David Green, who has been a friend to this site, takes on my belief in the Israel lobby in this post at Palestine Chronicle. His is the standard leftist critique of the lobby theory, saying that there is nothing to praise in the so-called American interest, and the U.S. is motivated by imperial/material concerns and not by ethnicity. Here’s the heart of his objection:
American politicians and pundits are loyal to themselves, their wealth and status, their class of people, and the neoliberal world order so long as it benefits them—which it has, to say the least…
It’s a beautiful Saturday and I want to go skiing, but a few words. Green is, like Chomsky, whom he quotes a lot, a materialist; he sees wealth as a great motivation for states and political actors. So do I. The error, though, is that they dismiss religious ideology as a political motivator; and in doing so Green shows himself to be shallow and mechanistic. He reminds me of all the commentators who said that the religious right were voting against their economic self-interest in supporting Bush in 2004. Right. People have other motivations than strict material self-interest. AIPAC is filled with rich people who can’t wait to give away their money. They are motivated by ethnocentrism, and Zionism. The Iraq war was a giant disaster materially, forseeably. It was motivated by various ideologies, including Zionism among the neocons.
The trouble with Green’s analysis is that it overlooks or treats as trivial such facts as:
–Ann Lewis, Democratic Jewish powerbroker, saying in ’08 that the role of the US gov’t is to support what the people of Israel want; she is expressing a religious fervor;
–The US government helps create a government in Iraq that includes former terrorist groups but specifically excludes Hamas from any government-making negotiations in Israel (why the double standard?)
–Barack Obama runs for president as an anti-Iraq-war candidate and gets past Hillary on that basis, but even as he does so calls for Jerusalem to remain undivided and can’t say a word against Israel’s Iraq, Gaza (why the double standard?)
–Sheldon Adelson gives $300,000 to the Republican Party in 2000 not because of any material interest but because he doesn’t want Jerusalem divided, as the Camp David negotiations suggested it might be, and days after the last tranche of that money is delivered, Douglas Feith, a nobody cipher who helped set up the One Jerusalem lobby out of desire to maintain a greater Israel, is hired to a high position in the Pentagon in the upcoming Bush administration.
–Obama’s own national security adviser, Gen’l Jones, going to J Street and saying that the Israel/Palestine conflict is the one issue that it is in the best interest of the US to resolve to guarantee greater security for its citizens; and lo, J Street is smeared in Israel; and Obama makes no progress on this stated objective…
It goes on and on. This is an important conversation; because the old materialist left needs to integrate an understanding of the power of religious thinking into its analysis. Yes I know religion is the opiate of the masses. It turns out that religious feeling and ethnocentric feeling too pervades human life, even in the elites.
Then there’s the 9/11 commission whose chairman asked high ranking FBI agents as to the motivation behind the attacks, and one by one they all said that the main motivator was the US’s unquestionable support for Israel and its crimes.
As Phil’s article shows, there is a trend here. And that trend points to the overwhelming influence of the Israel lobby.
To refuse to accept such facts is to put ideology ahead of logic, and that’s what motivates many of Israel’s foot soldiers.
What Phil says is true – the new (old) way of dismissing the “dual loyalty” argument is to conflate jews and wealth, then claim that it’s the latter that corrupts the former, nothing to do with zionism. But one knows the argument is an empty one, because the moment one does exactly that – conflating jews with money and/or influence, out come the hidden daggers of “anti-semitism”. So the Chomsky style argument “it’s all about money” used to dismiss the jewish lobby as “just another lobby”, before going on to wax about the evil of all lobbies, is but a sophisticated form of subterfuge – a deflection of a valid criticism, practiced most commonly by people on the left. This is exactly the type of earnest argumentation that people like Jeffrey Blankfort have spent decades taking apart (and he comes in for rather unfair criticism in David green’s piece). To make the issue even more complicated, for many people it is not necessarily simple zionism that underlies the contention that the Lobby is merely a case of “boys will be boys”. IMO, this line of argument is motivated primarily by fear – for self and community. It is a tacit recognition that Jewish power, wealth and influence has indeed become both too visible and too ubiquitous to give one comfort. The neocons are too obviously infused with this new sense power and are wielding it with too much relish, even as the dire consequences – to the US – of their zionist/tribalist world view are there for all to see. As every jew knows, nothing like jewish history to illustrate that what goes up must come down.
