Opinion shifts at a glacial pace, but move it does. The other night I heard Patrick Tyler, author of the very good and comprehensive book “A World of Trouble” on American presidents and the Middle East. In his talk he singled out for praise Eisenhower and Carter, my preferences as well. The audience was a kind of foreign affairs discussion group of about sixty which meets regularly in Washington. The participants –save for some exceptions– seem to be current or former members of a somewhat-overtaken Washington establishment. Generally Waspy, many retired ambassadors, officials from previous administrations whose names you would recognize, authors. The group was formed after 9-11, and almost all of its members opposed the Iraq war. But in an establishment sort of way.
What was striking was the shift in tone on the Israel-Palestine question, from what might be bland State Department two-state advocacy to something more energized and angry. Tyler was exceptionally well-informed, and fluent about the details of contemporary diplomacy and incidents that took place forty years ago. He was also surprisingly optimistic—thinking that Obama, if he chooses to, could intervene and bring about something like a solution on Taba lines–that hopes and expectations in the region are still very high.
I don’t read the situation that way, and neither did the audience.
Tyler received early on a well-informed question about the Israeli sinking of the USS Liberty. He answered that he thought there was persuasive evidence the sinking wasn’t pre-planned or intentional, but it was clear he had spent a lot of time talking with those who did, and he wasn’t dismissive of them.
Next question came from a former US senator, about AIPAC, its rise in influence, its ability to bundle money to shape the political process, its capacity to stymie any meaningful diplomatic effort towards a two state solution by the US. Then came a question about how Israel is “diversifying” its assets in the US, through Christian Zionism.
The woman seated next to me, once a star New York Times writer, now an author, thought Tyler’s optimism about the two-state solution being near was completely off base.
I would submit that you wouldn’t have heard questions like this in a group of this sort five years ago. There wouldn’t have been the knowledge, there wouldn’t have been the anger. The climate is shifting, ever so slowly, but its trend is unmistakable.
Could you elaborate on “overtaken?” Isn’t it a recurrent theme of this site of ethnicity vis-a-vis Iraq war support and a position in Israel/Palestine? If possible, it would be helpful to elaborate on this issue of ethnicity, etablishment, membership in the ‘establishment, and any correlations with that to position to the overthrow of Saddam?
Well, it seems the teen flicks that have traditionally been depicted WASP scapegoats in so many
teen movies will no longer do:
link to vanishingamerican.blogspot.com
So how will Hollywood pick its latest teen scapegoats? How to populate the bad versus the good HS cheerleaders? What is the internet-supported populist will, and will the
Jews of Hollywood grasp it? Palin and Grayson? What do they have in common other than hasbara? Stay tuned as to that, or rather, as to the same theme.
Overtaken establishment=potential recruits to faileoconservatism?
The key thing to remember about the USS Liberty incident is that the investigation was
conducted as if the US Navy was investigating whether or not a Navy man had not gone on deck to swab it in a proper timely manner. Talk about cover-up and sticking it to the US masses, you can’t get better than the USS Liberty incident.
Scott,
I don’t think that much has changed as far as conventions of political attitudes on Israel or the middle east.
The relationship of pandering to oil interests, and the pervasive role of oil dependancy remains.
The nature of the conflict between Israel and Palestine and between the various factions in Palestine has changed only incrementally. There have been two positive trends recently, that are entirely independant of the war in Lebanon and war in Gaza, that Phil and others attribute to the perceived change.
1. Improvement in governance by the PA including much more accountability relative to corruption, and improvement in the development of institutions of governance and law by the PA.
2. Voluntary at least temporary restraint from terror by Hamas.
If permanent, these changes are qualitative and will result in the removal of all arguments against a Palestinian state.
It temporary and return to former status, then there will never be a Palestinian state, as there will never be any basis for a humane person to confidently advocate that a terrorist Palestine is more just than an Israeli occupation, or better geo-politically for US interests (any of them).
The communities that you identified as gathering have always gathered whether formally or informally. The period of time when Anglo and State/CIA Arabists predominated (Eisenhaur era), were NOT necessarily times of enlightened foreign policy.
I saw an interview with Pat Buchanon after the Gulf War resolution passed Congress. He stated in that interview that as far as he was concerned the period of dissent from the position of opposition to US war efforts in Iraq was passed. He stated that once there were US troups on the ground or in any engagement, that it was the responsibility of patriots to support the troups, including supporting the President as commander in chief. So much for Pat Buchanon as principled “dissenter” with moral backbone, independant of political winds.
Witty,
The period of time when Anglo and State/CIA Arabists predominated (Eisenhaur era), were NOT necessarily times of enlightened foreign policy.
The Eisenhower era, and specifically its foreign policy, was profoundly enlightened for one reason: Eisenhower kept America out of war. [Read the edicts of the Founding Fathers for elucidation.]
I saw an interview with Pat Buchanon [sic] after the Gulf War resolution passed Congress.
Are you referring to 20 years ago?
