia) all of which resulted in lots of dead people, and it's really hard to blame AIPAC for all that.
American hostility toward Iran can only partly be blamed on the Lobby. The U.S. had it pretty good with a puppet like the Shaw in power and is mad that he's gone. They're mad about the hostages (still) and they're mad that Iran isn't a puppet like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, etc.
Just like they are mad at Cuba. It's because Castro overthrew their man Batista. Is AIPAC stopping us from befriending Cuba?
So like I've always said; change will come when the balance of power changes in the region. Changes to the point where blind support becomes obviously costly to parties in power here. Such as a nuclear Iran, a strong Hizbullah, and a collapse of the puppet regimes in Egypt, Jordan, etc. Add to that a resurgent Russia and oil back above a hundred and the game changes overnight.
Then you will see a different attitude towards Israel here.
Except the support for Israel is not blind. And regardless of the situational changes, until the rest of the world treats Israel with the same respect it treats every other country, or at least treats every other country as it does Israel, the US will support Israel 98% of the time.
Lysander, I agree with much of what you wrote, but you might give more attention to this part of Alam's statement –
"Why does it matter whether it is oil or the Jewish lobby that determines US policy towards Israel and the Middle East? The answer to this question has important consequences. It will determine who is in charge, and, therefore, who should be targeted by people who oppose Israel’s war mongering and its destruction of Palestinian society."
This confusion about who exactly we're talking about (if anyone) can also be found in statements like your own "the U.S. is an aggressive power bent on world domination," and "The U.S. had it pretty good with a puppet like the Shaw." Who had it pretty good? You, me, big oil, "imperialists"?
It matters if we want to change things, as opposed to sitting back waiting for the world order to evolve. What people resent is that Chomsky never spent a single penny of his considerable political capital in promoting any action against the Zionist state, such as the BDS campaign that he supported against South Africa.
Comments on this entry are closed.