So in this respect, the protestations by well meaning and well analysing people like Green may not be motivated by some deep unacknowledged zionism, but spring from a well of bottomless worry. The worry is not groundless, which may be why they take the labels of “dual loyalty” so much to heart. Because while they may not be guilty of it personally, they share the worry with people like Dersh, who are.
This is a very common oversight that Phil picks up. Another common reply is to look at resources as a motivating factor for the first gulf war. However, there too you have:
Phil, this was also covered at some length on this thread
All, when the liberal moderate left asks the right questions and confirms the right answers.
That is live and let live. Actual democracy rather than ideological.
You mean as in the movie Cabaret song? Or as in “democratic” Israel, which is a true democracy–for 80% of its citizens who happen not to be Arabs.
People do indeed have other motivations than strict material self-interest; they have non-material, symbolic interests. Sociology has come a long way in the past few decades towards understanding the political economy of symbolic power, but a lot of leftists haven’t been paying attention.
I’d also like to add that its common for historians to point out how, in the 1940′s, many in the U.S. government were against supporting UN partition of Israel because of oil and materialist concerns (like inflaming the arabs). There was also a fear within the U.S. that the Soviets would use of this volatile mix of U.S. support for Israel against the US. Support for Israel came from ideological sources and, a “moral commitment to Jews” -and for a fear of a loss of Jewish support.
Frankly, its very easy to expose this materialist argument as the ideological arguments often run counter to materialistic concerns.
No question Truman was flattered as being the reincarnation of Cyrus The Great; this registered with Truman, who had read the bible many times over in his youth, and that Truman needed Jewish money for his whistle stop campaign, and also feared it would be thrown to Dewey. The Zionists made all this perfectly clear to Truman.
Since I can’t post on Green’s article:
Another series of important points are summed up by Walt.
People pushing a materialist point of view often omit the indisputable fact that neoconservatives fought very hard for more than a decade and won a series of political battles to achieve the war against Iraq. Neoconservatives lobbied hard for Bill Clinton to pass the Iraq liberation act. Clinton, of course, was criticized for not really implementing a bill he passed under extreme political duress during a low point in his Lewinsky scandal. Bush and Cheney were in line with neoconservative goals against Iraq and Iran until after September 11. Various scholars, like Sneigoski, Halper, Clarke, and Heilbrun note how the neoconservative rapid success over Colin Powell, stunned the political establishment. People really didn’t expect that they would be able to run rough shod over such a powerful and dominant person like Powell.
The neoconservatives ideological affinities towards Center and Center-right Israel are also undisputed. Many are very, very open about their affinities and have strong political connections to groups like Likud. They wrote openly in 1996 how removing Saddam would be “an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” Its an extreme task to ignore the very clear and very open ideological affinities of people who undoubtedly and very openly pushed for this war.
A few relevant excerpts from the conclusion to Stephen J.
Sniegoski’s The Transparent Cabal–well over 400 pages, extensively supported by footnotes from the horse’s mouth straight from sources available to anyone (hence the title of the book–all Sniegoski did was connect the dots because the USA MSM refused to do so, preferring to keep the US masses ignorant):
“Suffice it to say that the neoconser-
vatives viewed American foreign policy through the lens of Israel’s interests,
as Likudniks have perceived Israel’s interest. Quite likely they truly viewed
Israel’s interests to be America’s interests, rather than seeing themselves as
sacrificing the interests of the United States for the sake of Israel. Self-de-
ception is not uncommon in ideologically driven individuals.
———
That a
“passionate attachment” to a foreign state could cause some Americans to
support a foreign policy detrimental to the interests of the United States
was a cardinal warning in George Washington’s famous “Farewell Address”
———
That the neocons assumed Israeli security, as perceived by Likudniks, to
be a fundamental goal of American foreign policy would seem to reflect a
bias for Israel, rather than a detached and objective assessment of Ameri-
can national interest. Dorrien thinks that the issue is solved by attributing
it to a neoconservative “article of faith.” But how was this “article of faith”
arrived at? Was there any underlying motive to explain the adoption of this
particular “article of faith?” It would seem reasonable to conclude that the
“article of faith” reflected prior attachment to Israel – an attachment that
becomes rather obvious in looking at the background of neoconservatism
and neoconservatives. Identifying with Israel’s interests, the neoconserva-
tives projected the interests of that country onto the United States. That
there was a life-and-death struggle with the Arab/Islamic world might
very well be true for Israel, but it certainly was not the case for the United
States.