2003
The US was involved in military interventions during his administration. Eisenhower Doctrine and foreign policy
After the Suez Crisis, the United States became the protector of most Western interests in the Middle East. As a result, Eisenhower proclaimed the “Eisenhower Doctrine” in January 1957. In relation to the Middle East, the U.S. would be “prepared to use armed force…[to counter] aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” On July 15, 1958, he sent just under 15,000 soldiers to Lebanon (a combined force of Army and Marine Corps) as part of Operation Blue Bat, a non-combat peace keeping mission to stabilize the pro-Western government. They left in October of the same year.
In addition, Eisenhower explored the option of supporting the French colonial forces in Vietnam who were fighting an independence insurrection there. In 1953, Eisenhower sent Lt. General John W. “Iron Mike” O’Daniel to Vietnam to study and “assess” the French forces therein.[50] Chief of Staff Matthew Ridgway dissuaded the President from intervening by presenting a comprehensive estimate of the massive military deployment that would be necessary. However, later in 1954, Eisenhower did offer military and economic aid to the new nation of South Vietnam.[51] In the years that followed, the number of US military advisors in South Vietnam increased due to North Vietnam’s support of “uprisings” in the south and concern the nation would fall.[51]
As the Cold War deepened, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, sought to isolate the Soviet Union by building regional alliances of nations against it. His efforts were sometimes called “pacto-mania”.[52]
Witty, If you’re going to quote Wikipedia verbiage as your own, acknowledge it. Wikipedia is not the most reliable source on the planet.
Name the war we were in during Eisenhower’s tenure.
And people wonder why he doesn’t work anymore, let alone at Hampshire College. Oh wait a minute. No we don’t. :)
Hey MRW, I understand colleges have software these days to detect plagiarism by lazy undergrads. We need the same for blogs, although in this case Witty even left in the footnotes, making it pretty easy to spot.
The relationship of pandering to oil interests, and the pervasive role of oil dependancy remains.
I’m not really sure which oil interests you’re talking about. The Oil guys like George HW Bush, his National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and his Sec of State James Baker, phillip Carrol of Shell were against the Iraq invasion: they didn’t get what they want. The oil companies were lobbying to drop Iraqi sanctions: they didn’t get what they wanted.
Maybe when the top Al Qaeda platform the Arab world agrees with the most is to push the US to stop favoring Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, its clear that unifying the Arab world against the US is contradictory to these goals. its “divide and conquer,” not ‘unify a disorganized region against you.’
Indeed.
with respect to Iran, US companies were forced to walk away from very lucrative oil field development contracts with Iran at the behest of Israel: AIPAC forced Clinton to sign an executive order forbidding such deals. Fearful that an executive order could be reversed by a subsequent president who, heaven forfend, might declare his independence from Israeli influence, AIPAC worked the Congress until the executive order was enshrined in legislation — the Libya-Iran Sanctions Act. Pistachios were excepted — seems Israelis like the little green nuts.
A few minutes of research produces ample evidence that the US did not wage war on Iraq for the sake of US oil interests. On the other hand, Doug Feith made a deal with Ahmed Chalabi for oil pipelines to Eilat.
Plus, while Cheney is often raised, people sometimes forget that at this point in the mid nineties, Cheney was calling a possible Iraq war a quagmire, argued against Iranian sanctions, and was selling Iraq oil production equipment. All positions in direct contrast to the neoconservatives. Cheney aligned with the neocons sometime after the election.
Incidentally? Ahmed Chalabi has to be the greatest freakin’ con man in the history of the world.
Cheney was aligned with the neocons well before the election. He had to leave the board of JINSA when he took office.
Cheney was aligned with the neocons well before the election. He had to leave the board of JINSA when he took office.
He was also with the AEI.
However, he was not aligned with the neocons on Iraq and Iran. Cheney very publicly argued against the sanctions on both countries and was very public about his position on Iraq as a quagmire.
Funny how Cheney still made out like a bandit thanks to his ties to Haliburton and no-bid government war contracts, regardless.
I would like to get more information on Cheney.
So far, the picture I see of him is one of an opportunist. Cheney’s position on Iraq was much harder (even with the invasion as a quagmire comment) before he was CEO of Hallb. Cheney’s position against Iraq radically changed when he was named CEO of Halliburton.
Theres plenty of people here that compile vast quantities of information. Maybe someone will show up with new info.
Scott,
I think you’ve hit on something. Among those I know who are intelligent enough to care for more than the sports scores in life, but regular folk, Israel is now seen as run by a bunch of freeloading gangsters who could never have succeeded without American treasure: taxpayer cash, donations via taxpayer cash (again), and industrial espionage. And they are unimpressed by the oom-pah-pah of ‘look what we created’. It’s an ennui with arguments that not even the Vietnamese carry on with, and the Vietnamese lost millions at our hand.
But as you observed, now there are the balls to speak up.
How about Reagan’s dead US marines?
link to counterpunch.org