———-
The neoconservative support for and ties to Israel have been obvious. If
a comparable relationship existed involving other peoples, there would be
nothing extraordinary about pointing that out. Analysis of the role of eth-
nic groups in American politics is commonplace in political science and
history and it is not considered evidence of hostility toward the groups
being analyzed. For instance, political commentators do not hesitate to
link Cuban-Americans’ goal of making the elimination of Castro a cen-
tral element of American foreign policy with the fact that they are Cuban
émigrés.
However, since Jews and Israel are involved here, the subject approaches
the realm of the taboo.
————-
Evidence for the neoconservative and Israeli connection to the United
States war in the Middle East is overwhelming and publicly available.
————-
(Repeat: All you need to do is connect the dots, which is what
The Transparent Cabal does, and the US MSM has never done, although they
are the alleged Fourth Estate, responsible for keeping the US masses informed citizens, the key to an effective democracy.)
————–
It should be hoped that in the self-proclaimed “Land
of the Free,” Americans should not fear to honestly discuss the background
and motivation for the war on Iraq and the overall United States policy in
the Middle East. Only by understanding the truth can the United States
possibly take the proper corrective action in the Middle East; without such
an understanding, catastrophe looms.
(The testimony as to the key motive for the 9/11 attack before the US Congress is available on Youtube–US rubber-stamping of Israeli actions good or bad, was the key motive, as was told to the 9/11 Commission by the perps, and by those called to Congress and asked to explain the motivation for 9/11–the former was excluded as to specifics from the final 9/11 Commission Report, and the latter was ignored by the media.)
The national news media have done the country a great disservice by looking over the clear people who pushed for this war.
I agree that this is an important topic that cries out for additional discussion and analysis. I’m a little concerned about the either/or approach I am seeing. Unquestionably, the Zionist lobby (in its totality) is extremely powerful. Yet, not so powerful that it overrules the perceived geo-strategic interests of the U.S. Empire.
Writing in 1998, Michel Collon noted that “…the United States is in the process of completely fortifying the southern flank of all of Europe and the ex-USSR. Still missing in this chain are Iran, Iraq, and … Serbia” Since then, Yugoslavia was attacked and the strategically located Camp Bondsteel constructed in occupied Kosovo (until recently a part of Serbia). Iraq was occupied and numerous permanent bases built. Now, Iran is in the cross-hairs. This direct control of the Middle-East oil reserves- a stupendous source of geo-strategic power- has been a focus of U.S. policy for a long time and is independent of Israel. That Israel benefits from the destruction of Iraq and the potential destruction/economic subjugation of Iran does not represent a conflict of interests. Can one seriously imagine the U.S. invading Iraq and threatening Iran without the oil? Likewise, can one imagine the U.S. sitting idly by if Israel were to attempt to gain control of significant oil reserves by invading Saudi Arabia?
On the other hand, we should not underestimate the power of ideology to influence and shape actions. This is particularly true with the Zionist ideology which is the driving force responsible for exploiting the Holocaust and fears of anti-Semitism to re-energize Jewish tribal solidarity. This group solidarity contributed to Jewish elite power-seeking success, and is something they likely will not give up willingly. In this regard, I contend that Zionism is an ideology whose spiritual center is Israel, but whose center of real power is located in New York/Washington. If by some miracle Israel made significant moves toward peace and justice and de-militarization in Israel/Palestine, I predict that the Lobby would oppose these moves rather than support Israel.
This whole situation is made even more complex by the fact that significant numbers of the U.S. ruling elite are Jewish Zionists who have competing interests and tensions. They are continually making decisions concerning U.S./Israel based upon what they perceive is in their own long term interests. My gut feel is most of them perceive themselves more as Imperial Elite than as Jewish Zionists. In sum: the struggle for power among the elite “men of ambition” is the driving force behind most significant political/economic events, ideology is an intellectual framework for advancing elite objectives, over time ideology may take on a life of its own which transcends logic and reason. Of course, everything I’ve said is a simplification of real world complexity and nuance.
Keith
In addition to the points I made above on what people ignore on pushing a materialist POV, I’d like to highlight a few additional points
Lets be clear, the goals of oil supplies are often completely contradictory to US policy. If the U.S. goal was limited to resources, the U.S. would not support one of the rare countries in the Mid East without oil and one that unifies the region against the U.S.
Frankly, that the neoconservatives pushed for and overcame their obstacles for the Iraq war is without question. The centrality of Israel in the neoconservative worldview is irrefutable.
What doesn’t have support is the strategic resources argument.
Frankly, it is even more spurious as China extends its long term oil contracts in Iraq (compared to the dearth of US contracts).
What direct control? What direct control is there? Explain, please. Include an understanding of fungible markets.
Most importantly, do you have direct proof to support this? We know the Israeli lobby’s role in the first and second Iraq war. It is extremely clear and their roles are clearly laid out. What proof do you bring to support your claim?
It has always been in the interest of Big Oil and hence the USA to prevent chaos in the Middle East, yet Israel’s strategy of divide and conquer; that is, basically to retain hegemony by sowing division amid the various Arab groups and states, ideally turning all Arab states into statelets, is not in the best interests of the USA. Yet the US policy has done just that in many ways–why? This BS goes all the way back to
State Department POV during the Truman regime–well, there is no longer a cold war,
so why is the USA acting against its best interests? Mearsheimer and Walt gave us the answer; but will this stop fulfilling PNAC, and Clean Break, despite 8 years of negative fallout on the USA? Seems unlikely. Obama’s a sucker. The big bankers were bailed out, and so will Israel’s hegemony–Iran the threat, all at Joe Doe’s expense.
BOB- Let me begin by noting that U.S. geo-strategy may be inferred (not “proven”) by reference to planning documents, physical actions, and common sense. It is not important that you or I agree with the strategy, or think it is efficacious, etc. The U.S. spends about as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. The U.S. has around 750 military bases around the world in what it feels are strategic locations. A lot of thought has gone into this along with much analysis of its implications. In addition to my comments in my first post, it might be beneficial if I refer to some analysis of U.S. geo-strategy.
In my readings of analyses of U.S. foreign policy, a consistent theme by those who have studied and analyzed the documentary record is that control of the Middle East hydrocarbon reserves is a core component of U.S. geo-strategy. “Starting with the CIA’s covert overthrow of the government of Iran for the sake of the British Petroleum Company, American policy in the Middle East– except for its support for Israel– has been dictated by oil. It has been a constant motive behind the vast expansion of bases in the Persian Gulf.” (Chalmers Johnson)
“What about U.S. relations with the Arab world? First, the U.S. will act to ensure that it controls the major energy resources of the Arab peninsula: this is a central principal of U.S. foreign policy, as it has been throughout the post-World War II period.” (Noam Chomsky)
“Special security arrangements in the Persian Gulf, especially after the brief punitive mission in 1991 against Iraq, have made that economically vital region into and American military preserve.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski)
Why occupy Iraq? “One reason has to do with our military basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing….so we were for alternative strategic locations….to secure the energy lines of communications in the region. Bases in Iraq then, were very important.” (Karen Kwiatkowski, former Defense Department strategist)
“Iraq, however, is part of a larger picture. Over the past half century the United states has been inexorably acquiring permanent military enclaves whose sole purpose appears to be domination of one of the most strategically important areas of the world.” (Chalmers Johnson)
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, how did Israel see it role in the Middle East? “Israel’s main task has not changed at all, and it remains of crucial importance. Its location at the center of the Arab Muslim Middle East predestines Israel to be the guardian of stability in all the countries surrounding it. Its (role) is to protect the existing regimes….” (Shlomo Gazit, former head of Israeli intelligence)
“It was neither sentimentality nor guilt for the Judeocide, or the effectiveness of a pro-Israel lobby, nor the biased reportage of the New York Times that necessitated the buttressing of Israel as the Prussia of the Arab East. It was oil. And it was oil that compelled Washington to spend billions in order to shore up the ‘security of the region’ via Israel, the Saudi monarchy, and the British created Gulf states.” (Tariq Ali)
And on and on it goes. This is but a small sample, due to limited time and space, of an extensive analysis of the documentary record. Essential reading if one wishes to analyze U.S. Imperial geo-strategy, and how it relates to U.S. Middle East policy. Of course, any analysis of U.S. Middle East policy which doesn’t account for the importance of Israel and the Zionist lobby would be seriously deficient. On the other hand, any analysis of the Middle East which pooh poohs the importance of effective control of the Middle East oil reserves, the largest reserves on the planet, and a “stupendous” source of geo-strategic power, is very seriously deficient.
Let me begin by stating it is a fact that we know the neoconservatives fought long and hard for this war and finally got it over the objections of powerful people like Colin Powell.
To put some sort of competing paradigm against it that is based on mere conjecture isn’t an idea thats on the same footing.
Brzezinski, by the way, was a huge critic of this war, and was an supporter of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. To use his example as some osrt of counterweight is wrong.
BOB- I’ve already spent too much time on this, however, I’m going to make one more post to clarify the difference between overarching geo-strategy and the tactical implementation of that strategy.
Let me begin by noting that the influence on U.S. policy of American Zionist Jews including the neocons is not in dispute. I am familiar with Zionist plans for the Middle East, including “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” by Richard Perle, et al, prepared in 1996 for Binyamin Netanyahu. As for the enthusiasm of the neocons for war “proving” that the war was made in Israel and contrary to overarching Imperial strategy is pure and unsupported conjecture. These guys were U.S. planners, and to maintain that their loyalty to Zionism caused them to stiff the U.S. would require you to be a mind reader. Now, if U.S. troops in Iraq were replaced by Israeli troops, you would have some facts to back up your conjecture. Why? The occupation of Iraq is not inconsistent with U.S. geo-strategy, however, allowing a militaristic client state that much geo-strategic influence would be.
The key point is the extent to which Zionist influence has fundamentally altered U.S. geo-strategy. All U.S. constellations of power attempt to influence policy and geo-strategy, nudging it here, bending it there. Your contention, however, is that the Israeli lobby has hijacked U.S. Middle East policy to the extent that our current actions reflect a significant break in U.S. geo-strategy, a seismic shift in policy. That is simply not the case.
If you were to read the works of people who have analyzed U.S. policy, you would discover considerable continuity in overall strategy adapted to the contingencies of events, always focused on increasing U.S. power leading to hegemony. As it relates to the Middle East, a key element is the control of the oil reserves for geo-strategic reasons. The world runs on oil, and the ability to cut off the flow or control the price provides enormous leverage. The U.S. began pushing for increased control of Middle East oil at the beginning of the 20th century, finally pushing Britain and France out and establishing effective control after World War II. In a letter written in 1943 to Undersecretary of State Edward Stettinius, President Roosevelt wrote “I hereby find that the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States.” Obviously, he was thinking of oil. Equally obvious is that this occurred before there was an Israel and powerful Zionist lobby.
The geo-strategic power accruing from control of the Middle East oil reserves should be obvious. Notice I said “control”, not merely access to. Japan has access to Middle East oil, we control the spigot. Most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, which means we have greater flexibility in controlling price and volume. If Europe, Japan, or China get any funny ideas, they might find their oil cut off, just like we did to Japan in the summer of 1941. This time, however, I assume Japan would respond differently. Finally, I suspect that Zbigniew Brzezinski would more-or-less agree with what I have said, even though he may have opposed the Iraq invasion on tactical grounds as a piss-poor implementation of U.S. geo-strategy.
Absolutely.
No one is saying this. In fact, I made it clear to quote
addition:
“Lets be clear, the goals of oil supplies are often completely contradictory to US policy with Israel.
While oil is a fungible, there are ways a superpower can control which way the Arab spigot goes in the end; control of the spigot flow, even via spot market etc; so long as the US is the only superpower it has its hands on the spigot one way or another–this is a powerful hand becasue, e.g., Europe and Japan are much more dependent on that oild than the USA, hence veiled spigot control is also control over Europe and Japan, for example.
I need some substantiation, please. Here’s two points to start with.
1) Define this “spigot control.” Use actual examples. Abstain from speculation.
2) Give proof that non-neoconservatives were pushing for this in an invasion of Iraq.
I’m open-minded on this issue, but here’s something that might be relevant:
Laurens, Henry. Paix et guerre au Moyen-Orient: L’Orient arabe et le monde de 1945 à nos jours. 2nd ed. Paris: Armand Colin, 2005, pp. 305-306 (my translation).
The Arab embargo, which was their “response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the war,” cost the US (according to some) roughly a trillion dollars (in 2001 dollars).Yet, others say this isn’t telling the whole picture.
Any country who expects to manipulate this to these degrees will expect open hostility from the entire world. Even the United States cant sustain that. This is a global market, and affecting this has strong repercussions at home. Likewise, this is a global market, and a selective embargo cannot work as it frees up supplies.
Though, even as the US now is unable to control the market “spigot,” we are dealing in hypotheticals- and its clearly a situation that would have serious impacts on the global economy and incur the wrath of the globe. You can expect very open hostility from this so called “spigot control” and you can expect an economic disaster at the US – as this is a global economy. Moreover, the U.S. can’t expect to take slow, lumbering, easy target oil tankers home, that is, unless you want them escorted by a carrier group. Thats an energy negative hypothetical situation if I ever heard of it.
It should be noted that the market became even more fungible since 1973.
Saudis, by the way are worried about a raising price of crude
OK, but this doesn’t address the point I quoted above:
In other words, it may be true that “once oil is in a tanker or refinery, there is no controlling its destination”, but it would still be possible to reduce production, and thus to put less oil in the tankers and refineries. But the US indicated that it would be prepared to use military force to prevent this, and the Saudis heeded the threat. Isn’t this a form of “spigot control”?
Actually, as stated above as the major thrust of the article above…. the Saudis do not want to reduce . They do not want what you are stating in your article. it is the reason why I quoted it here, and it points out how a reduction in production is not the logical solution for the Saudis.
Just to sum up. A materialist assumption completely ignores the ideological attachments of the well known people who pushed for this war. Also, the goals of US policy for the arab states often run completely contrary to US policy for Israel. US policy with Israel has a strong effect of uniting an otherwise disunited area, separated by deep cleavages like Sunni and Shia, against the U.S. The old principle is “divide and conquer,” not unify and quagmire. If purely materialist concerns were the chief concern, wouldn’t we have jettisoned the rare country that is not oil rich and has the effect of uniting the region against the power who props it up?
You could argue that material interests are a motivation for having client states in the region, but that symbolic interests (i.e. ideological attachments) help determine the choice of client states, e.g. Israel as opposed to Iran.
I like to determine what is known from the evidence. Currently, we do know that the neoconservatives pushed for this war. We know the Israeli lobby pushed for this war.
Conversely, there are some ideas posed as competing narratives that are speculative and have conjecture as major supports. This is not acceptable.
PHILIP WEISS- I hadn’t planned to make anymore comments on this thread, however, in reflecting on some of the responses to my previous comments, I feel the need for one final reflection.
In your initial post on the David Green post, you (unjustifiably in my opinion) link him with Noam Chomsky, apparently because he quotes Chomsky a lot. You then proceed to denigrate Green/Chomsky as “materialists”, “shallow and mechanical” people. I don’t know about Green, but the characterization of Noam Chomsky as “shallow and mechanical” is totally unjustified and indefensible. Why do such a thing?
You provide a laundry list of Lobby/ethnic activities to prove your point of Lobby influence. When has Noam Chomsky ever said that these events were insignificant, or that lobby influence wasn’t real? For that matter, when has Norman Finkelstein ever denied this, even though his position on the Lobby is closer to Chomsky’s than to yours?
What’s going on here? I attempted to put a geo-strategic perspective on all of this, to point out that though the lobby was indeed powerful, but that Imperial interests played a role. Hardly a controversial position, what with military bases practically everywhere, a military budget going through the roof, and a documentary record of strategic planners advocating U.S. hegemony. The response? Your acolytes arguing against Imperial geo-strategy having any significance whatsoever in the Middle East. Control of the Middle East hydrocarbon reserves? Nonsense, oil is “fungible” (a curious interpretation of the word, totally devoid of significance). Those who infer meaning from the documentary record, Imperial actions, and the “facts on the ground” are denigrated as “materialists”,
“shallow and mechanical people.” What’s going on here?
As nearly as I can tell, your post reflects a skirmish in a sort of sectarian turf-war between you and David Green. You need to be aware, if you aren’t already, that overemphasizing the lobby and underemphasizing Empire is a de facto defense of Empire. A way of saying that the crimes against humanity in Palestine have nothing to do with Empire, it’s the Lobby. What are the implications? That if we can alleviate the plight of the Palestinians, everything would be honky-dory? No problems with Empire, and the world-wide suffering that it entails? Reality taking a back seat to ideology? What’s going on here?
Well put, mostly. But it’s not a turf war. I don’t occupy any turf. It’s not sectarianism. These are genuine principled/strategic/tactical issues. And I think the simplest explanation is the best. Phil’s critical thinking skills are lacking.
Keith:- I hadn’t planned to make anymore comments on this thread
Thats too bad. I certainly was hoping for some responses to my points that showed a good reading of what was posted, rather than your erroneous points I outline @ March 8, 2010 at 7:43 pm. I would like to actually have a discussion, but its extremely hard to accomplish this when you post rebuttals based on improper reading comprehension of the material posted. These reading comprehension problems ( for instance assuming the war was made in Israel) lead you to go on a red-herring ‘rebuttal’ to my criticism of your positions that are based on conjecture. As a result, the original points of your conjecture was not dealt with at all. There’s more, but it seems you are “finished” with this conversation.
I would have to have a dialogue, but thats going to require you to deal with the material I post and read it correctly. When this can happen, I will be more than happy to continue.